Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, 32013-32065 [2013-12105]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32013-32065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12105]



[[Page 32013]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 102

May 28, 2013

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 32014]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0098; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AX14


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended, for 38 species on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, and 
Maui, and reaffirm the listing of 2 endemic Hawaiian plants currently 
listed as endangered. In this final rule, we are also delisting the 
plant Gahnia lanaiensis, due to new information that this species is 
synonymous with G. lacera, a widespread species from New Zealand. The 
effect of this regulation is to conserve these 40 species under the 
Endangered Species Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on June 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule are 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 
96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 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. This is a final rule to list 38 
species (35 plants and 3 tree snails) as endangered under the Act from 
the island cluster of Maui Nui (Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe) in 
the State of Hawaii. In addition, the rule reaffirms the listing of two 
endemic Hawaiian plants currently listed as endangered. Collectively, 
in this document we refer to these 40 species as the ``Maui Nui 
species.''
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we 
determine that a species is endangered or threatened based on any of 
five factors: (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; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the 40 Maui Nui species 
are currently in danger of extinction throughout all their ranges, as 
the result of the following current and ongoing threats:
     All of these species face threats from the present 
destruction and modification of their habitat, primarily from 
introduced ungulates (such as feral pigs, goats, cattle, mouflon sheep, 
and axis deer) and the spread of nonnative plants.
     Thirteen plant species face threats from habitat 
destruction and modification from fire.
     All 37 plant species face threats from destruction and 
modification of their habitats from hurricanes, landslides, rockfalls, 
and flooding. In addition, hurricanes are a threat to all three tree 
snail species.
     Nine of these species face threats from habitat 
destruction and modification from drought.
     The projected effects of climate change will likely 
exacerbate the effects of the other threats to these species.
     There is a serious threat of widespread impacts of 
predation and herbivory on all 37 plant species by nonnative ungulates, 
rats, and invertebrates; and predation on the three tree snails by 
nonnative rats and invertebrates.
     Some of the plant species face the additional threat of 
trampling.
     The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
(specifically inadequate protection of habitat and inadequate 
protection from the introduction of nonnative species) poses a current 
and ongoing threat to all 40 species.
     There are current and ongoing threats to 20 plant species 
and the 3 tree snail species due to factors associated with small 
numbers of populations and individuals.
     Five plant species face threats from hybridization and 
lack of or low levels of regeneration.
     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.
    We fully considered comments from the public, including comments 
received during a public hearing and comments received from peer 
reviewers, on the proposed rule.
    Peer reviewers support our methods. We obtained opinions from four 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
technical assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the 
best available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred 
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule.
    This document consists of a final rule to list 35 plant species and 
3 tree snail species as endangered and reaffirms the listing as 
endangered for 2 plants (40 species total). We additionally delist the 
plant Gahnia lanaiensis due to taxonomic error.

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for these species prior to June 11, 2012, are 
outlined in our proposed rule (77 FR 34464), which was published on 
that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment 
period, which was extended on August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47587), for an 
additional 30 days and closed on September 10, 2012. We published a 
public notice of the proposed rule on June 20, 2012, in the local 
Honolulu Star Advertiser, Maui Times, and Molokai Dispatch newspapers. 
On January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), we reopened the comment period for an 
additional 30 days on the entire June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 
34464), as well as the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical 
habitat designation, and announced a public information meeting and 
hearing that we held in Kihei, Maui, on February 21, 2013. This second 
comment period closed on March 4, 2013. In total, we accepted public 
comments on the June 11, 2012, proposed rule for 120 days.

Background

    On June 11, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 
34464) a proposed rule to list 38 species on the Hawaiian Islands of 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as endangered under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as

[[Page 32015]]

amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We also proposed to reaffirm the 
listing of two endemic Hawaiian plants listed as endangered. We further 
proposed to designate critical habitat for 39 of these 40 plant and 
animal species, to designate critical habitat for 11 previously listed 
plant and animal species that do not have designated critical habitat, 
and to revise critical habitat for 85 plant species already listed as 
endangered or threatened.
    The final critical habitat determination for the Maui Nui species 
is still under development and undergoing Service review. It will 
publish in the Federal Register in the near future under Docket No. 
FWS-R1-ES-2013-0003. That document will also provide our final 
determinations regarding the name changes and spelling corrections 
proposed in our June 1, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464).

Maui Nui Species Addressed in this Final Rule

    The table below (Table 1) provides the common name, scientific 
name, and listing status for the species that are the subject of this 
final rule.

                           Table 1--the Maui Nui Species Addressed in This Final Rule
                           [Note that many of the species share the same common name]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Scientific name                            Common name(s)                       Listing Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Species Listed as Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants:
    Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera  kookoolau..................................  Endangered.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp.            kookoolau..................................  Endangered.
     waihoiensis.
    Bidens conjuncta..................  kookoolau..................................  Endangered.
    Calamagrostis hillebrandii........  [NCN] \1\..................................  Endangered.
    Canavalia pubescens...............  awikiwiki..................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea asplenifolia...............  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea duvalliorum................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea horrida....................  haha nui...................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea kunthiana..................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea magnicalyx.................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea maritae....................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea mauiensis..................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea munroi.....................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea obtusa.....................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea profuga....................  haha.......................................  Endangered.
    Cyanea solanacea..................  popolo.....................................  Endangered.
    Cyrtandra ferripilosa.............  haiwale....................................  Endangered.
    Cyrtandra filipes.................  haiwale....................................  Endangered.
    Cyrtandra oxybapha................  haiwale....................................  Endangered.
    Festuca molokaiensis..............  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Geranium hanaense.................  nohoanu....................................  Endangered.
    Geranium hillebrandii.............  nohoanu....................................  Endangered.
    Mucuna sloanei var. persericea....  sea bean...................................  Endangered.
    Myrsine vaccinioides..............  kolea......................................  Endangered.
    Peperomia subpetiolata............  alaala wai nui.............................  Endangered.
    Phyllostegia bracteata............  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Phyllostegia haliakalae...........  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Phyllostegia pilosa...............  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Pittosporum halophilum............  hoawa......................................  Endangered.
    Pleomele fernaldii................  hala pepe..................................  Endangered.
    Schiedea jacobii..................  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Schiedea laui.....................  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Schiedea salicaria................  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Stenogyne kauaulaensis............  [NCN]......................................  Endangered.
    Wikstroemia villosa...............  akia.......................................  Endangered.
Animals:
    Newcombia cumingi.................  Newcomb's tree snail.......................  Endangered.
    Partulina semicarinata............  Lanai tree snail...........................  Endangered.
    Partulina variabilis..............  Lanai tree snail...........................  Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Species Reevaluated for Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana.....  haha.......................................  Endangered.
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense      iliahi.....................................  Endangered.
 (synonym = Santalum freycinetianum
 var. lanaiense).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NCN = no common name.

Taxonomic Changes Since Listing for Two Maui Nui Plant Species
    At the time we listed Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana as 
endangered (61 FR 53108; October 10, 1996), we followed the taxonomic 
treatment of Lammers in Wagner et al. (1990, pp. 451-452). The 
distribution of C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana as recognized at that 
time included the islands of Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. 
Subsequently, Lammers (1998, pp. 31-32) recognized morphological 
differences in the broadly circumscribed Cyanea grimesiana group and 
published new combinations for the plants reported from Maui (C. 
mauiensis) and

[[Page 32016]]

Lanai (C. munroi). Plants reported from Molokai were identified as 
either C. munroi or C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana. In 2004, Lammers 
(pp. 85-87) recognized further differences in the plants reported from 
Maui and described a new species, C. magnicalyx, known only from west 
Maui. The range of C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana now includes only Oahu 
and Molokai (Lammers 1998, pp. 31-32; Lammers 2004, pp. 84-85). Because 
the range of the listed entity has changed, we evaluated the effects of 
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act on C. 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana as currently recognized, and determine that 
this species warrants endangered status under the Act (see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the 40 Maui Nui Species, below).
    We listed Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense as endangered (51 
FR 3182; January 24, 1986) in 1986. At that time, the species was known 
only from the island of Lanai. Our recovery plan for this species, 
published in 1995, recognized that the range of the species 
additionally includes west Maui, as well as Lanai, based on new 
information (USFWS 1995a, pp. 35-36). In her revision of the Hawaiian 
species of Santalum, Harbaugh et al. (2010, pp. 834-835) moved the 
plants previously recognized as S. freycinetianum var. lanaiense to S. 
haleakalae var. lanaiense. The range of S. haleakalae var. lanaiense 
now includes Molokai, Lanai, and east and west Maui (HBMP 2010; 
Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835). Because the range of the listed 
entity has changed, we evaluated the effects of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act on S. haleakalae var. lanaiense 
as currently recognized and determine that this species as described 
herein warrants its status as endangered under the Act (see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the 40 Maui Nui Species, below).
Delisting of Gahnia lanaiensis
    Gahnia lanaiensis was listed as endangered in 1991 (56 FR 47686; 
September 20, 1991). At that time, this species was known from 15 or 16 
large ``clumped'' plants growing on the summit of Lanaihale, on the 
island of Lanai. The distribution of these plants was considered to be 
the entire known range of the species. Gahnia lanaiensis was listed as 
threatened due the small number of individuals remaining and resulting 
negative consequences of very small populations, which increased the 
potential for extinction of the species due to stochastic events; the 
potential for destruction of plants due their proximity to a popular 
hiking and jeep trail; and habitat degradation and destruction by feral 
ungulates and nonnative plants (56 FR 47686; September 20, 1991).
    In a recently published paper, Koyama et al. (2010, pp. 29-30) 
found that based on spikelet and achene characters, Gahnia lanaiensis 
is a complete match for G. lacera, a species endemic to New Zealand. 
Koyama further states that G. lacera likely arrived on Lanai, either 
intentionally or unintentionally, through the restoration efforts of 
George Munro, the Resident Manager of Lanai Ranch from 1911 to 1930 
(Koyama 2010, p. 30). Born and raised in New Zealand, Munro is known to 
have used seeds of New Zealand's native plants for reforestation 
efforts on Lanai (Koyama 2010, p. 30).
    Because Gahnia lanaiensis is not believed to be a uniquely valid 
species; is synonymous with G. lacera, a species endemic to New Zealand 
where it is known to be common (Piha New Zealand Plant Conservation 
Network 2010, in litt.); and is not in danger of extinction or likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we delist G. 
lanaiensis due to error in the original listing. We did not receive any 
public comments on our proposed delisting of G. lanaiensis due to 
taxonomic error.

An Ecosystem-based Approach

    On the islands of Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, 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 final 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 negatively impact 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 to not only organize this 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 concordance with one of the primary 
stated purposes of the Act, as stated in section 2(b): ``to provide a 
means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and 
threatened species depend may be conserved.''
    We are listing the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Cyanea asplenifolia, Cyanea duvalliorum, Cyanea horrida, 
Cyanea kunthiana, Cyanea magnicalyx, Cyanea maritae, Cyanea mauiensis, 
Cyanea munroi, Cyanea obtusa, Cyanea profuga, Cyanea solanacea, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Cyrtandra filipes, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, Geranium hillebrandii, Mucuna sloanei 
var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, Phyllostegia pilosa, 
Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Schiedea jacobii, Schiedea 
laui, Schiedea salicaria, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia 
villosa; and the tree snails Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata 
and Partulina variabilis, from the islands of Molokai, Lanai, and Maui 
as endangered species. We are also listing the plant Canavalia 
pubescens, known from the islands of Niihau, Kauai, Lanai, and Maui as 
an endangered species. In addition, we reaffirm the listing of two 
plant species, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (formerly Santalum 
freycinetianum var. lanaiense) from the islands of Molokai, Lanai, and 
Maui, and Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, known from Oahu and 
Molokai, as endangered species. These 40 species (37 plants and 3 tree 
snails) are found in 10 ecosystem types: Coastal, lowland dry, lowland 
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane wet, montane mesic, subalpine, 
dry cliff, and wet cliff (Table 3).

[[Page 32017]]



 Table 3--The 40 Maui NUI Species \1\ and the Ecosystems Upon Which They
                                 Depend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Island
      Ecosystem       --------------------------------------------------
                           Molokai           Lanai             Maui
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal..............  Pittosporum      Canavalia
                        halophilum.      pubescens
Lowland Dry..........  ...............  Pleomele         Bidens
                                         fernaldii.       campylotheca
                                                          ssp.
                                                          pentamera.
                                                         Canavalia
                                                          pubescens.
                                                         Cyanea obtusa.
                                                         Santalum
                                                          haleakalae
                                                          var.
                                                          lanaiense.
                                                         Schiedea
                                                          salicaria.
Lowland Mesic........  Cyanea profuga.  Pleomele         Bidens
                                         fernaldii.       campylotheca
                                                          ssp.
                                                          pentamera.
                       Cyanea           Santalum         Cyanea
                        solanacea.       haleakalae       asplenifolia.
                                         var. lanaiense.
                       Cyrtandra        ...............  Cyanea
                        filipes.                          mauiensis.\2\
                       Festuca          ...............  Santalum
                        molokaiensis.                     haleakalae
                                                          var. lanaiense
                       Phyllostegia                      ...............
                        haliakalae
                       Phyllostegia                      ...............
                        pilosa
                       Santalum                          ...............
                        haleakalae
                        var. lanaiense
Lowland Wet..........  Cyanea           Pleomele         Bidens
                        grimesiana       fernaldii.       campylotheca
                        ssp.                              ssp.
                        grimesiana.                       waihoiensis.
                       Cyanea           Santalum         Bidens
                        solanacea.       haleakalae       conjuncta.
                                         var. lanaiense.
                       Cyrtandra        Partulina        Cyanea
                        filipes.         semicarinata.    asplenifolia.
                                        Partulina        Cyanea
                                         variabilis.      duvalliorum.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          kunthiana.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          magnicalyx.
                                                         Cyanea maritae.
                                                         Cyrtandra
                                                          filipes.
                                                         Mucuna sloanei
                                                          var.
                                                          persericea.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          bracteata
                                                         Santalum
                                                          haleakalae
                                                          var.
                                                          lanaiense.
                                                         Wikstroemia
                                                          villosa.
                                                         Newcombia
                                                          cumingi.
Montane Dry..........  ...............  ...............  Santalum
                                                          haleakalae
                                                          var.
                                                          lanaiense.
Montane Mesic........  Cyanea           ...............  Bidens
                        solanacea.                        campylotheca
                                                          ssp.pentamera.
                       Santalum         ...............  Cyanea horrida.
                        haleakalae
                        var. lanaiense.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          kunthiana.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          magnicalyx.
                                                         Cyanea obtusa.
                                                         Cyrtandra
                                                          ferripilosa.
                                                         Cyrtandra
                                                          oxybapha
                                                         Geranium
                                                          hillebrandii.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          bracteata.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          haliakalae.
                                                         Santalum
                                                          haleakalae
                                                          var.
                                                          lanaiense.
                                                         Stenogyne
                                                          kauaulaensis.
                                                         Wikstroemia
                                                          villosa.
Montane Wet..........  Cyanea profuga.  Santalum         Bidens
                                         haleakalae       campylotheca
                                         var. lanaiense.  ssp.
                                                          pentamera.
                       Cyanea           Partulina        Bidens
                        solanacea.       semicarinata.    campylotheca
                                                          ssp.
                                                          waihoiensis.
                       Phyllostegia     Partulina        Bidens
                        pilosa.          variabilis.      conjuncta.
                       Schiedea laui..  ...............  Calamagrostis
                                                          hillebrandii.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          duvalliorum.
                                                         Cyanea horrida.
                                                         Cyanea
                                                          kunthiana.
                                                         Cyanea maritae.
                                                         Cyrtandra
                                                          ferripilosa.
                                                         Cyrtandra
                                                          oxybapha.
                                                         Geranium
                                                          hanaense.
                                                         Geranium
                                                          hillebrandii.
                                                         Myrsine
                                                          vaccinioides.
                                                         Peperomia
                                                          subpetiolata.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          bracteata.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          pilosa.
                                                         Schiedea
                                                          jacobii.
                                                         Wikstroemia
                                                          villosa.
Subalpine............  ...............  ...............  Phyllostegia
                                                          bracteata.
Dry Cliff............  Phyllostegia     Pleomele         Bidens
                        haliakalae.      fernaldii.       campylotheca
                                                          ssp.
                                                          pentamera.
                                        Pleomele         Cyanea
                                         fernaldii.       mauiensis. \2\
Wet Cliff............  Cyanea           Cyanea munroi..  Bidens
                        grimesiana                        campylotheca
                        ssp.                              ssp.
                        grimesiana.                       pentamera.
                       Cyanea munroi..  Phyllostegia     Bidens
                                         haliakalae.      campylotheca
                                                          ssp.
                                                          waihoiensis.
                                        Pleomele         Bidens
                                         fernaldii.       conjuncta.
                                        Santalum         Cyanea horrida.
                                         haleakalae
                                         var. lanaiense.
                                        Partulina        Cyanea
                                         semicarinata.    magnicalyx.
                                        Partulina        Cyrtandra
                                         variabilis.      filipes.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          bracteata.
                                                         Phyllostegia
                                                          haliakalae.

[[Page 32018]]

 
                                                         Santalum
                                                          haleakalae
                                                          var.
                                                          lanaiense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 37 species are plants and 3 species (Newcombia cumingi, Partulina
  semicarinata, and Partulina variabilis) are tree snails.
\2\ Not seen since the 1800s.

    For each species, we identified and evaluated those factors that 
adversely impact 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 37 of the 40 species, 
and is likely a threat to many, if not most or even all, of the native 
species within a given ecosystem. We consider such a threat to be an 
``ecosystem-level threat,'' as each individual species within that 
ecosystem faces an adverse impact that is essentially identical in 
terms of the nature of the its impact, its severity, its imminence, and 
its scope. Beyond ecosystem-level impacts, we further identified and 
evaluated factors that may represent unique adverse impacts to certain 
species, but do not apply to all species under consideration within the 
same ecosystem. For example, the threat of predation by nonnative 
snails is unique to the three tree snails in this rule, and is not 
applicable to any of the other 37 species. We have identified such 
threats, which apply only to certain species within the ecosystems 
addressed here, as ``species-specific threats.''

The Islands of Maui Nui

    The islands of Maui Nui include Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe 
(Figure 1). During the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago, when sea 
levels were approximately 459 feet (ft) (140 meters (m)) below their 
present level, these four islands were connected by a broad lowland 
plain and unified as a single island (Nullet et al. 1998, p. 64; 
Ziegler 2002, p. 22). This land bridge allowed the movement and 
interaction of each island's flora and fauna and contributed to the 
present close relationships of their biota (Nullet et al. 1998, p. 64).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.000

    The island of Molokai is the fifth largest of the eight main 
Hawaiian Islands. It was formed from three shield volcanoes and is 
about 260 square miles (sq mi) (673 square kilometers (sq km)) in area 
(Juvik and Juvik 1998, pp. 11, 13). The volcanoes that make up most of 
the land mass of Molokai include the west and east Molokai mountains, 
and

[[Page 32019]]

a volcano that formed Kalaupapa peninsula. The taller and larger east 
Molokai mountain rises 4,970 ft (1,514 m) above sea level and comprises 
roughly 50 percent of the island's area (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 11). 
Topographically, the windward (north) side of east Molokai differs from 
the leeward (south) side. Precipitous cliffs line the windward coast 
and deep valleys dissect the coastal area. The annual rainfall on the 
windward side of Molokai is 75 to more than 150 inches (in) (200 to 
more than 375 centimeters (cm)) (Giambelluca and Schroeder 1998, p. 
50).
    The island of Lanai is the sixth largest of the eight main Hawaiian 
Islands, located southeast of Molokai and northwest of Hawaii Island. 
It is located in the lee or rain shadow of the taller west Maui 
mountains. Lanai was formed from a single shield volcano and built by 
eruptions at its summit and along three rift zones (Clague 1998, p. 
42). The island is about 140 sq mi (364 sq km) in area and its highest 
point, Lanaihale, has an elevation of 3,366 ft (1,027 m) (Clague 1998, 
p. 42; Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 13; Walker 1999, p. 21). Annual 
rainfall on the summit is 30 to 40 in (76 to 102 cm), but is 
considerably less, 10 to 20 in (25 to 50 cm), over much of the rest of 
the island (Giambelluca and Schroeder 1998, p. 56).
    The island of Maui is the second largest of the eight main Hawaiian 
Islands, located southeast of Molokai and northwest of Hawaii Island 
(Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 14). It was formed from two shield volcanoes 
and resulted in the west Maui mountains, which are about 1.3 million 
years old, and Haleakala on east Maui, which is about 750,000 years old 
(Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 14). West and east Maui are connected by the 
central Maui isthmus, and the island's total land area is 729 sq mi 
(1,888 sq km) (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 14; Walker 1999, p. 21). The 
west Maui mountains have been eroded by streams that created deep 
valleys and ridges. The highest point on west Maui is Puu Kukui at 
5,788 ft (1,764 m) in elevation, with with an average rainfall greater 
than 400 in (1,020 cm) per year (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 14; Wagner et 
al. 1999b, p. 41; Giambelluca et al. 2011-Online Rainfall Atlas of 
Hawaii). East Maui's Haleakala volcano remains volcanically active, 
with its last eruption occurring less than 500 years ago (Sherrod et 
al. 2007, p. 40). Haleakala rises 10,023 ft (3,055 m) in elevation, and 
despite being younger in age, possesses areas of diverse vegetation 
equal or greater than the older and more eroded west Maui mountains 
(Price 2004, p. 493). Rainfall on the slopes of Haleakala ranges from 
about 35 in (89 cm) to over 400 in (1,000 cm) per year, with its 
windward (northeastern) slope receiving the most precipitation 
(Giambelluca et al. 2011-Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii). However, 
Haleakala's crater is a dry cinder desert because it is above the level 
at which precipitation develops and is sheltered from moisture-laden 
winds usually associated with orographic (mountain) rainfall 
(Giambelluca and Schroeder 1998, p. 55).
    The island of Kahoolawe is the smallest of the eight main Hawaiian 
Islands, located southeast of Molokai and northwest of Hawaii Island. 
The island is about 45 sq mi (116 sq km) in area, and was formed from a 
single shield volcano (Clague 1998, p. 42; Juvik and Juvik 1998, pp. 7, 
16). The maximum elevation on Kahoolawe is 1,477 ft (450 m) at the 
summit of Puu Moaulanui (Juvik and Juvik 1998, pp. 15-16). Kahoolawe is 
in the rain shadow of Haleakala and is arid, receiving no more than 25 
in (65 cm) of rainfall annually (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 16; Mitchell 
et al. 2005, pp. 6-66).
    The vegetation of the islands of Maui Nui has undergone extreme 
alterations because of 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 and 
pineapple (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45) or pasture. For example, on 
Haleakala, on the island of Maui, the upland slopes have been converted 
to diversified agriculture and cattle ranches (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 
16). Archaeological surveys suggest that the early Hawaiians did not 
live in the highest areas of Haleakala but instead inhabited the area 
temporarily for religious ceremonies, the creation of adzes (tools used 
for smoothing or carving wood), and bird hunting (Burney 1997, p. 448). 
Intentional and inadvertent introduction of alien plant and animal 
species has also contributed to the reduction in range of native 
vegetation on the islands of Maui Nui (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 islands 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.

Maui Nui Ecosystems

    There are 11 different ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland 
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, 
alpine, dry cliff, and wet cliff) recognized on the islands of Maui 
Nui. The 40 species in this rule occur in 10 of these ecosystems (all 
except the alpine). All 11 Maui Nui ecosystems are described in the 
following section.
Coastal
    The coastal ecosystem is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, 
with the highest native species diversity in the least populated 
coastal areas of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Hawaii Island, 
and their associated islets. On Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, 
the coastal ecosystem includes mixed herblands, shrublands, and 
grasslands, from sea level to 980 ft (300 m) in elevation, generally 
within a narrow zone above the influence of waves to within 330 ft (100 
m) inland, sometimes extending further inland if strong prevailing 
onshore winds drive sea spray and sand dunes into the lowland zone (The 
Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2006a). 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 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). The plants Canavalia pubescens and Pittosporum halophilum, 
which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported in this 
ecosystem on Molokai or Lanai (Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program 
(HBMP) 2008; TNC 2007).
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; this ecosystem is found on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe and Hawaii, and is best

[[Page 32020]]

represented on the leeward sides of the islands (Gagne and Cuddihy 
1999, p. 67). On the islands of Maui Nui, this ecosystem is typically 
found on the leeward side of the mountains (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 
67; TNC 2006b). Native biological diversity is low to moderate in this 
ecosystem, and includes specialized animals and plants such as the 
Hawaiian owl or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) and Santalum 
ellipticum (iliahialoe or coast sandalwood) (Wagner et al. 1999c, pp. 
1,220-1,221; TNC 2006b). The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea obtusa, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Schiedea salicaria, which are listed as 
endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem on 
Lanai or Maui (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
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). In the Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is found on Kauai, 
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii, on both windward and leeward sides of 
the islands. On the islands of Maui Nui, this ecosystem is typically 
found on the leeward slopes of Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (Gagne and 
Cuddihy 1999, p. 75; TNC 2006c). Native biological diversity is high in 
this system (TNC 2006c). The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, 
Festuca molokaiensis, Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. pilosa, Pleomele 
fernaldii, and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, which are listed as 
endangered in this final rule, are reported in this ecosystem on this 
islands of Molokai, Lanai, or Maui (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007). In addition, 
Cyanea mauiensis, also listed as endangered in this final rule, may 
have occurred in this ecosystem on Maui, but this species has not been 
observed for over 100 years. The species-specific habitat needs of 
Cyanea mauiensis are not known.
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). 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). On the islands of Maui 
Nui, this system is best developed in wet valleys and slopes on 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (TNC 2006d). Native biological diversity is 
high in this system (TNC 2006d). The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, B. conjuncta, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. duvalliorum, C. 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. 
solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, and Wikstroemia villosa; and the tree snails Newcombia 
cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis, which are listed as 
endangered in this final rule, are reported in this ecosystem on 
Molokai, Lanai, or Maui (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Montane Wet
    The montane wet ecosystem is composed of natural communities 
(grasslands, shrublands, forests, and bogs) found at elevations between 
3,300 and 6,500 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual 
precipitation is greater than 75 in (190 cm) (TNC 2006e). 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 2006e). On the islands of Maui Nui this 
ecosystem is found on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (TNC 2007). Native 
biological diversity is moderate to high (TNC 2006e). The plants Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. 
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cyanea duvalliorum, C. horrida, 
C. kunthiana, C. maritae, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Geranium hanaense, G. hillebrandii, Myrsine 
vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. 
pilosa, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, 
and Wikstroemia villosa; and the tree snails Partulina semicarinata and 
P. variabilis, which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are 
reported in this ecosystem on the islands of Molokai, Lanai, or Maui 
(HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Montane Mesic
    The montane mesic ecosystem is composed of natural communities 
(forests and shrublands) found at elevations between 3,300 and 6,500 ft 
(1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual precipitation is between 50 
and 75 in (130 and 190 cm), or are in otherwise mesic substrate 
conditions (TNC 2006f). This system is found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, 
and Hawaii Island (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 97-99; TNC 2007). Native 
biological diversity is moderate, and this habitat is important for 
Hawaiian forest birds (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 98-99; TNC 2006f). 
The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Cyanea horrida, C. 
kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. obtusa, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Geranium hillebrandii, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa, which are listed as 
endangered in this final rule, are reported in this ecosystem on 
Molokai or Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; HNP 2012, in litt.).
Montane Dry
    The montane dry ecosystem is composed of natural communities 
(shrublands, grasslands, forests) found at elevations between 3,300 and 
6,500 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual precipitation is 
less than 50 in (130 cm), or are in otherwise dry substrate conditions 
(TNC 2006g). This system is found on the islands of Maui and Hawaii 
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 93-97). The only plant species listed as 
endangered in this final rule that is found in this ecosystem is 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008).
Subalpine
    The subalpine ecosystem is composed of natural communities 
(shrublands, grasslands, forests) found at elevations between 6,500 ft 
and 9,800 ft (2,000 and 3,000 m), in areas where annual precipitation 
is seasonal, between 15 and 40 in (38 and 100 cm), or are in otherwise 
dry substrate conditions (TNC 2006h). Fog drip is an important moisture 
supplement (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 107-110). This system is found 
on the islands of Maui and Hawaii (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 107-
110). Native biological diversity is not high, but specialized 
invertebrates and plants (Sophora chrysophylla (mamane), Myoporum 
sandwicense (naio), and Deschampsia nubigena (hairgrass)) are reported 
in this ecosystem (TNC 2006h). The plant Phyllostegia bracteata, which 
is listed as endangered in this final rule, is reported in this 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008).
Alpine
    The alpine ecosystem is composed of natural communities 
(shrublands, alpine lake, aeolian (wind-shaped) desert) found at 
elevations above 9,800 ft (3000 m), in areas where annual

[[Page 32021]]

precipitation is infrequent, with frost and snow, and intense solar 
radiation (TNC 2006i). Fog drip is an important moisture supplement 
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 107-110). This system is found on the 
islands of Maui and Hawaii (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 107-110). 
Native biological diversity is not high, but highly specialized plants, 
such as the threatened Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum 
(ahinahina), occur in this ecosystem on Maui (TNC 2006i). None of the 
species being listed as endangered in this final rule are reported from 
this ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008).
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 are in otherwise dry 
substrate conditions (TNC 2006j). This ecosystem is found on all of the 
main Hawaiian Islands except Niihau, and is best represented along the 
leeward slopes of Lanai and Maui (TNC 2006j). A variety of shrublands 
occur within this ecosystem (TNC 2006j). Native biological diversity is 
low to moderate (TNC 2006j). The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, Phyllostegia haliakalae, and Pleomele fernaldii, which are 
listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported in this ecosystem 
on Lanai or Maui (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007). In addition, Cyanea mauiensis, 
also listed as endangered in this final rule, may have occurred in this 
ecosystem on Maui, but this species has not been observed for over 100 
years. The species-specific habitat needs of Cyanea mauiensis are not 
known.
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 in otherwise wet 
substrate conditions (TNC 2006k). This system is found on the islands 
of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On the islands of 
Maui Nui, this system is typically found along the windward sides of 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (TNC 2006k). Native biological diversity is 
low to moderate (TNC 2006k). The plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. conjuncta, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C.horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. munroi, 
Cyrtandra filipes, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, Pleomele 
fernaldii, and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and the tree snails 
Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis, which are listed as 
endangered in this final rule, are reported in this ecosystem on the 
islands of Molokai, Lanai, or Maui (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).

Description of the 40 Maui Nui Species

    Below is a brief description of each of the 40 Maui Nui species, 
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, as in some cases there may only be one or a very few 
representatives of the species present), we use the word ``occurrence'' 
instead of ``population.'' Each occurrence is composed only of wild 
(i.e., not propagated and outplanted) individuals.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera (kookoolau), a perennial herb in 
the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Maui 
(Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, B. campylotheca 
spp. pentamera was found on Maui's eastern volcano (Haleakala). 
Currently, this subspecies is found on east Maui in the montane mesic, 
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems of Waikamoi Preserve 
and Kipahulu Valley (in Haleakala National Park) (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; 
Welton 2008, in litt.; National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBGa) 2009, 
pp. 1-2; Fay 2010, in litt.). It is uncertain if plants observed in the 
Hana Forest Reserve at Waihoi Valley are B. campylotheca ssp. pentamera 
(Osterneck 2010, in litt.; Haleakala National Park (HNP) 2012, in 
litt.). On west Maui, B. campylotheca ssp. pentamera is found on and 
near cliff walls in the lowland dry and lowland mesic ecosystems of 
Papalaua Gulch (West Maui Forest Reserve) and Kauaula Valley (NTBG 
2009a, pp. 1-2; Perlman 2009a, in litt.). The 6 occurrences on east and 
west Maui total approximately 200 individuals.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis (kookoolau), a perennial herb 
in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Maui 
(Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, B. campylotheca 
ssp. waihoiensis was found on Maui's eastern volcano in Waihoi Valley 
and Kaumakani ridge (HBMP 2008). Currently, this subspecies is found in 
the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in Kipahulu 
Valley (Haleakala National Park) and possibly in Waihoi Valley (Hana 
Forest Reserve) on east Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Welton 2008, in 
litt.). Approximately 200 plants are scattered over an area of about 
2.5 miles (4 km) in Kipahulu Valley (Welton 2010a, in litt.). In 1974, 
hundreds of individuals were observed in Waihoi Valley along Waiohonu 
stream (NTBG 2009b, p. 4).
    Bidens conjuncta (kookoolau), a perennial herb in the sunflower 
family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Maui (Ganders and 
Nagata 1999, pp. 273-274). Historically, this species was known only 
from the mountains of west Maui in the Honokohau drainage basin (Sherff 
1923, p. 162). Currently, B. conjuncta is found scattered throughout 
the upper elevation drainages of the west Maui mountains in the lowland 
wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems, in 9 occurrences totaling 
an estimated 7,000 individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2008a, 
in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.).
    Calamagrostis hillebrandii (NCN), a perennial in the grass family 
(Poaceae), occurs only on the island of Maui (O'Connor 1999, p. 1,509). 
Historically, this species was known from Puu Kukui in the west Maui 
mountains (Wagner et al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database). 
Currently, this species is found in bogs in the montane wet ecosystem 
in the west Maui mountains, from Honokohau to Kahoolewa ridge, 
including East Bog and Eke Crater, in three occurrences totaling a few 
hundred individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Canavalia pubescens (awikiwiki), a perennial climber in the pea 
family (Fabaceae), is currently found only on the island of Maui, 
although it was also historically known from Niihau, Kauai, and Lanai 
(Wagner and Herbst 1999, p. 654). On Niihau, this species was known 
from one population in Haao Valley that was last observed in 1949 (HBMP 
2008). On Kauai, this species was known from six populations ranging 
from Awaawapuhi to Wainiha, where it was last observed in 1977 (HBMP 
2008). On Lanai, this species was known from Kaena Point to Huawai Bay. 
Eight individuals were reported in the coastal ecosystem west of 
Hulupoe, but they have not been seen since 1998 (Oppenheimer 2007a, in 
litt.; HBMP 2008). At present, the only known occurrence is on east 
Maui, from Puu o Kali south to Pohakea, in the lowland dry ecosystem 
(Starr 2006, in litt.; Altenburg 2007, pp. 12-13; Oppenheimer 2006a, in 
litt.; 2007a, in litt.; Greenlee 2013, in litt.). All plants of this 
species that formerly were found in the Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area 
Reserve on Maui were destroyed by feral goats (Capra hircus) by the end 
of 2010

[[Page 32022]]

(Fell-McDonald 2010, in litt.). In addition, although approximately 20 
individuals of Canavalia pubescens were reported from the Palauea-
Keahou area as recently as 2010 (Altenberg 2010, in litt.), no 
individuals have been found in site visits to this area over the last 2 
years (Greenlee 2013, in litt.). Greenlee (2013, in litt.) reports that 
these plants may have succumbed to prolonged drought. In April of 2010, 
C. pubescens totaled as many as 500 individuals; however, with the loss 
of the plants at Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve and the loss of 
plants at Palauea-Keahou, C. pubescens may currently total fewer than 
200 individuals at a single location.
    Cyanea asplenifolia (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is found only on the island of Maui. This species was 
known historically from Waihee Valley and Kaanapali on west Maui, and 
Halehaku ridge on east Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 445; HBMP 2008). On west 
Maui, in the lowland wet ecosystem, there are 3 occurrences totaling 14 
individuals in the Puu Kukui Preserve and two occurrences totaling 5 
individuals in the West Maui Natural Area Reserve. On east Maui, C. 
asplenifolia is found in 1 occurrence each in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem in Haleakala National Park (53 individuals) and Kipahulu 
Forest Reserve (FR) (140 individuals), and 1 occurrence in the lowland 
wet ecosystem in the Makawao FR (5 individuals) (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; 
Oppenheimer 2008b, in litt, 2010b, in litt.; PEPP 2008, p. 48; Welton 
and Haus 2008, p. 12; NTBG 2009c, pp. 3-5; Welton 2010a, in litt.). 
Currently, C. asplenifolia is known from 8 occurrences totaling fewer 
than 200 individuals. The occurrence at Haleakala National Park is 
protected by a temporary exclosure (HNP 2012, in litt.).
    Cyanea duvalliorum (haha), a tree in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is found only in the east Maui mountains (Lammers 
2004, p. 89). This species was described in 2004, after the discovery 
of individuals of a previously unknown species of Cyanea at Waiohiwi 
Gulch (Lammers 2004, p. 91). Studies of earlier collections of sterile 
material extend the historical range of this species on the windward 
slopes of Haleakala in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems, east 
of Waiohiwi Stream, from Honomanu Stream to Wailua Iki Streams, and to 
Kipahulu Valley (Lammers 2004, p. 89). In 2007, one individual was 
observed in the lowland wet ecosystem of the Makawao FR (NTBG 2009d, p. 
2). In 2008, 71 individuals were found in 2 new locations in the 
Makawao FR, along with many juveniles and seedlings (NTBG 2009d, p. 2). 
Currently there are 2 occurrences with an approximate total of 71 
individuals in the montane wet ecosystem near Makawao FR, with an 
additional 135 individuals outplanted in Waikamoi Preserve (TNC 2007; 
NTBG 2009d, p. 2; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha), a shrub in the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), is known only from Oahu and Molokai (Lammers 
2004 p. 84; Lammers 1999, pp. 449, 451; 68 FR 35950, June 17, 2003). On 
Molokai, this species was last observed in 1991 in the wet cliff 
ecosystem at Wailau Valley (PEPP 2010, p. 45). Currently, on Oahu there 
are five to six individuals in four occurrences in the Waianae and 
Koolau Mountains (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008).
    Cyanea horrida (haha nui), a member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is a palm-like tree found only on the island of Maui. 
This species was known historically from the slopes of Haleakala 
(Lammers 1999, p. 453; HBMP 2008). Currently, C. horrida is known from 
12 occurrences totaling 44 individuals in the montane mesic, montane 
wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in Waikamoi Preserve, Hanawai Natural 
Area Reserve, and Haleakala National Park on east Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2008; PEPP 2009, p. 52; PEPP 2010, pp. 46-47; Oppenheimer 2010c, in 
litt.; TNCH 2010a, p. 1).
    Cyanea kunthiana (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui, and was historically known from 
both the east and west Maui mountains (Lammers 1999, p. 453; HBMP 
2008). Cyanea kunthiana was known to occur in the montane mesic 
ecosystem in the east Maui mountains in upper Kipahulu Valley, in 
Haleakala National Park and Kipahulu FR (HBMP 2008). Currently, in the 
east Maui mountains, C. kunthiana occurs in the lowland wet and montane 
wet ecosystems in Waikamoi Preserve, Hanawi Natural Area Reserve, East 
Bog, Kaapahu, and Kipahulu Valley. In the west Maui mountains, C. 
kunthiana occurs in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems at Eke 
Crater, Kahoolewa ridge, and at the junction of the Honokowai, Hahakea, 
and Honokohau gulches (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; NTBG 2009e, pp. 1-3; 
Perlman 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.). The 15 
occurrences total 165 individuals, although botanists speculate that 
this species may total as many as 400 individuals with further surveys 
of potential habitat on east and west Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Fay 
2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Osternak 2010, in litt.).
    Cyanea magnicalyx (haha), a perennial shrub in the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), is known from west Maui (Lammers 1999, pp. 449, 
451; Lammers 2004, p. 84). Currently, there are seven individuals in 
three occurrences on west Maui: two individuals in Kaluanui, a subgulch 
of Honokohau Valley, in the lowland wet ecosystem; four individuals in 
Iao Valley in the wet cliff ecosystem; and one individual in a small 
drainage south of the Kauaula rim, in the montane mesic ecosystem 
(Lammers 2004, p. 87; Perlman 2009b in litt.; Wood 2009, in litt.).
    Cyanea maritae (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui (Lammers 2004, p. 92). Sterile 
specimens were collected from the northwestern slopes of Haleakala in 
the Waiohiwi watershed and east to Kipahulu in the early 1900s. Between 
2000 and 2002, fewer than 20 individuals were found in the Waiohiwi 
area (Lammers 2004, pp. 92, 93). Currently, there are 4 occurrences, 
totaling between 23 to 50 individuals in Kipahulu, Kaapahu, west 
Kahakapao, and in the Koolau FR in the lowland wet and montane wet 
ecosystems on east Maui (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; Welton 
2010b, in litt.).
    Cyanea mauiensis (haha), a perennial shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), was last observed on Maui about 100 years ago (Lammers 
2004, pp. 84-85; TNC 2007). Although there are no documented 
occurrences of this species known today, botanists believe this species 
may still be extant as all potentially suitable lowland mesic and dry 
cliff habitat has not been surveyed.
    Cyanea munroi (haha), a short-lived shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is known from Molokai and Lanai (Lammers 1999, pp. 
449, 451; Lammers 2004, pp. 84-87). Currently, there are no known 
individuals on Molokai (last observed in 2001), and only two 
individuals on Lanai at a single location, in the wet cliff ecosystem 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Perlman 2008a, in litt.; Wood 2009a, in litt.; 
Oppenheimer 2010d, in litt.).
    Cyanea obtusa (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 458). 
Historically, this species was found in both the east and west Maui 
mountains (Hillebrand 1888, p. 254; HBMP 2008). Not reported since 1919 
(Lammers 1999, p. 458), C. obtusa was rediscovered in the early 1980s 
at one site each on east and west Maui. However, by 1989, plants in 
both

[[Page 32023]]

locations had disappeared (Hobdy et al. 1991, p. 3; Medeiros 1996, in 
litt.). In 1997, 4 individuals were observed in Manawainui Gulch in 
Kahikinui, and another occurrence of 5 to 10 individuals was found in 
Kahakapao Gulch, both in the montane mesic ecosystem on east Maui (Wood 
and Perlman 1997, p. 11; Lau 2001, in litt.). However, the individuals 
found at Kahakapao Gulch are now considered to be Cyanea elliptica or 
hybrids between C. obtusa and C. elliptica (PEPP 2007, p. 40). In 2001, 
several individuals were seen in Hanaula and Pohakea gulches on west 
Maui; however, only hybrids are currently known in this area (NTBG 
2009f, p. 3). It is unknown if individuals of C. obtusa remain at 
Kahikinui, as access to the area to ascertain the status of these 
plants is difficult and has not been attempted since 2001 (PEPP 2008, 
p. 55; PEPP 2009, p. 58). Two individuals were observed on a cliff 
along Wailaulau Stream in the montane mesic ecosystem on east Maui in 
2009 (Duvall 2010, in litt.). Currently, this species is known from one 
occurrence of only a few individuals in the montane mesic ecosystem on 
east Maui. Historically, this species also occurred in the lowland dry 
ecosystem at Manawainui on west Maui and at Ulupalakua on east Maui 
(HBMP 2008).
    Cyanea profuga (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), occurs only on Molokai (Lammers 1999, pp. 461-462; 
Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 4). Historically, this species was found in 
Mapulehu Valley and along Pelekunu Trail, and has not been seen in 
those locations since the early 1900s (Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 4). In 
2002, six individuals were discovered along a stream in Wawaia Gulch 
(Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 4). In 2007, seven individuals were known 
from Wawaia Gulch, and an additional six individuals were found in 
Kumueli (Wood 2005, p. 17; USFWS 2007a; PEPP 2010, p. 55). In 2009, 
only four individuals remained at Wawaia Gulch; however, nine were 
found in Kumueli Gulch (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010e, in 
litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.; PEPP 2010, p. 55). Currently, there are 
4 occurrences totaling up to 34 individuals in the lowland mesic and 
montane wet ecosystems on Molokai (TNC 2007; Bakutis 2010, in litt.; 
Perlman 2010, in litt.).
    Cyanea solanacea (popolo, haha nui), a shrub in the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), is found only on Molokai. According to Lammers 
(1999, p. 464) and Wagner (et al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands 
database) the range of C. solanacea includes Molokai and may also 
include west Maui. In his treatment of the species of the Hawaiian 
endemic genus Cyanea, Lammers (1999, p. 464) included a few sterile 
specimens of Cyanea from Puu Kukui, west Maui and the type specimen 
(now destroyed) for C. scabra var. sinuata from west Maui in C. 
solanacea. However, Oppenheimer recently reported (Oppenheimer 2010a, 
in litt.) that the plants on west Maui were misidentified as C. 
solanacea and are actually C. macrostegia. Based on Oppenheimer's 
recent field observations, the range of C. solanacea is limited to 
Molokai. Historically, Cyanea solanacea ranged from central Molokai at 
Kalae, eastward to Pukoo in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, and montane 
mesic ecosystems (HBMP 2008). Currently, there are four small 
occurrences at Hanalilolilo, near Pepeopae Bog, Kaunakakai Gulch, and 
Kawela Gulch, in the montane wet ecosystem. These occurrences total 26 
individuals (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; TNCH 
2011, pp. 21, 57).
    Cyrtandra ferripilosa (haiwale), a shrub in the African violet 
family (Gesneriaceae), occurs only on Maui (St. John 1987, pp. 497-498; 
Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 29). This species was discovered in 1980 in 
the east Maui mountains at Kuiki in Kipahulu Valley (St. John 1987, pp. 
497-498; Wagner et al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database). 
Currently, there are a few individuals each in two occurrences at Kuiki 
and on the Manawainui plane in the montane mesic and montane wet 
ecosystems (Oppenheimer 2010f, in litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.).
    Cyrtandra filipes (haiwale), a shrub in the African violet family 
(Gesneriaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999d, pp. 753-754; 
Oppenheimer 2006b, in litt.). According to Wagner et al. (1999d, p. 
754), the range of C. filipes includes Maui and Molokai. Historical 
collections from Kapunakea (1800) and Olowalu (1971) on Maui indicate 
it once had a wider range on this island. In 2004, it was believed 
there were over 2,000 plants at Honokohau and Waihee in the west Maui 
mountains; however, recent studies have shown that these plants do not 
match the description for C. filipes (Oppenheimer 2006b, in litt.). 
Currently, there are between 134 and 155 individuals in 4 occurrences 
in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems at Kapalaoa, Honokowai, 
Honolua, and Waihee Valley on west Maui, and approximately 7 
individuals at Mapulehu in the lowland mesic ecosystem on Molokai, with 
an historical occurrence in the lowland wet ecosystem (Oppenheimer 
2010c, in litt.).
    Cyrtandra oxybapha (haiwale), a shrub in the African violet family 
(Gesneriaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999d, p. 771). This 
species was discovered in the upper Pohakea Gulch in Hanaula in the 
west Maui mountains in 1986 (Wagner et al. 1989, p. 100; TNC 2007). 
Currently, there are 2 known occurrences with a total of 137 to 250 
individuals. Cyrtandra oxybapha occurs in the montane wet ecosystem on 
west Maui, from Hanaula to Pohakea Gulch. This occurrence totals 
between 87 and 97 known individuals, with perhaps as many as 150 or 
more (Oppenheimer 2008c, in litt.). The current status of the 50 to 100 
individuals in the montane mesic ecosystem in Manawainui Gulch on east 
Maui is unknown, as these plants have not been surveyed since 1997 
(Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Festuca molokaiensis (NCN), a member of the grass family (Poaceae), 
is found on Molokai (Catalan et al. 2009, p. 54). This species is only 
known from the type locality at Kupaia Gulch, in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (Catalan et al. 2009, p. 55). Last seen in 2009, the current 
number of individuals is unknown; however, field surveys for F. 
molokaiensis at Kupaia Gulch are planned for 2011 (Oppenheimer 2010g, 
in litt.). Oppenheimer (2011, pers. comm.) suggests that the drought 
over the past couple of years on Molokai may have suppressed the growth 
of F. molokaiensis and prevented its observation by botanists in the 
field. He also suggested that this species may be an annual whose 
growth will be stimulated by normal rainfall patterns.
    Geranium hanaense (nohoanu), a shrub in the geranium family 
(Geraniaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999e, pp. 730-732). 
This species was first collected in 1973, from two adjacent montane 
bogs on the northeast rift of Haleakala, east Maui (Medeiros and St. 
John 1988, pp. 214-220). At that time, there were an estimated 500 to 
700 individuals (Medeiros and St. John 1988, pp. 214-220). Currently, 
G. hanaense occurs in ``Big Bog'' and ``Mid Camp Bog'' in the montane 
wet ecosystem on the northeast rift of Haleakala, with the same number 
of estimated individuals (Welton 2008, in litt.; Welton 2010a, in 
litt.; Welton 2010b, in litt.).
    Geranium hillebrandii (nohoanu), a shrub in the geranium family 
(Geraniaceae), is found on Maui (Aedo and Munoz Garmendia 1997; p. 725; 
Wagner et al. 1999e, pp. 732-733; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 28). 
Little is known of the historical locations of G. hillebrandii, other 
than the type collection made in the 1800s at Eke Crater, in the west 
Maui mountains (Hillebrand 1888, p. 56). Currently, 4

[[Page 32024]]

occurrences total over 10,000 individuals, with the largest 2 
occurrences in the west Maui bogs, from Puu Kukui to East Bog and 
Kahoolewa ridge. A third occurrence is at Eke Crater and the 
surrounding area, and the fourth occurrence is at Lihau (HBMP 2008; 
Oppenheimer 2010h, in litt.). These occurrences are found in the 
montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems on west Maui (TNC 2007).
    Mucuna sloanei var. persericea (sea bean), a vine in the pea family 
(Fabaceae), is found on Maui (Wilmot-Dear 1990, pp. 27-29; Wagner et 
al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database). In her revision of 
Mucuna in the Pacific Islands, Wilmot-Dear recognized this variety from 
Maui based on leaf indumentum (covering of fine hairs or bristles) 
(Wilmot-Dear 1990, p. 29). At the time of Wilmot-Dear's publication, M. 
sloanei var. persericea ranged from Makawao to Wailua Iki, on the 
windward slopes of the east Maui mountains (Wagner et al. 2005a-Flora 
of the Hawaiian Islands database). Currently, there are possibly a few 
hundred individuals in five occurrences: Ulalena Hill, north of 
Kawaipapa Gulch, lower Nahiku, Koki Beach, and Piinau Road, all in the 
lowland wet ecosystem on east Maui (Duvall 2010, in litt.; Hobdy 2010, 
in litt.).
    Myrsine vaccinioides (kolea), a shrub in the myrsine family 
(Myrsinaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 946; HBMP 
2008). This species was historically known from shrubby bogs near 
Violet Lake on west Maui (Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 946). In 2005, three 
occurrences of a few hundred individuals were reported at Eke, Puu 
Kukui and near Violet Lake (Oppenheimer 2006c, in litt.). Currently, 
there are estimated to be several hundred, but fewer than 1,000, 
individuals scattered in the summit area of the west Maui mountains at 
Eke Crater, Puu Kukui, Honokowai-Honolua, and Kahoolewa, in the montane 
wet ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
    Peperomia subpetiolata (alaala wai nui), a perennial herb in the 
pepper family (Piperaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 
1035; HBMP 2008). Historically, P. subpetiolata was known only from the 
lower Waikamoi (Kula pipeline) area on the windward side of Haleakala 
on east Maui (Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 1,035; HBMP 2008). In 2001, it 
was estimated that 40 individuals occurred just west of the Makawao-
Koolau FR boundary, in the montane wet ecosystem. Peperomia cookiana 
and P. hirtipetiola also occur in this area, and are known to hybridize 
with P. subpetiolata (NTBG 2009g, p. 2; Oppenheimer 2010j, in litt.). 
In 2007, 20 to 30 hybrid plants were observed at Maile Trail, and at 
three areas near the Waikamoi Flume road (NTBG 2009g, p. 2). Based on 
the 2007 and 2010 surveys, all known plants are now considered to be 
hybrids mostly between P. subpetiolata and P. cookiana, with a smaller 
number of hybrids between P. subpetiolata and P. hirtipetiola (NTBG 
2009g, p. 2; Lau 2011, in litt.). Peperomia subpetiolata is recognized 
as a valid species, and botanists continue to search for plants in its 
previously known locations as well as in new locations with potentially 
suitable habitat (NTBG 2009g, p. 2; PEPP 2010, p. 96; Lau 2011, pers. 
comm.).
    Phyllostegia bracteata (NCN), a perennial herb in the mint family 
(Lamiaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999h, pp. 814-815). 
Historically, this species was known from the east Maui mountains at 
Ukulele, Puu Nianiau, Waikamoi Gulch, Koolau Gap, Kipahulu, Nahiku-
Kuhiwa trail, Waihoi Valley, and Manawainui; and from the west Maui 
mountains at Puu Kukui and Hanakaoo (HBMP 2008). This species appears 
to be short-lived, ephemeral, and disturbance-dependent, in the lowland 
wet, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, and wet cliff ecosystems 
(NTBG 2009h, p. 1). There have been several reported sightings of P. 
bracteata between 1981 and 2001, at Waihoi Crater Bog, Waikamoi 
Preserve, Waikamoi flume, and Kipahulu on east Maui, and at Pohakea 
Gulch on west Maui; however, none of these individuals were extant as 
of 2009 (PEPP 2009, pp. 89-90). In 2009, one individual was found at 
Kipahulu, near Delta Camp, on east Maui, but was not relocated on a 
follow-up survey during that same year (NTBG 2009h, p. 3). Botanists 
continue to search for P. bracteata in previously reported locations, 
as well as in other areas with potentially suitable habitat (NTBG 
2009h, p. 3; PEPP 2009, pp. 89-90).
    Phyllostegia haliakalae (NCN), a vine in the mint family 
(Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai, Lanai, and east Maui (Wagner 1999, 
p. 269). The type specimen was collected by Wawra in 1869 or 1870, in a 
dry ravine at the foot of Haleakala. An individual was found in flower 
on the eastern slope of Haleakala, in the wet cliff ecosystem, in 2009; 
however, this plant has died (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.). 
Collections were made before the plant died, and propagules outplanted 
in the Puu Mahoe Arboretum (three plants) and Olinda Rare Plant 
Facility (four plants) (Oppenheimer 2011b, in litt.). In addition, this 
species has been outplanted in the lowland wet, montane wet, and 
montane mesic ecosystems of Haleakala National Park (HNP 2012, in 
litt.). Botanists continue to search in areas with potentially suitable 
habitat for wild individuals of this plant (Oppenheimer 2010b, in 
litt.). Phyllostegia haliakalae was last reported from the lowland 
mesic ecosystem on Molokai in 1928, and from the dry cliff and wet 
cliff ecosystems on Lanai in the early 1900s (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). 
Currently no individuals are known in the wild on Maui, Molokai, or 
Lanai; however, over 100 individuals have been outplanted (HNP 2012, in 
litt).
    Phyllostegia pilosa (NCN), a vine in the mint family (Lamiaceae), 
is known from east Maui (Wagner 1999, p. 274). There are two 
occurrences totaling seven individuals west of Puu o Kakae on east 
Maui, in the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). The 
individuals identified as P. pilosa on Molokai, at Kamoku Flats 
(montane wet ecosystem) and at Mooloa (lowland mesic ecosystem), have 
not been observed since the early 1900s (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008).
    Pittosporum halophilum (hoawa), a shrub or small tree in the 
pittosporum family (Pittosporaceae), is found on Molokai (Wood 2005, 
pp. 2, 41). This species was reported from Huelo islet, Mokapu Island, 
Okala Island, and Kukaiwaa peninsula. On Huelo islet, there were two 
individuals in 1994, and in 2001, only one individual remained (Wood et 
al. 2001, p. 12; Wood et al. 2002, pp. 18-19). The current status of 
this species on Huelo islet is unknown. On Mokapu Island, there were 15 
individuals in the coastal ecosystem in 2001, and in 2005, 10 
individuals remained. On Okala Island, there were two individuals in 
2005, and one individual on the sea cliff at Kukaiwaa peninsula 
(Wainene) (Wood 2005, pp. 2, 41). As of 2010, there were three 
occurrences totaling five individuals: Three individuals on Mokapu 
Island, one individual on Okala Island, and one individual on Kukaiwaa 
peninsula (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Hobdy 2010, in litt.; Perlman 2010, 
in litt.). At least 17 individuals have been outplanted at 3 sites on 
the coastline of the nearby Kalaupapa peninsula (Garnett 2010a, in 
litt.).
    Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), a tree in the asparagus family 
(Asparagaceae), is found only on the island of Lanai (Wagner et al. 
1999i, p. 1,352; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 67). Historically known 
throughout Lanai, this species is currently found in the lowland dry, 
lowland mesic, lowland wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems, from 
Hulopaa and Kanoa gulches southeast to

[[Page 32025]]

Waiakeakua and Puhielelu (St. John 1947, pp. 39-42 cited in St. John 
1985, pp. 171, 177-179; HBMP 2006; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2008, p. 75; 
Oppenheimer 2010d, in litt.). Currently, there are several hundred to 
perhaps as many as 1,000 individuals. The number of individuals has 
decreased by about one-half in the past 10 years (there were more than 
2,000 individuals in 1999), with very little recruitment observed 
recently (Oppenheimer 2008d, in litt.).
    Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (iliahi, Lanai sandalwood) is a 
tree in the sandalwood family (Santalaceae). Currently, S. haleakalae 
var. lanaiense is known from Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, in 26 
occurrences totaling fewer than 100 individuals (Wagner et al. 1999c, 
pp. 1,221-1,222; HBMP 2008; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835). On 
Molokai, there are more than 12 individuals in 4 occurrences from 
Kikiakala to Kamoku Flats and Puu Kokekole, with the largest 
concentration at Kumueli Gulch, in the montane mesic and lowland mesic 
ecosystems (Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835). On Lanai, there are 
approximately 10 occurrences totaling 30 to 40 individuals: Kanepuu, in 
the lowland mesic ecosystem (5 individuals); the headwaters of Waiopae 
Gulch in the lowland wet ecosystem (3 individuals); the windward side 
of Hauola on the upper side of Waiopae Gulch in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (1 individual); the drainage to the north of Puhielelu Ridge 
and exclosure, in the headwaters of Lopa Gulch in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (3 individuals); 6 occurrences near Lanaihale in the montane 
wet ecosystem (21 individuals); and the mountains east of Lanai City in 
the lowland wet ecosystem (a few individuals) (HBMP 2008; Harbaugh et 
al. 2010, pp. 834-835; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010a, in litt.). On west Maui, 
there are eight single-individual occurrences: Hanaulaiki Gulch in the 
lowland dry ecosystem; Kauaula and Puehuehunui Gulches in the lowland 
mesic, montane mesic, and wet cliff ecosystems; Kahanahaiki Gulch and 
Honokowai Gulch in the lowland wet ecosystem; Wakihuli in the wet cliff 
ecosystem; and Manawainui Gulch in the montane mesic and lowland dry 
ecosystems (HBMP 2008; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835; Wood 2010a, 
in litt.). On east Maui, there are 4 occurrences (10 individuals) in 
Auwahi, in the montane mesic, montane dry, and lowland dry ecosystems 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835).
    Schiedea jacobii (NCN), a perennial herb or subshrub in the pink 
family (Caryophyllaceae), occurs only on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 
284). Discovered in 1992, the single occurrence consisted of nine 
individuals along wet cliffs between Hanawi Stream and Kuhiwa drainage 
(in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve), in the montane wet ecosystem on east 
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 286). By 1995, only four plants could be 
relocated in this location. It appeared that the other five known 
individuals had been destroyed by a landslide (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 
286). In 2004, one seedling was observed in the same location, and in 
2010, no individuals were relocated (Perlman 2010, in litt.). The State 
of Hawaii plans to outplant propagated individuals in a fenced area in 
Hanawi Natural Area Reserve in 2011 (Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; 
Perlman 2010, in litt.).
    Schiedea laui (NCN), a perennial herb or subshrub in the pink 
family (Caryophyllaceae), is found only on Molokai (Wagner et al. 
2005b, pp. 90-92). In 1998, when this species was first observed, there 
were 19 individuals located in a cave along a narrow stream corridor at 
the base of a waterfall in the Kamakou Preserve, in the montane wet 
ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005b, pp. 90-92). By 2000, only 9 individuals 
with a few immature plants and seedlings were relocated, and in 2006, 
13 plants were seen (Wagner et al. 2005b, pp. 90-92; PEPP 2007, p. 57). 
Currently, there are 24 to 34 individuals in the same location in 
Kamakou Preserve (Bakutis 2010, in litt.).
    Schiedea salicaria (NCN), a shrub in the pink family 
(Caryophyllaceae), occurs on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999j, pp. 519-520). 
It is historically known from a small area on west Maui, from Lahaina 
to Waikapu. Currently, this species is found in three occurrences: 
Kaunoahua gulch (500 to 1,000 individuals), Puu Hona (about 50 
individuals), and Waikapu Stream (3 to 5 individuals), in the lowland 
dry ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010k, in litt.; 
Oppenheimer 2010l, in litt.). Hybrids and hybrid swarms (hybrids 
between parent species, and subsequently formed progeny from crosses 
among hybrids and crosses of hybrids to parental species) between S. 
salicaria and S. menziesii are known on the western side of west Maui 
(Wagner et al. 2005b, p. 138). However, according to Weller (2012, in 
litt.) the hybridization process is natural when S. salicaria and S. 
menziesii co-occur and because of the dynamics in this hybrid zone, 
traits of S. salicaria prevail and replace those of S. menziesii. 
Weller (2012, in litt.) notes that populations of both species will 
likely remain distinct because the two species do not overlap 
throughout much of their range.
    Stenogyne kauaulaensis (NCN), a vine in the mint family 
(Lamiaceae), occurs on Maui. This recently described (2008) plant is 
found only along the southeastern rim of Kauaula Valley, in the montane 
mesic ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 2007; Wood and Oppenheimer 2008, pp. 
544-545). At the time S. kauaulaensis was described, the authors 
reported a total of 15 individuals in one occurrence. However, one of 
the authors reports that due to the clonal (genetic duplicate) growth 
habit of this species, botanists believe it is currently represented by 
only three genetically distinct individuals (Oppenheimer 2010k, in 
litt.).
    Wikstroemia villosa (akia), a shrub or tree in the akia family 
(Thymelaeaceae), is found on Maui (Peterson 1999, pp. 1,290-1,291). 
Historically known from the lowland wet, montane wet, and montane mesic 
ecosystems on east and west Maui, this species is currently known from 
a recent discovery (2007) of one individual on the windward side of 
Haleakala (on east Maui), in the montane wet ecosystem (Peterson 1999, 
p. 1,291; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). As of 2010, there was one individual 
and one seedling at the same location (Oppenheimer 2010m, in litt.). In 
addition, three individuals have been outplanted in Waikamoi Preserve 
(Oppenheimer 2010m, in litt.).

Animals

    Newcomb's tree snail (Newcombia cumingi), a member of the family 
Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily Achatinellinae 
(Newcomb 1853, p. 25), is known only from the island of Maui (Cowie et 
al. 1995, p. 62). All members of this species have sinistral (left-
coiling), oblong, spindle-shaped shells of five to seven whorls that 
are coarsely sculptured (Cooke and Kondo 1960, pp. 9, 33). Newcomb's 
tree snail reaches an adult length of approximately 0.8 in (21 mm) and 
its shell is mottled in shades of brown that blend with the bark of its 
native host plant, Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) (Pilsbry and Cooke 
1912-1914, p. 10; Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 4). The exact life span 
and fecundity of Newcomb's tree snails is unknown, but they attain 
adult size within 4 to 5 years (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 2). 
Newcomb's tree snail is believed to exhibit the low reproductive rate 
of other Hawaiian tree snails belonging to the same family (Thacker and 
Hadfield 1998, p. 2). It feeds on fungi and algae that grow on the 
leaves and trunks of its host plant (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 
103). Historically, this species was distributed

[[Page 32026]]

from the west Maui mountains (near Lahaina and Wailuku) to the slopes 
of Haleakala (Makawao) on east Maui (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 
10). In 1994, a small population of Newcomb's tree snail was found on a 
single ridge on the northeastern slope of the west Maui mountains, in 
the lowland wet ecosystem (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 3; TNC 2007). 
Eighty-six snails were documented in the same location in 1998; in 
2006, only nine individuals were located; and, in 2012, only one 
individual was located (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 2; Hadfield 2007, 
p. 8; Higashino 2013, in litt.).
    Partulina semicarinata (Lanai tree snail, pupu kani oe), a member 
of the family Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily 
Achatinellinae, is known only from the island of Lanai (Pilsbry and 
Cooke 1912-1914, p. 86). The shell may coil to the right (dextral) or 
left (sinistral), but appears to be constant within a population. The 
oblong to ovate shells of the adult are 0.6 to 0.8 in (16 to 20 mm) 
long, have 5 to 7 whorls, and range in color from rusty brown to white, 
with some individuals having bands around the shells. The shell has a 
distinctive keel that runs along the last whorl, and is more 
distinctive in juveniles (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, pp. 86-88). 
Adults may attain an age exceeding 15 to 20 years, and reproductive 
output is low, with an adult snail giving birth to 4 to 6 live young 
per year (Hadfield and Miller 1989, pp. 10-12). Partulina semicarinata 
is arboreal and nocturnal, and grazes on fungi and algae growing on 
leaf surfaces (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 103). This snail species 
is found on the following native host plants: Metrosideros polymorpha, 
Broussaisia arguta (kanawao), Psychotria spp. (kopiko), Coprosma spp. 
(pilo), Melicope spp. (alani), and dead Cibotium glaucum (tree fern, 
hapuu). Occasionally the snail is found on nonnative plants such as 
Psidium guajava (guava), Cordyline australis (New Zealand tea tree), 
and Phormium tenax (New Zealand flax) (Hadfield 1994, p. 2). 
Historically, P. semicarinata was found in wet and mesic M. polymorpha 
forests on Lanai. There are no historical population estimates for this 
snail, but qualitative accounts of Hawaiian tree snails indicates they 
were widespread and abundant, possibly numbering in the tens of 
thousands between the 1800s and early 1900s (Hadfield 1986, p. 69). In 
1993, 105 individuals of P. semicarinata were found during surveys 
conducted in its historical range. Subsequent surveys in 1994, 2000, 
2001, and 2005 documented 55, 12, 4, and 29 individuals, respectively, 
in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in central 
Lanai (Hadfield 2005, pp. 3-5; TNC 2007).
    Partulina variabilis (Lanai tree snail, pupu kani oe), a member of 
the family Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily 
Achatinellinae, is known only from the island of Lanai (Pilsbry and 
Cooke 1912-1914, p. 86). The shell may coil to the right (dextral) or 
left (sinistral), and both types can be found within a single 
population. The oblong to ovate shells of the adult are 0.5 to 0.6 in 
(14 to 16 mm) long, have 5 to 7 whorls, and have a white base color 
with no bands or a variable number of spiral bands around the shells 
(Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, pp. 67, 83-86). Adults may attain an age 
exceeding 15 to 20 years, and reproductive output is low, with an adult 
snail giving birth to 4 to 6 live young per year (Hadfield and Miller 
1989, pp. 10-12). Partulina variabilis is arboreal and nocturnal, and 
grazes on fungi and algae growing on leaf surfaces (Pilsbry and Cooke 
1912-1914, p. 103). This snail is found on the following native host 
plants: Metrosideros polymorpha, Broussaisia arguta, Psychotria spp., 
Coprosma spp., Melicope spp., and dead Cibotium glaucum. Occasionally 
Partulina variabilis is found on nonnative plants such as Psidium 
guajava and Cordyline australis (Hadfield 1994, p. 2). Historically, 
Partulina variabilis was found in wet and mesic M. polymorpha forests 
on Lanai. There are no historical population estimates for this snail, 
but qualitative accounts of Hawaiian tree snails indicate they were 
widespread and abundant, possibly numbering in the tens of thousands 
between the 1800s and early 1900s (Hadfield 1986, p. 69). In 1993, 111 
individuals of P.variabilis were found during surveys conducted in its 
historical range. Subsequent surveys in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2005 
documented 175, 14, 6, and 90 individuals, respectively, in the lowland 
wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in central Lanai (Hadfield 
2005, pp. 3-5; TNC 2007).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On June 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list 38 Maui Nui 
species (35 plants and 3 tree snails) as endangered and reevaluate the 
listing of 2 Maui Nui plant species as endangered throughout their 
ranges, and to designate critical habitat for 135 species (77 FR 
34464). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period. On August 9, 
2012 (77 FR 47587), we extended the comment period for the proposed 
rule for an additional 30 days, ending September 10, 2012. We requested 
that all interested parties submit comments or information concerning 
the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for 135 
species. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, 
county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and 
other interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we 
published a public notice of the proposed rule on June 20, 2012, in the 
local Honolulu Star Advertiser, Maui Times, and Molokai Dispatch 
newspapers, at the beginning of the comment period. We received three 
requests for public hearings. On January 31, 2013, we published a 
notice (78 FR 6785) reopening the comment period on the June 11, 2012, 
proposed rule (77 FR 34464), announcing the availability of our draft 
economic analysis (DEA) on the proposed critical habitat, and 
requesting comments on both the proposed rule and the DEA. This comment 
period closed on March 4, 2013. In addition, in that same notice 
(January 31, 2013; 78 FR 6785) we announced a public information 
meeting and hearing, which we held in Kihei, Maui, on February 21, 
2013.
    During the comment periods, we received a total of 47 comment 
letters on the proposed listing of 38 species, reevaluation of listing 
for 2 species, and proposed designation of critical habitat. For the 
reasons stated above, in this final rule we address only the comments 
regarding the proposed listing of 38 species and reevaluation of 
listing for 2 species. Ten of the 47 letters contained comments on both 
the proposed listing and proposed designation of critical habitat. Two 
of the 47 letters contained comments only on the proposed listing of 38 
species and reevaluation of listing for 2 species. Three of the four 
peer reviewers who provided comments commented on the proposed listing 
of one or more of the 38 species or on the proposed listing and 
proposed critical habitat designation. One commenter was a State of 
Hawaii agency (Hawaii Department of Health), one was a Federal agency 
(Kalaupapa National Historical Park), and eight were nongovernmental 
organizations or individuals. During the February 21, 2013, public 
hearing, 25 individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed 
listing.
    All substantive information provided during the comment periods 
related to the listing decisions has either been incorporated directly 
into this final determination or is addressed below. Information we 
received related to the

[[Page 32027]]

proposed critical habitat designation will be addressed in that final 
rule. Comments received are grouped into general issues specifically 
relating to the proposed listing status of the 35 plants or the 
proposed listing status of the 3 tree snails, and are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. 
No comments were received regarding the reevaluation of listing for 
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana or Santalam healeakalae var. 
lanaiense. No comments were received regarding the delisting of Gahnia 
lanaiensis due to taxonomic error.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 
from 10 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on the Maui 
Nui plants, snails, and forest birds and their habitats, including 
familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which these 
species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received 
responses from four of the peer reviewers. Of these four peer 
reviewers, one provided comments only on the proposed critical habitat 
designation for two endangered forest birds. These comments are not 
addressed in this final rule, which addresses only the listing of the 
38 Maui Nui species (35 plants and 3 tree snails), and the 
reaffirmation of listing of 2 Maui Nui plant species. Three peer 
reviewers provided comments on the listing of the 38 Maui Nui species 
and reevaluation of listing for 2 species. These peer reviewers 
generally supported our methodology and conclusions. Two reviewers 
supported the Service's ecosystem-based approach for organizing the 
rule and for focusing on the actions needed for species conservation 
and management, and all three reviewers provided new information on one 
or more of the Maui Nui species, which we incorporated into this final 
rule. In addition, peer reviewers provided information on citations for 
published studies on ungulate exclusions and nonnative plant control. 
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 38 
species and reevaluation of the listing of 2 species. Peer reviewer 
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into 
the final rule as appropriate.
General Peer Review Comments
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer noted the absence of a literature 
cited section for the proposed rule.
    Our Response: Although not included with the proposed rule itself, 
information on how to obtain a list of our supporting documentation 
used was provided in the proposed rule under Public Comments and 
References Cited (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). In addition, lists of 
references cited in the proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and 
in this final rule are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0098, and upon request 
from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information 
regarding the biogeographical differences between east and west Maui.
    Our Response: We have included this information in this final rule 
and corrected statements about the range of annual rainfall on east 
Maui (Giambelluca et al. 2011), the diversity of vegetation in the 
mesic and wet ecosystems of east Maui relative to west Maui (Price 
2004, p. 493), and the geologic age of the youngest lava flows found 
within the Cape Kinau region of east Maui (Sherrod et al. 2007, p. 40) 
(see The Islands of Maui Nui, above).
Peer Review Comments on Plants
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the proposed rule's 
discussion about invasive plant species did not emphasize a comparison 
of the wide-ranging level of impacts between the various invasive plant 
species.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we provided a list of 71 
nonnative plant species that have been documented as serious and 
ongoing threats to 36 of the 40 species proposed or reevaluated for 
listing throughout their ranges by destroying or modifying habitat. We 
provided a short description for each of the 71 nonnative plant species 
that included the best available information on growth form, place of 
origin, reproductive biology, dispersal, competition with native 
species, environmental tolerance, and measures for their control in 
Hawaiian habitats, as well as synergistic impacts with other habitat 
modifying threat factors such as nonnative ungulates, agricultural 
development, and fire. In addition, we identified the nonnative plant 
species documented as threats in each of the 10 ecosystems. Finally, we 
identified each species that is considered invasive by one or more of 
the following sources: Hawaii-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-
NRCS) plant database (2011), or the Hawaii State noxious weed list 
(H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68). Therefore, we believe the 
information we provided in the proposed rule adequately emphasizes a 
comparison of the wide-ranging level of impacts between the various 
invasive plant species.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we understated the 
seriousness of the effects of the invasive plant species Blechnum 
appendiculatum and provided additional information about the ecology of 
this species to better illustrate its impacts.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided for the 
invasive plant Blechnum appendiculatum and have included it in our 
final rule (see Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule, below).
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we include, where 
applicable, further elaboration on the synergistic interactions between 
nonnative plants and animals, and global climate change, and their 
confluent impacts upon native habitats described in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We discuss the synergistic effects of climate change 
and nonnative species under ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by 
Climate Change'' and ``Summary of Habitat Destruction and 
Modification,'' below; however, the magnitude and intensity of the 
impacts of global climate change and increasing temperatures on native 
Hawaiian ecosystems are unknown at this time.
    (6) Comment: Although drought was not identified as a threat to 
Schiedea laui in our proposed rule, one peer reviewer suggested that it 
may also be a threat to this species. According to the reviewer, 
between 1998 and 2000, 7 of the 16 known mature individuals died from 
prolonged drought. In addition, the reviewer suggested that drought 
should be considered a threat to S. salicaria as it exacerbates the 
likelihood of fire, which is identified as a threat to this species.
    Our Response: Drought was indicated as a threat to Schiedea laui 
with the observation of the extirpation of 7 of the 16 individuals by 
2000 in Wagner et al. (2005b); however, we have information from more 
recent botanical surveys and observations that the current threats to 
individuals at this location are flooding and landslides (MNTF 2010). 
In the long term, drought may be a threat if this species is dependent 
upon the constant

[[Page 32028]]

water source provided at the grotto in which it occurs, and annual 
precipitation amounts fall due to weather changes associated with the 
global warming trend. Also, we agree that drought can lead to increased 
incidences of wildfire, especially in the area of west Maui where S. 
salicaria occurs. We appreciate the information provided by the 
reviewer and have incorporated it, as appropriate, into TABLE 4--
SUMMARY OF PRIMARY THREATS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH OF THE 40 MAUI NUI 
SPECIES and ``Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Landslides, 
Rockfalls, Treefalls, Flooding, and Drought'' in this final rule (see 
below).
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that our proposed rule states 
that nonnative plants in the lowland mesic ecosystem and the lowland 
dry ecosystem are a threat to the plant Schiedea salicaria. According 
to the reviewer, S. salicaria is usually found in lowland dry habitats, 
not in lowland mesic habitat.
    Our Response: In our proposed rule, Schiedea salicaria is reported 
from three occurrences in the lowland dry ecosystem on west Maui (77 FR 
34464, Table 2C and p. 34481; June 11, 2012). This species was included 
as one of the proposed species affected by nonnative plants in the 
lowland mesic ecosystem (see ``Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Mesic 
Ecosystem'' in the proposed rule) in error. We appreciate the 
correction.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer corrected our description of hybrid 
swarms in the discussion of the proposed plant Schiedea salicaria to 
say that a hybrid swarm consists of hybrids between parent species, and 
subsequently formed progeny from crosses among hybrids and crosses of 
hybrids to parental species. While this process is noted as a threat to 
S. salicaria in Table 3 and in Proposed Determination for 40 Species in 
our proposed rule, the reviewer points out that the hybridization 
process is natural when S. salicaria and S. menziesii co-occur and 
because of the dynamics in this hybrid zone, traits of S. salicaria 
prevail and replace those of S. menziesii. The reviewer notes, however, 
that populations of both species will likely remain distinct because 
the two species do not overlap throughout much of their range.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's comments and have 
added that the traits of Schiedea salicaria prevail and replace those 
of S. menziesii in hybrid zones (see Description of the 40 Maui Nui 
Species, above). In addition, we have removed hybridization as a threat 
to S. salicaria in this final rule; however, wildfires could possibly 
adversely impact the remaining non-hybridizing occurrences of S. 
salicaria on west Maui (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by 
Fire,'' below).
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we highlight the 
positive interactions between drought and nonnative plant species, to 
the detriment of native plant species, in our discussion of ``Climate 
Change and Precipitation.'' According to this reviewer, these effects 
may be subtle, as demonstrated by Blechnum appendiculatum (see Comment 
4, above), or dramatic, as demonstrated during a fire on west Maui that 
occurred in the area of the two largest populations of Schiedea 
salicaria, and likely spread rapidly due to the presence of invasive 
nonnative grasses and drought conditions.
    Our Response: We agree that in the Hawaiian Islands there is a 
positive correlation between drought (caused by a reduction in moisture 
availability due to long periods of decline in annual precipitation), 
the presence of nonnative plants (particularly fire-prone grasses), and 
wildfire. We discuss the effects of the grass/fire cycle and the 
contribution to this cycle by drying trends caused by global warming 
(see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' and ``Climate 
Change and Precipitation,'' below).
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that our discussion of 
the effects of the nonnative grass Pennisetum setaceum (Cenchrus 
setaceus; fountain grass) on dry forests on Hawaii Island should 
include direct competition with native species in addition to the 
threat it poses to native habitat from wildfires.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is referring to our discussion of 
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire.'' In that discussion, 
we note that on a post-burn survey at Puu Waawaa on Hawaii Island no 
regeneration of native canopy plants was occurring within the burn 
area. According to Takeuchi (1991, pp. 4, 6) nonnative Pennisetum sp. 
increased the number of fires and suppressed the establishment of 
native plants after a fire. We appreciate the additional information 
provided by the reviewer, including citations for published articles on 
the effects of nonnative fountain grass on wildfire and competition 
with native plant species, and we have added the information to our 
final rule (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' 
below).
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the discussion on 
invasive plant species did not include sufficient information regarding 
those species for which the State of Hawaii has introduced biological 
control agents. The peer reviewer specifically highlighted four 
invasive plants, Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava), Clidemia hirta 
(Koster's curse), Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili ginger), and Cyathea 
cooperi (Sphaeropteris cooperi, Australian tree fern) and suggested 
that we include further discussion on the potential importance of 
biocontrol in addressing the very severe threats posed by these 
otherwise intractable invasive plant species.
    Our Response: We agree that the use of biological control is a 
significant contribution to a multi-layered approach at management of 
the various nonnative plants threatening Hawaiian native flora. Between 
1902 and 2010, approximately 84 insect and fungal agents have been 
introduced in Hawaii to control approximately 24 target nonnative 
plants (Conant et al. [in press], pp. 1-2, 15-19). Approximately 42 of 
these biological control agents are established in the Hawaiian 
Islands, and 12 of these have demonstrated substantial effects (i.e., 
the targeted nonnative plant species have been suppressed over a large 
portion of their ranges) toward control of their intended nonnative 
plant target, including Ageratina adenophora (Maui pamakani), A. 
riparia (Hamakua pamakani), and Lantana camara (lantana) (McFadyen 
2000, pp. 4-7; Conant et al. [in press], pp. 1-2, 15-19). These three 
nonnative plants pose serious and ongoing threats to habitat in six of 
the ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland wet, montane mesic, montane wet, 
dry cliff, and wet cliff), that support one or more of the 40 species 
addressed in this final rule (see ``Habitat Destruction and 
Modification by Nonnative Plants'' in the June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), 
proposed rule). The Service remains cautiously optimistic about the use 
of biological control agents as a potentially significant contribution 
to a multi-layered approach to management of the various nonnative 
plants threatening Hawaiian native flora, including the recent 
introductions to control the ubiquitous, nonnative strawberry guava 
that poses a serious and ongoing threat to habitat in five of the 
ecosystems (lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, and 
montane wet) that support one or more of the 40 species addressed in 
this final rule (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by 
Nonnative Plants'' in the June 11, 2012

[[Page 32029]]

(77 FR 34464), proposed rule). However, the lack of post-introduction 
monitoring for most past introductions is of concern, and the largely 
anectodal evaluations of past introductions precludes our ability to 
sufficiently evaluate and conjecture, upon their long-term success.
Peer Review Comment on Lanai Tree Snails
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended additional emphasis on 
the impacts of axis deer and mouflon sheep upon the habitat of the 
snails. The reviewer stated that the feeding and trampling activities 
of these ungulates removes the fern and vegetation layer around the 
snails' host trees, so that dispersal of snails between host substrates 
is either prevented or greatly reduced.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that the feeding and 
trampling activities of ungulates removes the fern and vegetation layer 
around the snails' host trees, and we have included information 
regarding the impact of axis deer and mouflon sheep upon the habitat of 
the Lanai tree snails in this final rule (see TABLE 4-SUMMARY OF 
PRIMARY THREATS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH OF THE 40 MAUI NUI SPECIES and 
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates,'' 
below).
Comments From the State of Hawaii
    (13) Comment: The Hawaii Department of Health stated that they had 
no comments on the proposed rule but reserved the right to future 
comments. In addition, their letter directed us to their Standard 
Comments on their Web site (https://www.hawaii.gov/health/environmental/env-planning/landuse/landuse.html) and stated that any comments 
specifically applicable to our proposed rule should be adhered to.
    Our Response: We reviewed the Department of Health's Web site, and 
specifically the Landuse Planning Review Program, and determined that 
the Standard Comments referred to above do not apply to our June 11, 
2012, proposed rulemaking or to this final rule. Standard Comments 
provided by the seven environmental programs (Hazard Evaluation and 
Emergency Response Office, Clean Air Branch, Clean Water Branch, Safe 
Drinking Water Branch, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, Wastewater 
Branch, and Indoor and Radiological Health Branch) within the Hawaii 
Department of Health are intended to help developers to better prepare 
land use planning documents such as environmental assessments, 
environmental impact statements, or permit applications.
Comments From Federal Agencies
    Haleakala National Park (Park) provided information on one or more 
of the 37 plant species addressed in this final rule which occur in the 
Park, and this information was incorporated, as appropriate, into 
Description of the 40 Maui Nui Species, above.
    (14) Comment: Kalaupapa National Historical Park (KNHP) agreed with 
and supported the ecosystem-based approach in our June 11, 2012, 
proposed rule, for grouping plants and defining their habitat 
consistently. According to KNHP, this approach will aid the management 
of endangered and threatened plants as part of the collection of native 
communities across the landscape. Descriptions of individual listed 
species, habitat, and threats will be a good resource to managers and 
will serve as a basis for planning future conservation measures. The 
proposed listing of the ``rarest of the rare'' PEPP [Plant Extinction 
Prevention Program] species will provide a benefit to the National Park 
Service by improving their ability to gain funds for the protection, 
propagation, and outplanting of these rare plants. Improved funding 
will help with KNHP's ongoing collaboration with partners, including 
the Molokai Plant Extinction Prevention Program and The Nature 
Conservancy.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Park's comments regarding the 
proposal to list the 38 Maui Nui species and to reevaluate the listing 
of 2 species. We agree that using an ecosystem-based approach to 
organize this rule will help provide for more focused conservation 
efforts and concerted management efforts to address the common threats 
that occur across these ecosystems.
Public Comments on the Proposed Listing of 38 Species and Reevaluation 
of Listing of 2 Species
    (15) Comment: One commenter stated that much of the referenced 
material is not available for public review. The commenter further 
stated that reliance on certain ``unpublished, non-public data deprives 
the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the basis for 
the Service's asserted justification in the proposed rule.'' According 
to the commenter, ``such action is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse 
of the Service's discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, in 
excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and short 
of statutory right, without observance of procedure required by law; 
and unsupported by substantial evidence.''
    Our Response: See also Comment (1) Response, above. Complete lists 
of references, including unpublished information, cited in the proposed 
rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and in this final rule are available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2011-0098, and upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES, above). In addition, as stated in our proposed 
rule, all supporting documentation used in preparing the proposed rule 
was available upon request and for public inspection, by appointment, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office. All supporting documentation used in our rulemakings is a 
matter of public record; however, the number of sources referenced are 
often voluminous or subject to copyright restrictions. Therefore, it is 
not possible for us to post all information sources used on the 
Internet. However, any of our supporting references cited in this or 
any rulemaking are always available upon request.
    (16) Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed listing of the 
two Lanai tree snails, Partulina semicarinata and Partulina variabilis, 
because, in their view, the Service does not have sufficient 
information regarding the historical population estimates and the lack 
of comprehensive surveys. The commenter disagreed with our 
determination in the proposed rule that these tree snails are 
``vulnerable to extinction due to threats associated with low number of 
individuals and populations'' (77 FR 34507; June 11, 2012).
    Our Response: Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of five 
factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 40 Maui Nui Species, 
below), and we are required to make listing determinations solely on 
the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data 
available (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)). The threats to the 
two Lanai tree snail species, as well as other endangered tree snails 
in the Hawaiian Islands, are well-documented (see Summary of Factors 
Affecting the 40 Maui Nui Species, below). Although there are no 
historical population estimates for these two tree snails, qualitative 
accounts of Hawaiian tree snails indicate they were widespread and 
abundant, possibly numbering in the tens of thousands between the 1800s 
and early 1900s (Hadfield 1986, p. 69). However, the best available 
survey

[[Page 32030]]

information, conducted between 1993 and 2005, indicates that currently 
Partulina semicarinata and Partulina variabilis total fewer than 120 
individuals on Lanai (Hadfield 2005, pp. 3-5). Based on the information 
regarding the current status of the species and ongoing threats to the 
remaining few individuals, we have determined that these species are 
presently in danger of extinction; definitive quantitative data 
regarding historical population numbers are not necessary to make this 
determination. The problems associated with small population size 
(e.g., inbreeding depression for snails) and vulnerability to random 
demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are magnified by 
synergistic interactions with other threats (e.g., predation by 
nonnative rats or habitat destruction or modification by nonnative 
ungulates). Therefore, we disagree with the commenter, and believe 
these two tree snail species are vulnerable to extinction due to their 
low number of individuals and populations.
    (17) Comment: Several commenters noted the threat of deer and goats 
to Canavalia pubescens throughout its range on Maui, with specific 
impacts to populations on the Palauea lava flow and Ahihi-Kinau. The 
commenters also recommended that fenced areas and regular monitoring 
are necessary to protect this species from the threat of ungulates in 
these areas.
    Our Response: We agree that deer and goats constitute a threat to 
the coastal and lowland dry ecosystems in which Canavalia pubescens is 
known to occur (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by 
Introduced Ungulates,'' below). In this final rule, we noted the 
destruction of Canavalia pubescens at Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve 
in 2010 (see Description of the 40 Maui Nui Species, above) and 
acknowledge the threat of herbivory by deer and goats on Canavalia 
pubescens (see ``Introduced Ungulates'' in Disease or Predation, 
below).
    (18) Comment: Several commenters noted the occurrence of Canavalia 
pubescens or awikiwiki on lands owned by Honuaula Partners.
    Our Response: We appreciate this information and note that 
information in our files indicates that Canavalia pubescens or 
awikiwiki occurs in this area.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public on the proposed listing for 38 species and 
reevaluation of listing for 2 species. This final rule incorporates the 
following substantive changes to our proposed listing, based on the 
comments we received:
    (1) We added the montane mesic ecosystem to the listed plant 
Phyllostegia haliakalae in the following locations in this final rule: 
Description of the 40 Maui Nui Species (above), Table 3 (above), and 
Table 4 (below), based on comments we received.
    (2) We are revising the specific negative impacts of the nonnative 
plant Blechnum appendiculatum as follows, based on peer review 
comments:
    Blechnum appendiculatum (NCN) is a fern with fronds to 23 in (60 
cm) long that forms large colonies, outcompeting many native fern 
species (Palmer 2003, p. 81). This species is far more drought tolerant 
than native fern species. It forms thick mats that prevent regeneration 
from seeds of native species, and appears to successfully outcompete 
native ferns. All of these attributes compound the effects of the 
presence of this nonnative fern on native habitat (Weller et al. 2011, 
pp. 676-677).
    (3) We added drought as a threat to the listed plants Canavalia 
pubescens and Schiedea salicaria in the following locations in this 
final rule: Table 4 and ``Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to 
Landslides, Rockfalls, Treefalls, Flooding, and Drought,'' below, based 
on comments we received.

Status Assessment for the 40 Maui Nui Species

Summary of Factors Affecting the 40 Maui Nui Species

    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 a 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 listed as endangered or threatened. 
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 40 Maui Nui species are 
summarized in Table 4, and discussed in detail below.

Assumptions

    We acknowledge that the specific nature of the threats to the 
individual species in this final rule are not completely understood. 
Scientific research directed toward each of the 40 species 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 occurs in Hawaiian ecosystems suffers from exposure 
to those threats. 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 occurs in those ecosystems (although in 
some cases we have additionally identified species-specific threats, 
such as predation by nonnative invertebrates).

[[Page 32031]]

    The following constitutes a list of ecosystem-level threats that 
affect the 40 species in 10 ecosystems on the islands of Maui Nui:
    (1) Foraging and trampling of native plants by ungulates, including 
feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats, cattle (Bos taurus), axis deer (Axis 
axis), 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) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs from rooting, which can 
create fertile seedbeds for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 
65).
    (3) Increased nutrient availability as a result of pigs rooting in 
nitrogen-poor soils, which facilitates establishment of alien weeds. 
Alien weeds are more adapted to nutrient rich soils than native plants 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63), and rooting activity creates open 
areas in forests allowing alien species to completely replace native 
stands.
    (4) Ungulate destruction of seeds and seedlings of native plant 
species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63), which facilitates the 
conversion of disturbed areas from native to nonnative vegetative 
communities.
    (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 4.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 32032]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.001


[[Page 32033]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.002


[[Page 32034]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.003


[[Page 32035]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.004


[[Page 32036]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.005


[[Page 32037]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.006


[[Page 32038]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.007


[[Page 32039]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.008


[[Page 32040]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MY13.009

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 32041]]

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. 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. 1999l, pp. 3-6). For 
example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and Cole 1974, p. 29) notes ``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., 
Calamagrostis hillebrandii) are particularly vulnerable to changes 
(from nonnative species, hurricanes, fire, and climate change) in their 
habitat (Carlquist and Cole 1974, pp. 28-29; Loope 1992, pp. 3-6; Stone 
1989, pp. 88-95).
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), 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). In addition, Hawaii's 
population increased almost 7 percent in the past 10 years, further 
increasing demands on limited land and water resources in the islands 
(Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 2010).
    Development and urbanization of coastal and lowland dry ecosystems 
on Maui are a serious threat to one species in this final rule, 
Canavalia pubescens, which is dependent on these ecosystems and is 
currently found only in east Maui. Two individuals at Palauea-Keahou 
were destroyed by development prior to 2001 (Oppenheimer 2000, in 
litt.). Future development plans for this area include a golf course 
and associated infrastructure, and housing (Altenberg 2007, p. 2-5; 
Greenlee 2013, in litt.). Although fewer than 20 individuals were known 
in this area as recently as 2010, no individuals have been found in 
site visits over the last 2 years (Altenberg 2010, in litt.; Greenlee 
2013, in litt.).
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, pp. 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 Molokai, Lanai, 
and Maui. Ten ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland 
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, dry cliff, and 
wet cliff) on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui and their associated species are 
currently impacted by threats of the destruction or degradation of 
habitat due to nonnative ungulates (hoofed mammals), including pigs, 
goats, axis deer, mouflon, and cattle. Thirty-five of the 37 plant 
species and both species of Partulina tree snails (Partulina 
semicarinata and P. variabilis) in this final rule are exposed to 
direct and indirect negative impacts of feral ungulates (pigs, goats, 
axis deer, mouflon, and cattle), which result in the destruction and 
degradation of habitat for these native Maui Nui species (Table 4).
    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 in Hawaii (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 square (sq)-yards (yd) per minute, with 
only 4 hours of foraging a day, a single pig could disturb over 1,600 
sq-yd 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, 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. 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). Ten of the Maui 
Nui ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, 
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, dry cliff, and wet 
cliff) and their associated species are adversely impacted by the 
destruction or

[[Page 32042]]

degradation of habitat due to pigs (see Table 4, above).
    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, they still occupy a wide variety of habitats on 
Molokai and Maui and to a lesser degree on Lanai, 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 2010, 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). Nine of the described ecosystems on Molokai, Lanai, 
and Maui (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane 
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) and their 
associated species are adversely impacted by the destruction or 
degradation of habitat due to goats (see Table 4, above).
    Axis deer 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). On Molokai, axis deer 
have likely spread throughout the island at all elevations (from the 
coast to the summit area at 4,961 ft (1,512 m)) (Kessler 2011, pers. 
comm.). The most current population estimate of axis deer on Molokai is 
between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals (Anderson 2003, p. 130). It is 
likely this is an underestimate of the total number of individuals as 
it was published almost a decade ago, and little management for deer 
control has been implemented. On Lanai, as of 2007, axis deer were 
reported to number approximately 6,000 to 8,000 individuals (The Aloha 
Insider 2008, in litt.; WCities 2010, in litt.). On Maui, five adults 
were released east of Kihei in 1959 (Hobdy 1993, p. 207; Hess 2008, p. 
2). By 1968, the population was estimated to be 85 to 90 animals, and 
by 1995, there were over 500 individuals on Ulupalakua Ranch alone 
(Erdman 1996, pers. comm. cited in Waring 1996, in litt., p. 2). As of 
2001, there was concern that their numbers on Maui could expand to 
between 15,000 to 20,000 or more individuals within a few years 
(Anderson 2001, in litt.; Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). According to 
Medeiros (2010a, pers. comm.) axis deer can be found in all but the 
uppermost ecosystems (subalpine and alpine) and montane bogs on Maui. 
Medeiros (2010a, pers. comm.) also observed that axis deer are 
increasing at such high rates on Maui that native forests are changing 
in unprecedented ways. According to Medeiros (2010a, pers. comm.), 
native plants will only survive in habitat that is fenced or otherwise 
protected from the grazing and trampling effects of axis deer. Kessler 
(2010, pers. comm.) and Hess (2010, pers. comm.) report axis deer up to 
9,000 ft (2,743 m) in elevation on Maui, and Kessler suggests that no 
ecosystem is safe from the negative impacts of these animals. Montane 
bogs are also susceptible to impacts from axis deer. As the native 
vegetation dies off from the combined effects of grazing and trampling 
by axis deer, the soil dries out, and invasive nonnative plants gain a 
foothold. Eventually, the bog habitat and its associated native plants 
and animals are replaced by a grassland, shrubland, or forest habitat 
dominated by nonnative plants.
    Axis deer are primarily grazers, but also browse numerous palatable 
plant species including those grown as commercial crops (Waring 1996, 
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 2010a, 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 dislodging stones from ledges 
that can cause rockfalls and landslides and damage vegetation below 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63-64). Browsing and trampling by axis 
deer also removes vegetation surrounding the host trees of the two 
Lanai tree snails so that dispersal of snails between host substrates 
is either prevented or greatly reduced (Duvall 2012, in litt.). Nine of 
the described Maui Nui ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, 
lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and 
wet cliff) and their associated species are adversely impacted by the 
destruction or degradation of habitat due to axis deer (see Table 4, 
above).
    The mouflon sheep, 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). 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 hunted as a game animal (Hess 2008, p. 3). 
Mouflon only form large groups when breeding, thus limiting control 
techniques and hunting efficiency (Hess 2008, p. 3). Mouflon sheep 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). In range 
studies done on the effects of mouflon grazing and browsing on the 
island of Hawaii, plant species found to be most affected were 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense (ahinahina), an endangered 
species; Acacia koa; Geranium spp. (nohoanu or hinahina); Sophora 
chrysophylla; Vaccinium spp. (ohelo); and native grasses (Giffin 1981, 
pp. 22-23; Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, pp. 628-662; 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 leads to a 
change from native rainforest to grassy scrublands (Hess 2008, p. 3). 
Duvall (2012, in litt.) reports that mouflon sheep browsing and 
trampling removes vegetation surrounding host trees of the two Lanai 
tree snails, thus reducing or preventing snail dispersal between host 
trees. Seven of the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland 
mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Lanai and 
their associated species are adversely impacted by the destruction or 
degradation of habitat due to mouflon sheep (see Table 4, above).
    Cattle, the wild ancestors 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

[[Page 32043]]

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 
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. According to 
Kessler (2011, pers. comm.), there are approximately 300 individuals 
roaming east Maui up to the alpine ecosystem (i.e., 1,000 to 9,900 ft 
(305 to 3,000 m) elevation) with occasional observations on west Maui. 
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). Five of the described 
ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and 
montane wet) on Maui and their associated species are adversely 
impacted by the destruction or degradation of habitat due to feral 
cattle (see Table 4, above).
    In summary, 37 of the 40 species dependent upon the 10 ecosystems 
identified in this final rule (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, 
lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, dry 
cliff, and wet cliff) are exposed to both direct and indirect negative 
impacts of feral ungulates (pigs, goats, axis deer, mouflon, and 
cattle). These negative impacts result in the destruction and 
degradation of habitat for these 37 native species on Molokai, Lanai, 
and Maui. The effects of these nonnative animals include the 
destruction of vegetative cover; trampling of plants and seedlings; 
direct consumption of native vegetation; soil disturbance; dispersal of 
alien plant seeds on hooves and coats, and through the spread of seeds 
in feces; 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. 
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, close 
to 70 species have altered the habitat of 36 of the 40 species in this 
final rule (only Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Schiedea jacobii, Partulina 
semicarinata, and P. variabilis are not directly impacted by nonnative 
plants; see Table 4). 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 adversely impact native habitat in Hawaii, 
including the 10 Maui Nui ecosystems that support the 40 species 
identified in this final rule, and directly adversely impact 36 of 
these species, by: (1) Modifying the availability of light; (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). 
Nonnative plants (and animals) have contributed to the extinction of 
native species in the lowlands of Hawaii and have been a primary cause 
of extinction in upland habitats (Vitousek et al. 1987, in Cuddihy and 
Stone 1990, p. 74). The most-often cited effects of nonnative plants on 
native plant species are displacement through competition. Competition 
may be for water or nutrients, or it may involve allelopathy (chemical 
inhibition of other plants) (Smith 1985, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 
74). 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 in Cuddihy and Stone 
1990, p. 74).
    Alteration of fire regimes clearly represents an ecosystem-level 
change caused by the invasion of nonnative grasses (D'Antonio and 
Viousek 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 Viousek 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 Viousek 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 Viousek 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 Viousek 1992, p. 73). Grass 
canopies also support a microclimate in which surface temperatures are 
hotter, vapor

[[Page 32044]]

pressure deficits are larger, and the drying of tissues occurs more 
rapidly than in forest or woodlands (D'Antonio and Viousek 1992, p. 
73). Thus, conditions that favor fires are much more frequent in 
grasslands (D'Antonio and Viousek 1992, p. 73). In summary, nonnative 
plants directly and indirectly affect 36 of the 40 species in this 
final rule by modifying or destroying their terrestrial habitat. Please 
refer to the proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) for a list of 
nonnative plants and a discussion of their specific negative effects on 
the 36 affected Maui Nui species.
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 of 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 13 native plant species found in the 
coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, montane dry, montane mesic, and 
dry cliff ecosystems addressed in this final rule: Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea magnicalyx, C. mauiensis, 
C. obtusa, Festuca molokaiensis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, 
Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, Schiedea salicaria, and Stenogyne kauaulaensis (see Table 
4). 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. Drought-tolerant grasses and ferns, particularly 
those that produce mats of dry material or retain a mass of standing 
dead leaves (e.g., Pennisetum setaceum, Blechnum appendiculatum) invade 
native forests and shrublands and 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; Weller et al. 2011, pp. 676-677; 
Weller 2012, in litt.). Other nonnative plants such as Clidemia hirta 
and pines (Pinus spp.) rapidly outcompete native plants and dominate 
areas opened by fire (Weller 2012, in litt.). Native woody plants may 
recover from fire to some degree, but fire shifts the competitive 
balance toward alien species (National Park Service 1989, in Cuddihy 
and Stone 1990, p. 93). On a post-burn survey at Puuwaawaa on the 
island of Hawaii, an area of native Diospyros forest with undergrowth 
of the nonnative grass Pennisetum setaceum, Takeuchi noted 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 which 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 
their habitat (Gima 1998, in litt.; Pacific Disaster Center 2011; 
Hamilton 2009, in litt.; Honolulu Advertiser, 2010). The islands of 
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe have experienced 1,291 brush fires 
between the years 1972 and 1999 that burned a total of 64,248 ac 
(26,000 ha) (Pacific Disaster Center 2011; County of Maui 2009, Chapter 
3, p. 3). Between 2000 and 2003, the annual number of wildfires on 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui jumped from 118 to 271, many of which each 
consumed more than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) (Pacific Disaster Center 2011).
    During the summer of 1998, a raging fire that began in Kaunakakai 
consumed over 15,000 ac (6,070 ha) on Molokai, including a portion of 
the Molokai Forest Reserve, consuming roughly 10 percent of the entire 
island (Gima 1998, in litt.). Molokai experienced three 10,000 ac 
(4,047 ha) wildfires between the years 2003 and 2004 (Pacific Disaster 
Center 2011). In late August through early September 2009, a massive 
wildfire burned for days and consumed approximately 8,000 ac (3,237 
ha), including 600 ac (243 ha) of the remote Makakupaia section of the 
Molokai Forest Reserve, a small portion of TNC's Kamakou Preserve, and 
encroached upon Onini Gulch, Kalamaula and Kawela (Hamilton 2009, in 
litt.). Three species reported from Molokai's coastal and lowland mesic 
ecosystems (Festuca molokaiensis, Phyllostegia haliakalae, and 
Pittosporum halophilum) are at risk of negative impacts by fire because 
individuals of these species or their habitat are located in or near 
areas that were burned in previous fires.
    The island of Lanai has experienced several wildfires in the last 
decade. In 2006, a wildfire burned 600 ac (243 ha) between Manele Road 
and the Palawai basin (2.5 mi (4 km) south of Lanai City) (The Maui 
News 2006, in litt.). In 2007, a brush fire occurred in the Mahana 
area, burning an estimated 30 ac (12 ha),

[[Page 32045]]

and in 2008, another 1,000 ac (405 ha) were burned by wildfire in the 
Palawai basin (The Maui News 2007, in litt.; KITV Honolulu 2008, in 
litt.). All known individuals of Pleomele fernaldii lie just southeast 
of the area burned during the Mahana fire and east of the Palawai basin 
fires. Many of these individuals could be decimated by one large fire.
    Between the years 2007 and 2010, wildfires burned more than 8,650 
ac (3,501 ha) on west Maui (Shimogawa 2010, in litt.; Honolulu 
Advertiser 2010, in litt.). In 2007, a fire that started along 
Honoapiilani Highway on the south coast of west Maui burned a total of 
1,350 ac (546 ha), encroached into the West Maui Natural Area Reserve 
(Panaewa section), and placed at risk Phyllostegia bracteata and 
Schiedea salicaria (HDLNR 1989, pp. 53-63; KITV 2007, in litt.). In May 
2010, another fire occurred farther south along the same highway, moved 
up the ridges of Olowalu, and eventually encompassed 1,100 ac (445 ha). 
Later the same year, a fire that started at Maalaea initially destroyed 
200 ac (81 ha), and because of strong winds and drought conditions, 
continued to burn for 8 days, moved up Kealaloloa and nearby ridges, 
and encompassed a total of 6,200 ac (2,509 ha). This fire is on record 
as the largest brush fire that has occurred on Maui. Nine species 
reported from Maui's lowland dry, lowland mesic, montane dry, montane 
mesic, and dry cliff ecosystems (Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea magnicalyx, C. mauiensis, C. obtusa, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea 
salicaria, and Stenogyne kauaulaensis) are adversely impacted by fire 
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 the presence of highly flammable nonnative grasses and pine 
trees.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes
    Hurricanes adversely impact native Hawaiian terrestrial habitat, 
including each of the 10 Maui Nui ecosystems addressed here and their 
associated species identified in this final rule. 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,'' in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464)) 
(Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 539-
540). Canopy gaps allow for the establishment of nonnative plant 
species, which may be present as plants or as seeds incapable of 
growing under shaded conditions. Because many Hawaiian plant and animal 
species, including the 40 species in this final rule, persist in low 
numbers and in restricted ranges, natural disasters, such as 
hurricanes, can be particularly devastating (Mitchell et al. 2005, 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 miles 
per hour (mph) (161 kilometers per hour (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). Historically (prior 
to the introduction of nonnative, invasive plants to the Hawaiian 
Islands), it is likely that areas affected by hurricanes would 
eventually have been repopulated by native plants. However, any area 
affected by hurricanes will likely be invaded by nonnative plants as 
nonnative plants are present in all ecosystems throughout the Hawaiian 
Islands and competition with nonnative plants is exacerbated by 
hurricanes. Therefore, hurricanes represent a threat to each of the 10 
ecosystems and to all of the 37 plant species addressed in this final 
rule. In addition, biologists have reported that hurricanes are a 
threat to the three tree snails in this final rule (Newcombia cumingi, 
Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis). High winds and intense 
rains from hurricanes can dislodge snails from the leaves and branches 
of their host plants and deposit them on the forest floor where they 
may be crushed by falling vegetation or exposed to predation by 
nonnative rats and snails (see Disease or Predation, below) (Hadfield 
2011, pers. comm.). 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 Maui Nui ecosystems (Bellingham et al. 2005, p. 
681).
Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Landslides, Rockfalls, 
Treefalls, Flooding, and Drought
    Landslides, rockfalls, treefalls, and flooding destabilize 
substrates, damage and destroy individual plants, and alter 
hydrological patterns, which 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. 1999b; adapted from 
Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980)), pp. 38 and 39). 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. 1999b; adapted from Price 
(1983) and Carlquist (1980)), pp. 38-39). Due to the steep topography 
of much of the areas on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui where these 40 species 
remain, erosion and disturbance caused by introduced ungulates 
exacerbate the potential for landslides, rockfalls, or flooding, which 
in turn negatively impact native plants. For those species that occur 
in small numbers in highly restricted geographic areas, such events 
have the potential to eradicate all individuals of a population, or 
even all populations of a species, resulting in extinction.
    Landslides, rockfalls, and treefalls likely adversely impact 14 of 
the species addressed in this proposed rule, including Cyanea 
asplenifolia, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, 
C. maritae, C. mauiensis, C. munroi, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Cyrtandra filipes, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, 
and Wikstroemia villosa, as documented in observations by field 
botanists and surveyors (HBMP 2008). Monitoring data from PEPP and the 
HBMP suggest that these 14 species face threats from landslides or 
falling rocks, as they are found in landscape settings susceptible to 
these events (e.g., steep slopes and cliffs). Field survey data 
presented by Oppenheimer documented the direct damage from landslides 
to individuals of Cyanea solanacea located along a stream bank and 
steep slope beneath a cliff (PEPP 2007, p. 41). Since C. solanacea is 
known from a total of 26 individuals in steep-walled stream valleys, 
one or several landslides could lead to near extirpation of the species 
by direct destruction of the individual plants, mechanical damage to 
individual plants that could lead to their death, destabilization of 
the cliff

[[Page 32046]]

habitat leading to additional landslides, and alteration of 
hydrological patterns (e.g., affecting the availability of soil 
moisture). In addition, Perlman (2009b, in litt.) noted the threat of 
rolling or falling rocks to one population of Cyanea magnicalyx.
    Monitoring data presented by HBMP and the PEPP program suggest that 
flooding is a likely threat to five plant species included in this 
final rule, Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea duvalliorum, 
C. horrida, C. profuga, and Schiedea laui. Field survey data presented 
by PEPP (2008, pp. 107-108) and by Bakutis (2010, in litt.) suggest 
that catastrophic flooding or landslides are possible at one population 
of Schiedea laui located in a cave along a narrow stream corridor at 
the base of a waterfall in the Kamakou Preserve.
    Six plant species, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea horrida, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Schiedea jacobii, S. salicaria, and Stenogyne 
kauaulaensis, and the three tree snails in this rule may be affected by 
habitat loss or degradation associated with droughts, which are not 
uncommon in the Hawaiian Islands. Between 1860 and 2006, there have 
been 30 periods of Statewide drought that have also affected the 
islands of Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (Giambelluca et al. 1991, pp. 3-4; 
Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management 2009a and 2009b). In 
2006, Maui County was designated a primary disaster area because of a 
severe drought from April to September 2006 (Pacific Disaster Center, 
2010). More recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated 
Maui County as a primary natural disaster area due to losses caused by 
an ongoing drought, beginning January 1, 2012 (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA, accessed January 17, 2013). It is suggested that Festuca 
molokaiensis, a purported annual plant, has not been observed at its 
known location in recent years due to drought conditions on Molokai 
(Oppenheimer 2011, pers. comm.). Drought also leads to an increase in 
the number of forest and brush fires (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v), 
causing a reduction of native plant cover and habitat (D'Antonio and 
Vitousek 1992, pp. 77-79) and a reduction in availability of host 
plants for the three tree snails. Recent episodes of drought have also 
driven axis deer farther into urban and forested areas for food, 
increasing their negative impacts to native vegetation from herbivory 
and trampling (see Disease or Predation, below) (Waring 1996, in litt., 
p. 5; Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Endangered Species 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 (IPCC 2007, p. 78). 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 (IPCC 
2007, p. 78). 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 10 Maui Nui ecosystems described in this final rule, or the 40 
species at issue in this rule. Based on the best available information, 
climate change impacts could lead to the decline or loss of native 
species that comprise the communities in which the 40 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 (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). 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 40 species in this final rule 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). The 
probability of a species going extinct as a result of these factors 
increases when its range is restricted, habitat decreases, and 
population numbers decline (IPCC 2007, p. 8). The 40 species have 
limited environmental tolerances, limited ranges, restricted habitat 
requirements, small population sizes, and low numbers of individuals. 
Therefore, we would expect these species to be particularly vulnerable 
to projected environmental impacts that may result from changes in 
climate, and subsequent impacts to their habitats (e.g., Pounds et al. 
1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 
14,246-14,248). We believe changes in environmental conditions that may 
result from climate change may impact these 40 species and their 
habitat, and we do not anticipate a reduction in this potential threat 
in the near future.
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 [deg]Centigrade 
(C)) with a range of 2.7 [deg]F to 6.7 [deg]F (1.5 [deg]C to 3.7 
[deg]C) by 2100 worldwide (IPCC 2007). These changes would increase the 
monthly average temperature of the Hawaiian Islands from the current 
value of 74 [deg]F (23.3 [deg]C) to between 77 [deg]F to 86 [deg]F (25 
[deg]C to 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 [deg]F; 0.09 [deg]C) per decade is 
below the observed global temperature rise of 0.32 [deg]F (0.18 [deg]C) 
per decade (IPCC 2007). However, at high elevations, the rate of 
increase (0.48 [deg]F

[[Page 32047]]

(0.27 [deg]C) per decade) greatly exceeds the global rate (IPCC 2007).
    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). 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).
    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 2007; Marshall et al. 2008, p. 273; U.S. 
Climate Change Science Program 2008; Flannigan et al. 2009, p. 483; US-
GCRP 2009; 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 2007; 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).
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; US-GCRP 
2009). 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; 
US-GCRP 2009). Over the the past 100 years, the Hawaiian Islands have 
experienced an overall decline in annual precipitation of just over 9 
percent (US-NSTC 2008). Other data on precipitation in Hawaii, which 
includes 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 2007). 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). 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 (such as nonnative 
grasses adapted to fire), fire, and erosion (US-GCRP 2009; Warren 2011, 
pp. 221-226) (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' 
above). These impacts may negatively affect the 40 species in this 
final 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 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 with 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 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. For more 
information on this topic, see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification 
by Hurricanes,'' above.
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). Sea level rose at an average rate of 0.1 in 
(1.8 mm) per year between 1961 and 2003 (IPCC 2007, p. 5), 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 
2007, p. 13). 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,

[[Page 32048]]

pp. 368-370; Pfeffer et al. 2008, p. 1,340; Fletcher 2009, p. 7; US-
GCRP 2009, p. 18). There is no specific information available on how 
sea level rise and coastal inundation will impact the coastal 
ecosystems on Maui and Molokai where two of the species in this rule, 
Canavalia pubescens and Pittosporum halophilum, are currently found.
    Increased interannual variability of ambient temperature, 
precipitation, hurricanes, and sea level rise and inundation would 
provide additional stresses on the 10 ecosystems and each of the 
associated 40 species in this final 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, p. 8). The 40 species have 
limited environmental tolerances, ranges, restricted habitat 
requirements, small population sizes, and low numbers of individuals. 
Therefore, we would expect these 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 these 40 species, and we 
do not anticipate a reduction in this potential threat in the near 
future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    There are no approved habitat conservation plans (HCPs), safe 
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements (CCAs) 
that specifically address these 40 species and threats from habitat 
destruction or modification. We are aware of several memoranda of 
understanding (MOUs) that are under development that will specifically 
address one or more of these 40 species and the threats from habitat 
destruction or modification. We acknowledge that in the State of Hawaii 
there are several voluntary conservation efforts that may be helping to 
ameliorate the threats to the 40 species addressed in this final rule 
due to habitat destruction and modification by nonnative species, fire, 
natural disasters, and climate change, and the interaction of these 
threats. However, these efforts are overwhelmed by the number of 
threats, the extent of these threats across the landscape, and the lack 
of sufficient resources (e.g., funding) to control or eradicate them 
from all areas where these 40 species occur now or occurred 
historically. Some of the voluntary conservation efforts include the 11 
island-based watershed partnerships, including the 4 partnerships in 
Maui Nui (West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership, East Maui 
Watershed Partnership, East Molokai Watershed Partnership, and Lanai 
Forest and Watershed Partnership). These partnerships are voluntary 
alliances of public and private landowners ``committed to the common 
value of protecting forested watersheds for water recharge, 
conservation, and other ecosystem services through collaborative 
management'' (https://hawp.org/partnerships). Most of the ongoing 
conservation management actions undertaken by the watershed 
partnerships address threats to upland habitat from nonnative species 
(e.g., feral ungulates, nonnative plants) and may include fencing, 
ungulate removal, nonnative plant control, and outplanting of native, 
as well as rare native, species on lands within the partnership. 
Funding for the watershed partnerships is provided through a variety of 
State and Federal sources, public and private grants, and in-kind 
services provided by the partners or volunteers.
    The State of Hawaii's Plant Extinction Prevention (PEP) Program 
supports conservation of plant species by securing seeds or cuttings 
(with permission from the State, Federal, or private landowners) from 
the rarest and most critically endangered native species for 
propagation and outplanting (https://pepphi.org). The PEP Program 
focusses on species that have fewer than 50 plants remaining in the 
wild. Funding for this program is from the State of Hawaii, Federal 
agencies (e.g., Service), and public and private grants. The PEP 
Program collects, propagates, or outplants 14 plant species that are 
addressed in this final rule (Cyanea asplenifolia, C. horrida, C. 
magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. munroi, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Schiedea 
jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa) PEPP 
2011, pp. 75, 166, 191; PEPP 2012, pp. 6, 13, 34-36, 66-70, 73-81, 150, 
159-160). However, the program has not yet been able to directly 
address broad-scale habitat threats to plants by invasive species.
    The State's University of Hawaii receives funding from the Service 
and other sources to propagate and maintain in captivity the two Lanai 
tree snails, Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis, and Newcomb's 
tree snail (Newcombia cumingi). However, the numbers of individuals of 
both Lanai tree snail species appear to be declining in captivity, and 
individuals of Newcomb's tree snail do not survive long in captivity 
(Hadfield 2008, p. 1-11; Hadfield 2010, pers. comm.; Hadfield 2011, 
pers. comm.). This program does not address broad-scale threats to tree 
snail habitat by invasive species. Recently (August 2012), the Service 
and Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), entered into a cooperative 
agreement to provide funding for the construction of a fenced snail 
exclosure at the only known site for Newcomb's tree snail (Service 
2012, in litt.). The purpose of the fenced exclosure is to protect 
individuals of this tree snail in-situ from predation by rodents (e.g., 
rats and mice) and predatory nonnative snails. In addition, restoration 
of snail habitat will be undertaken as funding is available. 
Construction of the fenced exclosure has not yet been inititated.
    Voluntary conservation actions undertaken by The Nature Conservancy 
of Hawaii (TNC) on their preserves on Maui (Kapunakea Preserve and 
Waikamoi Preserve), and two of their preserves on Molokai (Kamakou 
Preserve and Moomomi Preserve), by the Maui Land and Pineapple Company 
on their Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve on west Maui, by Ulupalakua Ranch 
and Haleakala Ranch on their lands on Maui, and by East Maui Irrigation 
Company, Ltd., are described in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 
34464). These conservation actions provide a conservation benefit and 
ameliorate some of the threats from nonnative species to one or more of 
the 36 plants (not Cyanea mauiensis) and 3 tree snails addressed in 
this final rule.
    In addition, other private landowners on Maui are engaged in, or 
initiating, voluntary conservation actions on their lands, including 
fencing to exclude ungulates, removing ungulates, controlling nonnative 
plants, and outplanting native and rare plants. These private 
landowners include Kaanapali Land Development Company (in cooperation 
with TNC), Nuu Mauka Ranch, Kaupo Ranch, Makila Land Company, Kahoma 
Land Company, and Wailuku Water Company. All of these landowners are 
partners in one of the watershed partnerships on Maui, or cooperate or 
work collaboratively with watershed partners. The conservation actions 
provided by these landowners ameliorate some of the threats from 
nonnative species to one or more of the

[[Page 32049]]

36 plants (not Cyanea mauiensis) and 3 tree snails addressed in this 
final rule.
    In addition to the the voluntary conservation efforts of TNC on 
Molokai (see above), we are aware of voluntary conservation efforts by 
Puu o Hoku Ranch associated with the safe harbor agreement (SHA) for 
the nene or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis). Although the SHA does 
not provide specific management actions for the conservation of one or 
more of the 11 species on Molokai addressed in this final rule, some 
habitat conservation measures (e.g., enhancement of native plant 
species) that may be undertaken by the ranch may benefit these species 
and their habitat.
    Recently, the private landowners of the island of Lanai (Lanai 
Resorts and Castle & Cooke Properties, Inc. (CCPI)) began development 
of an island-wide conservation plan. This plan, when completed and 
implemented, should provide landscape-scale management that will 
benefit the unique native species and their habitats on the entire 
island of Lanai. The plan should help ameliorate the primary threats 
to, and needed recovery actions for, the seven species (five plants and 
two tree snails) addressed in this final rule and Lanai's already 
listed species and their habitat, including: Control of nonnative 
species (including ungulates), in-situ protection of tree snails, 
implementation of immediate protective intervention efforts for rare 
plants, and restoration of terrestrial habitat for plants and animals.
Summary of Habitat Destruction and Modification
    The threats to the habitats of each of the 40 species in this final 
rule are occurring 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, and climate 
change, and the interaction of these threats. While the conservation 
measures described above are a step in the right direction toward 
addressing the threats to the 40 species, due to the pervasive and 
expansive nature of the threats resulting in habitat degradation, these 
measures are insufficient across the landscape to eliminate these 
threats to any of the 40 species in this final rule.
    Development and urbanization of coastal and lowland dry habitat on 
Maui represents a serious and ongoing threat to the remaining 
individuals of Canavalia pubescens remaining at Palauea-Keahou.
    The effects from ungulates are ongoing because ungulates currently 
occur in the 10 ecosystems that support the 40 species in this rule. 
The threat posed by introduced ungulates to the species and their 
habitats in this final rule that occur in these 10 ecosystems (see 
Table 4) is serious, because they cause: (1) Trampling and grazing that 
directly impact the plant communities, which include 35 of the 37 plant 
species listed in this final rule, and impact host plants used by the 
two Lanai tree snails, Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis, for 
foraging, shelter, and reproduction; (2) increased soil disturbance, 
leading to mechanical damage to individuals of the plant species listed 
in this final rule, and plants used by the two tree snails for 
foraging, shelter, and reproduction; and (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). These threats 
are expected to continue or increase without ungulate control or 
eradication.
    Nonnative plants represent a serious and ongoing threat to 36 of 
the 40 species listed in this final rule (35 plant species and the tree 
snail Newcombia cumingi; see Table 4) 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; and (5) outcompete, and possibly 
directly inhibit the growth of, native plant species. 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 35 of the 37 plant 
species addressed here, as well as the native plant species upon which 
Newcombia cumingi depends for essential life-history needs.
    The threat from fire to 13 of the 40 species in this final rule 
that depend on coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, montane dry, 
montane mesic, and dry cliff ecosystems (Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea magnicalyx, C. mauiensis, C. 
obtusa, Festuca molokaiensis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, 
Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiensis, Schiedea salicaria, and Stenogyne kauaulaensis; see Table 
4) 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.
    Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, represent a serious threat 
to the habitats of all 37 plant species addressed in this final rule 
because they open the forest canopy, modify available light, and create 
disturbed areas that are conducive to invasion by nonnative pest plants 
(Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 346-
347). The discussion under ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by 
Nonnative Plants,'' above provides additional information related to 
canopy gaps, light availability, and the establishment of nonnative 
plant species. In addition, hurricanes can negatively impact the three 
tree snail species in this final rule because strong winds and intense 
rainfall can dislodge individual snails from their host plants and 
deposit them on the ground where they may be crushed by falling debris 
or eaten by nonnative rats and snails. The impacts of hurricanes and 
other stochastic natural events can be particularly devastating to the 
40 species 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. 
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 can 
happen at any time, although their occurrence is not predictable.
    Landslides, rockfalls, treefalls, and flooding adversely impact the 
habitats of 16 of the species in this final rule (Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. duvalliorum, C. grimesiana 
ssp. grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. mauiensis, 
C. munroi, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Schiedea 
jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa; see 
Table 4) by

[[Page 32050]]

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 is a threat to six plant species--Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea 
horrida, Festuca molokaiensis, Schiedea jacobii, S. salicaria, and 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis--and all three tree snails--Newcombia cumingi, 
Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis--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 have the potential to occur at any time, 
although their occurrence is not predictable.
    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 40 species addressed 
in this final rule 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, 
increased competition from nonnative species, and changes in 
disturbance regimes (e.g., droughts, fire, storms, and hurricanes). 
Because the specific and cumulative effects of climate change on these 
40 species are presently unknown, we are not able to determine the 
severity of this possible threat with confidence.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
Plants
    We are not aware of any threats to the 37 plant species addressed 
in this final rule that are attributable to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Tree Snails
    Tree snails can be found around the world in tropical and 
subtropical regions and have been valued as collectibles for centuries. 
Evidence of tree snail trading among prehistoric Polynesians was 
discovered by a genetic characterization of the enigmatic multi-
archipelagic distribution of the Tahitian endemic Partula hyalina and 
related taxa (Lee et al. 2007, pp. 2,907, 2,910). In their study, Lee 
et al. (2007, pp. 2,908-2,910) found evidence that Partula hyalina had 
been traded as far away as Mangaia in the Southern Cook Islands, a 
distance of over 500 mi (805 km). The endemic Hawaiian tree snails 
within the family Achatinellidae (subfamily Achatinellinae) were 
extensively collected for scientific as well as recreational purposes 
by Europeans in the 18th to early 20th centuries (Hadfield 1986, p. 
322). During the 1800s, collectors observed 500 to 2,000 snails per 
tree, and sometimes collected over 4,000 snails in just several hours 
(Hadfield 1986, p. 322). We may infer that the repeated collections of 
hundreds to thousands of individuals at a time by early collectors 
resulted in decreased population sizes and reduction of reproduction 
potential due to the removal of potential breeding adults. The 
Achatinellinae do not reach reproductive age until nearly 10 years old, 
after which they produce only 4 to 6 offspring per year (Hadfield 2011, 
pers. comm.). The allure of tree snails persists to this day, and there 
is a market for rare tree snails that may serve as an incentive to 
collect them. A search of the Internet (e.g., eBay.com, google.com) 
reveals Web sites that offer Hawaiian tree snail shells for sale, 
including other species of the endemic Hawaiian tree snail genus 
Partulina. Based on the history of collection of endemic Hawaiian tree 
snails, the market for Hawaiian tree snail shells, and the 
vulnerability of the small populations of Newcombia cumingi, Partulina 
semicarinata, and P. variabilis to the negative impacts of any 
collection, we consider the potential overcollection of these three 
Hawaiian tree snails to pose a serious and ongoing threat, because it 
can occur at any time, although its occurrence is not predictable.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes
    We are unaware of voluntary conservation efforts to reduce 
overcollection of the three Hawaiian tree snails. There are no approved 
HCPs, SHAs, or MOUs, or other voluntary actions that specifically 
address these three species and the threat from overcollection.
Summary of Overutilization 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 any 
the 37 plant species in this final rule. We consider the three species 
of tree snails vulnerable to the impacts of overutilization due to 
collection for trade or market. Based on the history of collection of 
endemic Hawaiian tree snails, the market for Hawaiian tree snail 
shells, and the inherent vulnerability of the small populations of 
Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis to the 
removal of breeding adults, we consider collection to pose a serious 
and ongoing threat to these species.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease
    We are not aware of any threats to the 37 plant species addressed 
in this final rule that would be attributable to disease. Disease is a 
potential threat to the three tree snails in this rule, Newcombia 
cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis; evidence for this 
is based on attempts to raise these species in captivity. Due to the 
extremely low numbers and threat of extinction of Hawaiian tree snails 
in the wild, captive breeding of over 20 species has been implemented 
over the past decade. Hadfield (2010, pers. comm.) notes that 
individuals of Newcombia cumingi do not survive long in captivity, and 
individuals of Partulina spp. sometimes die off for unknown reasons 
(Hadfield 2011, pers. comm.). According to Hadfield (2011, pers. 
comm.), the London Zoo found evidence of protozoan presence in a non-
Hawaiian species of Partulina, which is indicative of disease. Hadfield 
(2011, pers. comm.) also suggests there is a negative correlation 
between reproductive potential in Hawaiian tree snails and time in 
captivity, likely due to inbreeding depression or environmental 
conditions, including disease.
    Because we have no evidence that disease may be impacting natural 
populations of the three tree snail species, we cannot conclude that 
this threat may have contributed to the current population status of 
Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis. However, 
we note that disease is a potential threat to captive bred Hawaiian 
tree snails and may be of particular concern for Newcombia cumingi, 
which is not successfully surviving or reproducing in captivity, 
potentially due to disease, and is only known from one individual in 
one location in the wild. Recovery of this species will likely depend 
on successful captive propagation and eventual translocation to 
protected sites in the wild.
Predation and Herbivory
    Hawaii's plants and animals evolved in nearly complete isolation 
from

[[Page 32051]]

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 
extant 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), 
introduced ungulates pose a threat to the following 35 of the 37 plant 
species in this final rule by trampling and eating individual plants 
(this information is also presented in Table 4): Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera (pigs, goats, and axis deer), B. campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis (pigs, goats, and axis deer), B. conjuncta (pigs and 
goats), Calamagrostis hillebrandii (pigs), Canavalia pubescens (pigs, 
goats, cattle, and axis deer), Cyanea asplenifolia (pigs, goats, 
cattle, and axis deer), C. duvalliorum (pigs), C. grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana (pigs, goats, and axis deer), C. horrida (pigs), C. 
kunthiana (pigs), C. magnicalyx (pigs), C. maritae (pigs), C. mauiensis 
(pigs), C. munroi (goats and axis deer), C. obtusa (pigs, goats, 
cattle, and axis deer), C. profuga (pigs and goats), C. solanacea (pigs 
and goats), Cyrtandra ferripilosa (pigs and goats), C. filipes (pigs, 
goats, and axis deer), C. oxybapha (pigs, goats, and cattle), Festuca 
molokaiensis (goats), Geranium hanaense (pigs), G. hillebrandii (pigs), 
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea (pigs and cattle), Myrsine vaccinioides 
(pigs), Peperomia subpetiolata (pigs), Phyllostegia bracteata (pigs and 
cattle), P. haliakalae (cattle), P. pilosa (pigs and goats), 
Pittosporum halophilum (pigs), Pleomele fernaldii (axis deer and 
mouflon), Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (pigs, goats, axis deer, 
and mouflon), Schiedea jacobii (goats, cattle, and axis deer), S. 
salicaria (goats, cattle, and axis deer), and Wikstroemia villosa 
(pigs).
    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). For example, 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 four of the 
plant species in this final rule, including Cyanea magnicalyx (PEPP 
2010, p. 49), C. maritae (PEPP 2010, p. 50), Peperomia subpetiolata 
(PEPP 2010, p. 97), and Phyllostegia pilosa (PEPP 2009, p. 93). As pigs 
occur in 10 ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland 
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, dry cliff, and 
wet cliff) on Molokai and Maui, the results of the studies described 
above suggest that pigs can also alter these ecosystems and directly 
damage or destroy native plants by their browsing activity.
    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 Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 
874). If goats are present at high numbers, mature 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 Acacia 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 on the island 
of Hawaii 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 (HDLNR 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). As goats 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 Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, the results of the studies 
described above suggest that goats can also alter these ecosystems and 
directly damage or destroy native plants by their browsing activity. 
Therefore, goats pose a threat of predation to 18 species in this rule, 
as delineated in Table 4.
    Axis deer were introduced to Molokai in 1868, Lanai in 1920, and 
Maui in 1959. 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 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

[[Page 32052]]

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 in litt. 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 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-August), axis deer can be found along Maui's coastal roads 
as they search for food. Hunting pressure 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.
    Other native Hawaiian plant species have been reported as grazed 
and browsed by axis deer. For example, on Lanai, grazing by axis deer 
has been reported as a major threat to the endangered Gardenia 
brighamii (nau) (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11), and on Molokai, browsing by 
axis deer has been reported on Erythrina sandwicensis and Nototrichium 
sandwicense (kului) (Medeiros et al. 1996, pp. 11, 19). Swedberg and 
Walker (1978, cited in Anderson 2003, pp. 124-125) reported that in the 
upper forests of Lanai, the native plants Osteomeles anthyllidifolia 
(uulei) and Leptecophylla tameiameiae (pukiawe) comprised more than 30 
percent of axis deer rumen volume. Other native plant species consumed 
by axis deer include Abutilon menziesii and Geranium multiflorum 
(nohoanu) (both endangered species); the species Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera and B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, which are 
addressed in this final rule; and Achyranthes splendens (NCN), 
Chamaesyce lorifolia (akoko), Diospyros sandwicensis (lama), Lipochaeta 
rockii var. dissecta (nehe), Osmanthus sandwicensis (ulupua), Panicum 
torridum (kakonakona), and Santalum ellipticum (laau ala) (Anderson 
2002, poster; Perlman 2009c, in litt., pp. 4-5). As axis deer occur in 
nine of the described ecosystems on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (coastal, 
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, 
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff), the results from the studies 
above, in addition to the direct observations from field biologists, 
suggest that axis deer can also alter these ecosystems and directly 
damage or destroy native plants by their browsing activity (see Table 
4).
    Mouflon sheep graze native vegetation, trample undergrowth, spread 
weeds, and cause erosion. On the island of Hawaii, mouflon 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 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 Hawaii Volcanoes 
National Park, mouflon sheep 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 sheep 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). While 
mouflon sheep were introduced to the islands of Lanai and Hawaii as a 
managed game species, a private game ranch on Maui has added mouflon to 
its stock and it is likely that over time some individuals may escape 
(Hess 2010, pers. comm.; Kessler 2010, pers. comm.). As mouflon occur 
in seven of the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland 
mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Lanai, 
the data from the studies above, in addition to direct observation of 
field biologists, suggest that mouflon can also alter these ecosystems 
and directly damage or destroy native plants by their browsing activity 
(see Table 4).
    Cattle, either feral or domestic, are considered one of the most 
important 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 Hawaii 
Volcanoes National Park on the island of Hawaii, 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 Acacia 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. As feral cattle 
occur in five of the described ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland mesic, 
lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Maui, the results from 
the above studies, in addition to the direct observations from field 
biologists, suggest that feral cattle can alter these ecosystems and 
directly damage or destroy native plants by their browsing activity 
(see Table 4).
    The blackbuck antelope (Antilope cervicapra) is an endangered 
antelope from India brought to a private game reserve on Molokai about 
10 years ago

[[Page 32053]]

from an Indian zoo (Kessler 2010, pers. comm.). According to Kessler 
(2010, pers. comm.), at some time in the last 10 years, a few 
individuals escaped from the game reserve and established a wild 
population of an unknown number of individuals on the lower, dry plains 
of western Molokai. Blackbuck primarily use grassland habitat for 
grazing. In India, foraging consumption and nutrient digestibility are 
high in the moist winter months and low in the dry summer months (Jhala 
1997, pp. 1,348; 1,351). Although most plant species are grazed 
intensely when they are green, some are grazed only after they are dry 
(Jhala 1997, pp. 1,348; 1,351). While the habitat effects from the 
blackbuck antelope are unknown at this time, we consider these 
ungulates a potential threat to native plant species, including the 11 
plant species in this final rule found on Molokai (Kessler 2010, pers. 
comm.), because blackbuck antelope have foraging and grazing habits 
similar to feral goats, cattle, axis deer and mouflon.
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 is 
a threat to 23 of the 37 plant species, and all 3 species of tree 
snails, in this final rule (see Table 4).
Rat Impacts on Plants
    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 adversely impact many endangered 
and 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 addressed 
in this final rule. 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 all 12 species of 
Cyanea (Cyanea asplenifolia, C. duvalliorum, C. grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. 
mauiensis, C. munroi, C. obtusa, C. profuga, and C. solanacea), 11 
other species of plants in this final rule are adversely impacted by 
rat predation, including Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. conjucta (Bily et al. 2003, pp. 1-
16), Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia 
subpetiolata, Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea laui, and Wikstroemia villosa (HBMP 
2008; Harbaugh et al. 2010, p. 835). 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 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, the results from the above studies, in 
addition to direct observations from field biologists, suggest that 
rats can directly damage or destroy native plants.
Rat Impacts on Tree Snails
    Rats (Rattus spp.) have been suggested as the invasive animal 
responsible for likely the greatest number of animal extinctions on 
islands throughout the world, including extinctions of various snail 
species (Towns et al. 2006, p. 88). In the Hawaiian Islands, rats are 
known to prey upon endemic arboreal snails (Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 
621). In the Waianae Mountains of Oahu, Meyer and Shiels (2009, p. 344) 
found shells of the endangered endemic Oahu tree snail (Achatinella 
mustelina) with characteristic rat damage (e.g., damage to the shell 
opening and cone tip), but noted that rat crushing of shells may limit 
the ability to adequately quantify the threat. On Lanai, Hobdy (1993, 
p. 208) found numerous shells of Partulina variabilis, one of the tree 
snails in this final rule, on the ground with damage characteristic of 
rat predation. Likewise in a 2005 survey on Lanai, Hadfield (2005, pp. 
3-4) found shells of Partulina semicarinata, another tree snail species 
in this rule, on the ground with characteristic rat damage. Surveys in 
2009 led Hadfield and colleagues to conclude that populations of 
Partulina redfieldi (a tree snail endemic to lowland and montane 
forests on Molokai) had declined by 85 percent since 1995 due to rat 
predation (Hadfield and Saufler 2009, p. 1). On Maui, rat predation on 
the tree snail species Newcombia cumingi, addressed in this final rule, 
has led to a decrease in the number of individuals (Hadfield 2006 in 
litt., p. 3; 2007, p. 9; 2011, pers. comm.). As rats are found in nine 
of the described ecosystems on Lanai and Maui (the islands on which 
Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis occur), 
including the three ecosystems (lowland wet, montane wet, and wet 
cliff) in which the three tree snails in this rule are found, the 
results of the above studies, in addition to direct observations from 
field biologists, suggest that rats directly damage or destroy Hawaiian 
tree snails and are a serious and ongoing threat to the three tree 
snail species in this final rule.
Jackson's Chameleon
    Several dozen Jackson's chameleons (Chamaeleo jacksonii), native to 
Kenya and Tanzania, were introduced to Hawaii in the early 1970s 
through the pet trade (Holland et al. 2010, p. 1,438). Inter-island 
transport of Jackson's chameleons for the pet trade was unrestricted 
until 1997, when they were classified as ``injurious wildlife,'' and 
export as well as inter-island transport was prohibited (State of 
Hawaii 1996, H.A.R. 13-124-3; Holland et al. 2010, p. 1,439). 
Currently, there are established populations on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands, with the greatest number of individuals on the 
islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu (Holland et al. 2010, p.

[[Page 32054]]

1,438). Jackson's chameleons prey on native insects and tree snails, 
including the endangered Oahu tree snail (Achatinella mustelina) 
(Holland et al. 2010, p. 1,438; Hadfield 2011, pers. comm.). Jackson's 
chameleons may be expanding their range in the wild from low-elevation 
to higher elevation pristine native forest, which may result in 
catastrophic impacts to native ecosystems and the species supported by 
those ecosystems, including the lowland wet ecosystems on Maui and 
Lanai that support the tree snails Newcombia cumingi, Partulina 
semicarinata, and P. variabilis, and the montane wet and wet cliff 
ecosystems on Lanai that support P. semicarinata and P. variabilis. 
Because Jackson's chameleons are likely found in, or expanding their 
range into, all of the ecosystems in which the three tree snails 
addressed in this final rule are found, and are known to prey on tree 
snails, predation by Jackson's chameleon is a potentially serious 
threat to the tree snails Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, 
and P. variabilis.
Invertebrates
Nonnative Slugs
    Predation by nonnative snails and slugs adversely impacts 26 of the 
37 plant species (Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. conjuncta, 
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. duvalliorum, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. 
horrida, C. kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. mauiensis, C. 
munroi, C. obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, 
Geranium hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. pilosa, Santalum haleakalae 
var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and 
Wikstroemia villosa; see Table 4) in this final rule through mechanical 
damage, destruction of plant parts, and mortality (Mitchell et al. 
2005; Joe 2006, p. 10; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2008, pp. 48-49, 52-53, 57, 70; 
PEPP 2010, pp. 1-121). On Oahu, slugs have been reported to destroy the 
endangered plants 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.; U.S. Army Garrison 
2005, pp. 3-34, 3-51). In addition, slugs have damaged individuals of 
other Cyanea and Cyrtandra species in the wild (Wood 2001, in litt.; 
Sailer and Kier 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'' and from Keir (2013, in litt.) indicates 
that slugs can be a threat to all species of Cyanea (U.S. Army Garrison 
2005, p. 3-51; Keir 2013, in litt.). 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 2005, p. 3-51). Slug damage has also been reported on other 
Hawaiian plants including Argyroxiphium grayanum (greensword), 
Alsinidendron sp., Hibiscus sp., the endangered plant Schiedea kaalae 
(maolioli), the endangered plant Solanum sandwicense (popolo 
aiakeakua), and Urera sp. (Gagne 1983, p. 190-191; Sailer, pers. comm. 
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 plants 
Cyanea superba and 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. As slugs are found in eight 
of the described ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, 
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, 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 Snails
    Several species of nonnative snails have been inadvertently 
introduced to Hawaii. However, in 1955, the rosy wolf snail (Euglandina 
rosea) was purposely introduced to Hawaii from Florida in an attempt to 
control another nonnative, the giant African snail (Achatina fulica). 
The giant African snail is commonly found in Honolulu gardens and is 
one of the largest snails in the world, in addition to being recognized 
as one of the world's most damaging pests to crop plants (Peterson 
1957, pp. 643-658; Stone and Anderson 1988, p. 134). The giant African 
snail appears to have declined throughout the Hawaiian Islands although 
it is unclear if this decline is due to the rosy wolf snail or other 
unrelated reasons (Cowie 1997, p. 15). The rosy wolf snail is now found 
on six of the eight main Hawaiian Islands (its presence on Niihau and 
Kahoolawe has not been confirmed) and has expanded its range on those 
islands to include cooler, mid-elevation forests where many endemic 
tree snails are found. This nonnative snail is likely responsible for 
the decline and extinction of many of Hawaii's native tree snails 
(Stone and Anderson 1988, p. 134; Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 621; 
Hadfield 2010a, in litt.). In 1979, the rosy wolf snail decimated a 
population of the endangered Oahu tree snail (Achatinella mustelina), 
as well as all other tree snails at the same study site (Hadfield and 
Mountain 1980, p. 357). According to Hadfield (2007, pp. 6-9), the rosy 
wolf snail is currently the greatest threat to the only known 
population of Newcombia cumingi, one of the three tree snails addressed 
in this final rule. In addition, the nonnative garlic snail (Oxychilus 
alliarius), a predator on the smaller achatinellid snails, may be a 
potential threat to Newcombia cumingi (Hadfield 2010a, in litt.). 
Hadfield (2007, pp. 6-9) reported finding many shells of the garlic 
snail within the habitat of N. cumingi on Maui. As the rosy wolf snail 
can be found in three of the described ecosystems (lowland wet, montane 
wet, and wet cliff) on Lanai and Maui (the islands on which N. cumingi, 
Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis occur), the results from the 
studies above, in addition to observations by field biologists, suggest 
that the rosy wolf snail has the potential to severely impact the three 
tree snails in this final rule.
Nonnative Flatworms
    The extinction of native land snails on several Pacific Islands has 
been attributed to the terrestrial flatworm Platydemus manokwari 
(Sugiura 2010, p. 1,499). This flatworm has decimated populations of 
native tree snails on Guam (Hopper and Smith 1992, pp. 78, 82-83). In 
the Hawaiian Islands, Platydemus manokwari has been found on the 
islands of Oahu and Hawaii, and is likely on all of the main islands 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Although P. manokwari has not been reported 
from the same locations as the three tree snails addressed in this 
final rule, it is a potential threat to these species because it likely 
co-occurs on the islands of Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, and it is a known 
predator on tree snails.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
    There are no approved HCPs, SHAs, or CCAs that specifically address 
these 40 species and threats from predation. In addition, we are 
unaware of any voluntary actions that address the three species of tree 
snails and the threat from disease. We are aware of several MOUs that 
are under development that will

[[Page 32055]]

specifically address one or more of these 40 species and may address 
threats from predation. We acknowledge that in the State of Hawaii 
there are several voluntary conservation efforts (e.g., construction of 
fences) that may be helping to ameliorate the threats to the 40 species 
addressed in this final rule due to predation by nonnative animal 
species, specifically predation by feral ungulates. However, these 
efforts are overwhelmed by the number of threats, the extent of these 
threats across the landscape, and the lack of sufficient resources 
(e.g., funding) to control or eradicate them from all areas where these 
40 species occur now or occurred historically. See above, 
``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range,'' for a summary of some voluntary 
conservation actions to address threats from feral ungulates.
    The State's University of Hawaii receives funding from the Service 
and other sources to propagate and maintain in captivity the two Lanai 
tree snails and Newcomb's tree snail. However, the numbers of 
individuals of both Lanai tree snail species appear to be declining in 
captivity and individuals of Newcomb's tree snail do not survive long 
in captivity (Hadfield 2008, p. 1-11; Hadfield 2010, pers. comm.; 
Hadfield 2011, pers. comm.). This program does not address threats to 
these three tree snails from predation by nonnative species in the wild 
nor threats from disease in captivity. Recently (August 2012), the 
Service and MLP entered into a cooperative agreement to provide funding 
for the construction of a fenced snail exclosure at the only known site 
for Newcomb's tree snail (Service 2012, in litt.). The purpose of the 
fenced exclosure is to protect individuals of this tree snail in-situ 
from predation by rodents (e.g., rats and mice) and predatory nonnative 
snails. Construction of the fenced exclosure has not yet been 
inititated.
Summary of Disease or Predation
    We are unaware of any information that indicates that disease is a 
threat to the 37 plant species in this final rule. Disease is a 
potential threat to the three species of tree snails in this rule, as 
recovery of these species likely will include captive propagation and 
disease is suspected to be a cause of currently unsuccessful captive 
propagation of Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. 
variabilis. However, at this time, we have no evidence to suggest that 
disease is acting on the wild populations such that it may be 
considered a significant threat to the species.
    Although conservation measures are in place in some areas where 
each of the 40 species in this final rule occur, information does not 
indicate that they are ameliorating the threat of predation. Therefore, 
we consider predation by nonnative animal species (pigs, goats, axis 
deer, mouflon sheep, cattle, rats, Jackson's chameleon, slugs, snails, 
and flatworms) to pose an ongoing threat to all 40 species in this 
final rule throughout their ranges for the following reasons:
    (1) Observations and reports have documented that pigs, goats, axis 
deer, mouflon sheep, and cattle browse and trample 35 of the 37 plant 
species (see Table 4), 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 30 of the 37 plant species in this rule (see 
Table 4). All 40 species in this final rule are impacted by either 
introduced ungulates, as noted in item 1, above, or nonnative rats and 
slugs, or both.
    (3) Rat damage has been observed on shells of dead individuals of 
the tree snails Partulina variabilis and P. semicarinata on Lanai, as 
well as on other native tree snails on Oahu and Molokai, indicating 
rats are a likely cause of mortality of these species. Predation by 
rats has been linked with the dramatic declines of some populations of 
native tree snails (Hobdy 1993, p. 208; Hadfield and Saufler 2009, p. 
1; Meyer and Shields 2009, p. 344). Rat predation has been documented 
on the tree snail species Newcombia cumingi (Hadfield 2006 in litt., p. 
3; Hadfield 2007, p. 9; Hadfield 2010a, in litt.). Although funding has 
recently been provided to construct a fenced exclosure to protect 
individuals of this tree snail in-situ from predation by rodents (e.g., 
rats and mice) and predatory nonnative snails, construction has not yet 
been inititated. Because rats are found in all of the ecosystems in 
which the three tree snails addressed in this final rule are found, and 
rats are known to prey on tree snails, we consider predation by rats to 
be a serious and ongoing threat to Newcombia cumingi, Partulina 
semicarinata, and P. variabilis.
    (4) Jackson's chameleon, which preys on native insects and tree 
snails, has established populations in the wild on all the main 
Hawaiian Islands. Jackson's chameleon is likely found in, or is in the 
process of expanding its range to include, all of the ecosystems that 
support the three tree snails addressed in this final rule. Predation 
by this nonnative reptile is a potentially serious threat to Newcombia 
cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis.
    (5) Hawaiian tree snails are vulnerable to predation by the 
nonnative rosy wolf snail, which is found on all the main Hawaiian 
Islands and whose range likely overlaps that of the three tree snail 
species we are listing. We therefore consider Newcombia cumingi, 
Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis to be adversely impacted by 
predation by the nonnative rosy wolf snail. Although funding has 
recently been provided to construct a fenced exclosure to protect 
individuals of Newcombia cumingi in-situ from predation by rodents and 
predatory nonnative snails, construction has not yet been inititated. 
In addition, the nonnative garlic snail may be a potential threat to 
one of the tree snails addressed in this final rule, N. cumingi, 
because it is a known predator on smaller tree snails in the same 
family as N. cumingi and shells of the garlic snail have been found in 
N. cumingi habitat (Stone and Anderson 1988, p. 134; Hadfield et al. 
1993, p. 621; Hadfield 2010a, in litt.).
    (6) The nonnative flatworm, Platydemus manokwari, is a potential 
threat to all three species of tree snails addressed in this final rule 
(Hadfield 2010b, in litt.; Sugiura 2010, pp. 1,499-1,501) because this 
flatworm has decimated native tree snail populations on other Pacific 
Islands and likely occurs on all the main Hawaiian Islands, including 
the islands of Lanai and Maui, where the three tree snails are found.
    These threats are serious and ongoing, act in concert with other 
threats to the species, and are expected to continue or increase in 
severity and intensity into the future without effective management 
actions to control or eradicate them. In addition, negative impacts to 
native Hawaiian plants on Molokai from grazing and browsing by the 
blackbuck antelope 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 methodologies.

[[Page 32056]]

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Inadequate Habitat Protection
    Currently, there are no existing Federal, State, or local laws, 
treaties, or regulations that specifically conserve or protect the 40 
species addressed in this final rule, or adequately address the threats 
described in this rule. Although the State of Hawaii's Plant Extinction 
Prevention Program supports conservation of the plant species by 
securing seeds or cuttings from the rarest and most critically 
endangered native species for propagation, the program is nonregulatory 
and has not yet been able to directly address broad-scale threats to 
plants by invasive species.
    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 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui 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 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui, 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.
Feral Ungulates
    Nonnative ungulates pose a major ongoing threat to 35 of the 37 
plant species and 2 of the 3 tree snail species--Partulina 
semicarninata and P. variabilis--through destruction and degradation of 
terrestrial habitat, and through direct predation of 35 of the plant 
species (see Table 4). The State of Hawaii provides game mammal (feral 
pigs and goats, axis deer, and mouflon sheep) hunting opportunities on 
15 State-designated public hunting areas on the islands of Molokai, 
Lanai, and Maui (State of Hawaii 1999, H.A.R. 13-123; HDLNR 2009, pp. 
20-21). 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 (State of Hawaii, H.A.R. 13-123). Thirty-four of the 37 plant 
species have populations in areas where terrestrial habitat may be 
manipulated for game enhancement and game populations are maintained at 
prescribed levels using public hunting (HBMP 2008; State of Hawaii, 
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 37 of the 40 species, or the direct predation of 35 of the 37 plant 
species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui (see Table 4). 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.
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. 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. CBP 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); federally listed noxious seeds and 
plants; 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 (HDOA 2009). 
The Service inspects arriving wildlife products, enforces the injurious 
wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et 
seq.), and prosecutes CITES violations.
    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; USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2010; CGAPS 2009). 
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 and is extremely time-consuming to satisfy. Therefore, that 
avenue may only provide minimal protection against the large diversity 
of foreign pests that negatively impact 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; USDA-APHIS-PPQ 
2010; CGAPS 2009). 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 enacted in 
2011 (H.B. 1568) requires commercial harbors and airports in Hawaii to 
provide biosecurity and to facilitate cargo inspections. The 
introduction of new pests to the State of Hawaii is a significant risk 
to federally listed species because the existing regulations are 
inadequate for the reasons discussed in the sections below.
    In 1995, CGAPS, a partnership composed primarily of managers from

[[Page 32057]]

every major Federal, State, County, and private agency and organization 
involved in invasive species work in Hawaii, was formed in an effort to 
improve communication, increase collaboration, and promote public 
awareness (CGAPS 2009). This group 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). Since 2009, State 
funding for HISC has been cut by approximately 50 percent (total 
funding dropped from $4 million in fiscal year (FY) 2009 to $2 million 
in FY 2010, and to $1.8 million for FY 2011 to FY 2013 (Atwood 2012, in 
litt.; Atwood 2013, in litt.). Congressional earmarks made up some of 
the shortfall in State funding in 2010 and into 2011. These funds 
supported ground crew staff that would otherwise have been laid off due 
to the shortfall in State funding (Clark 2012, in litt.). Following a 
50 percent reduction from FY 2009 funding, the HISC budget has remained 
relatively flat (i.e., State funding is equal to funding provided in 
2009) from FY 2010 to FY 2013 (Atwood 2013, in litt.). Current 
positions provided by HISC are fewer than those supported in 2009; most 
of the positions have been lost through attrition and have not been 
refilled (Atwood 2012, in litt.). In addition, HISC funds fewer 
projects and provides fewer services (Atwood 2012, in litt.; Clark 
2012, in litt.) than in 2009 and earlier. Many projects (such as 
invasive species and biological control research) that were previously 
funded by HISC are receiving negligible HISC funding or remain unfunded 
(Atwood 2012, in litt.; Clark 2012, in litt.).
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; CGAPS 2010). 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 current list of vertebrates considered as ``injurious wildlife'' is 
provided at 50 CFR 16. The law in its current form has limited 
effectiveness in preventing invasive vertebrate introductions into the 
State of Hawaii because the list of vertebrates considered to be 
``injurious wildlife'' under the Lacey Act is relatively limited.
Nonnative Invertebrate Species
    Predation by nonnative invertebrate pests (flatworms, slugs, 
snails) adversely impacts 26 of the plant species and the 3 tree snails 
addressed in this rule (see Table 4 and Factor C. Disease or Predation, 
above). 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. The 
prevention and control of introduction of pest species in Hawaii is the 
responsibility of Hawaii State government and Federal agencies, and is 
being voluntarily addressed by a few private organizations. Even though 
these 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 were 
introduced to Hawaii per year since 1970, an increase of 25 percent 
over the previous totals between 1930 and 1970 (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 change to this situation is 
anticipated in the future.
Nonnative Plant Species
    Nonnative plants destroy and modify habitat throughout the ranges 
of 36 of the 40 species being addressed in this final rule (see Table 
4, 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,'' under Factor A, 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 2009). 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 
either 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, and 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. One study 
concluded that the plant importation laws virtually ensure new invasive 
plants will be introduced via the nursery and ornamental trade, and 
that outreach efforts cannot keep up with the multitude of new invasive 
plants being distributed. The author states the only thing that wide-
scale public outreach can do in this regard is to let the public know 
new invasive plants are still being sold, and they should ask for 
noninvasive or native plants instead (Martin 2007, in litt.).
    On the basis of the above information, existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms are not preventing introduction of nonnative 
species into Hawaii via interstate and international mechanisms, or via 
intrastate movement of nonnative species between islands and watersheds 
in Hawaii. Therefore, State and Federal regulatory mechanisms do not 
adequately protect the 40 species being addressed in this final rule 
from the threat of new

[[Page 32058]]

introductions of nonnative species or the continued expansion of 
nonnative species populations on and between islands and watersheds. 
Nonnative species may prey upon, modify or destroy habitat of, or 
directly compete with one or more of the 40 species for food, space, 
and other necessary resources. The impacts from these introduced 
threats are ongoing and are expected to continue into the future.
Summary of Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not preventing 
the introduction into Hawaii of nonnative species or the spread of 
nonnative species between islands and watersheds. Habitat-altering 
nonnative plant species (Factor A) and predation by nonnative animal 
species (Factor C) pose a major ongoing threat to the 40 species being 
addressed in this final rule. Thirty-five of the 37 plant species 
experience threats from habitat degradation and loss by nonnative 
plants (Factor A), and all 37 plants experience threats from nonnative 
animals (Factor A and Factor C). All three tree snail species 
experience threats from habitat degradation and loss by nonnative 
plants (Newcombia cumingi) or nonnative animals (Partulina semicarinata 
and P. variabilis). The three tree snails experience threats from 
predation by nonnative animals (Factor C). Therefore, we conclude these 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to sufficiently reduce 
these threats to all 40 species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence
    Other factors that pose threats to some or all of the 40 species 
include small numbers of individuals and small numbers of populations, 
hybridization, lack of regeneration, and human trampling as a result of 
hiking and other activities. Each threat is discussed in detail below, 
along with identification of which species are affected by these 
threats.
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, 
landslides, rockfalls, drought, 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). A single, stochastic event can result in the extinction of 
an entire species, if all the representatives of that species are 
concentrated in a single area. In addition, 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 snails), and hybridization (plants). 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 Factors A and C, above).
Plants
    The following 20 plant species in this final rule face the threat 
of limited numbers (i.e., they total fewer than 50 individuals in the 
wild): Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. 
maritae, C. mauiensis, C. munroi, C. obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Festuca molokaiensis, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. pilosa, Pittosporum 
halophilum, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and 
Wikstroemia villosa. We consider small population size to be a threat 
to these species for the following reasons:
     Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana has not been observed 
since 1991 on Molokai (PEPP 2010, p. 45).
     The only known wild occurrences of Cyanea horrida, C. 
magnicalyx, C. maritae, and C. munroi are susceptible to threats from 
habitat degradation or loss by flooding, landslides, or tree falls, or 
a combination of these, because of their locations in lowland wet, 
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; TNCH 2010a; HBMP 2008; 
PEPP 2009, pp. 23-24, 49-58).
     The last confirmed observation of Cyanea mauiensis in the 
wild was over 100 years ago. Botanists believe individuals of this 
species still remain, as potentially suitable habitat has not been 
searched. However, there are no tissues, propagules, or seeds in 
storage or propagation (Lammers 2004, pp. 84-85; TNC 2007).
     Cyanea obtusa is susceptible to predation by feral pigs, 
goats, axis deer, and cattle, and to direct destruction and habitat 
degradation and loss by fire because the only two known individuals of 
this species are not protected from direct predation by ungulates, or 
from fire (Lau 2001, in litt.; PEPP 2007, p. 40; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2008, 
p. 55; Duvall 2010, in litt.).
     Cyanea profuga and C. solanacea are each known from fewer 
than five scattered occurrences in the montane wet ecosystem. These two 
plant species are susceptible to predation by nonnative pigs and goats, 
as well as habitat degradation or destruction by these nonnative 
animals and by landslides, rock and tree falls, or flooding, or a 
combination of these (HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, pp. 23-24, 49-58; Bakutis 
2010, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; 
TNCH 2011, pp. 21, 57).
     Cyrtandra ferripilosa is known from two disparate 
occurrences totaling only a few individuals that are not protected from 
direct predation by nonnative pigs and goats (Oppenheimer 2010f, in 
litt.; Welton 2010b, in litt.).
     Festuca molokaiensis, known only from its original 
collection location on Molokai, has not been relocated for 2 years. 
Threats to this species include habitat destruction or direct predation 
by nonnative goats, nonnative plants, and fire (Oppenheimer 2011a, 
pers. comm.).
     Historically known from lower Waikamoi on east Maui, the 
identification of wild individuals of Peperomia subpetiolata has not 
been confirmed since 2001, although hybrids between this species and 
other species of Peperomia are reported in this area (HBMP 2008; NTBG 
2009g, p. 2; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; PEPP 2010, p. 96).
     Only one individual of Phyllostegia bracteata was known as 
recently as 2009, but even this single individual was not relocated 
later in the same year. Botanists continue to search potentially 
suitable habitat near the last known location for this ephemeral 
species (NTBG 2009h, p. 3; PEPP 2009, pp. 89-90; Oppenheimer 2010c, in 
litt.).
     The last known wild individual of Phyllostegia haliakalae 
on Maui had died by 2010, although there are outplantings of this 
species near the location of this individual. Botanists continue to 
search potentially suitable

[[Page 32059]]

habitat on Maui for this species. Phyllostegia haliakalae has not been 
relocated on Molokai or Lanai for close to 100 years (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2008; Oppenheimer 2010c, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2011b, in litt.).
     The seven known individuals of Phyllostegia pilosa are not 
protected from direct predation by feral pigs and goats on Maui. This 
species has not been observed on Molokai for over 100 years (TNC 2007; 
HBMP 2008).
     Pittosporum halophilum is known from three disparate 
locations, each with one to three individuals, on Molokai and its 
offshore islets. These individuals are not protected from predation by 
feral pigs or rats, or from the threat of fire (Wood 2005, pp. 2, 41; 
Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Hobdy 2010, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.).
     The only known wild individuals of Schiedea jacobii were 
likely destroyed by landslides because of their location along wet 
cliffs between Hanawi Stream and Kuhiwa drainage in the montane wet 
ecosystem on east Maui. The State plans to outplant propagated 
individuals in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve in 2011 (Wagner et al. 
1999j, p. 286; HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in 
litt.).
     The 24 to 34 individuals of Schiedea laui are facing 
imminent threats from flooding and landslides because of their location 
in a grotto (HBMP 2008; Bakutis 2010, in litt.).
     Stenogyne kauaulaensis is only known from three 
individuals. These plants face imminent threats from landslides and 
rockfalls because of their location on steep slopes, and from drought 
and fire in the montane mesic ecosystem on west Maui (Wood and 
Oppenheimer 2008, pp. 544-545; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
     Wikstroemia villosa is known only from a single 
occurrence, with two individuals (Peterson 1999, p. 1,291; TNC 2007; 
HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
Tree Snails
    Like most native island biota, the endemic Hawaiian tree snails are 
particularly sensitive to disturbances due to low population numbers 
and small geographic ranges (Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 610). We consider 
the three tree snail species at risk of decline and extinction due to 
threats associated with low numbers of individuals and populations 
because:
     Newcombia cumingi is known only from a single wild 
population of one individual and has not been successfully maintained 
in captivity (Hadfield 2007, pp. 2, 8; Hadfield 2008, p. 10; Higashino 
2013, in litt.).
     The only known wild populations of Newcombia cumingi, 
Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis face serious threats from 
predation by nonnative rats, Jackson's chameleons, and snails (Solem 
1990, p. 35; Hadfield 1986, p. 325; Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 611; 
Hadfield 2007, p. 9; Hadfield 2009, p. 11; Hadfield and Saufler 2009, 
p. 1595; Holland et al. 2010, p. 1,437).
     The number of individuals of Partulina semicarinata and P. 
variabilis has declined by approximately 50 percent between 1993 and 
2005 at known locations (Hadfield 2005, p. 305).
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; Levin 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 adversely impact four species in 
this final rule because it may lead to extinction of one or both of the 
original genotypically distinct species. Hybrids have been reported 
between Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera and B. campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, two subspecies in this rule that occur in close proximity 
on east Maui. In addition, on east Maui, the species Cyanea obtusa is 
known from two individuals, but only hybrids between C. obtusa and the 
more abundant C. elliptica are known on west Maui. Furthermore, the 
current status of the species Peperomia subpetiolata is unknown because 
only hybrids between P. subpetiolata and P. cookiana, and perhaps P. 
hertapetiola, are known from its historically reported locations on 
east Maui.
Regeneration
    Lack of, or low levels of, regeneration (reproduction and 
recruitment) in the wild has been observed and is a threat to Pleomele 
fernaldii (Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.). Although there are currently 
approximately several hundred to 1,000 individuals, very little 
recruitment has been observed at the known locations over the past 10 
years (Oppenheimer 2008d, in litt.). The reasons for this are not 
clearly understood.
Human Trampling and Hiking
    Human impacts, including trampling by hikers, have been documented 
as a threat to Cyanea maritae and Wikstroemia villosa (Oppenheimer 
2010o, in litt.; PEPP 2010, p. 51; Welton 2010b, in litt.) because 
individuals of these species are found near climbing or hiking trails. 
Individuals climbing and hiking off established trails could trample 
individual plants and contribute to soil compaction and erosion, 
preventing growth and establishment of seedlings (Oppenheimer 2010a, in 
litt.), as has been observed with other native species (Wood 2001, in 
litt.; MLP 2005, p. 23).
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    There are no approved HCPs, SHAs, CCAs, MOUs, or other voluntary 
actions that specifically address the threats to these 40 species from 
other natural or manmade factors. The State's PEP Program collects, 
propagates, or outplants 14 plant species that are addressed in this 
final rule (Cyanea asplenifolia, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, 
C. munroi, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. 
pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne 
kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa) (PEPP 2011, pp. 75, 166, 191; 
PEPP 2012, pp. 6, 13, 34-36, 66-70, 73-81, 150, 159-160). While these 
actions are a step toward increasing the overall numbers and 
populations of these species in the wild, these actions are 
insufficient to eliminate the threat of limited numbers to the 14 plant 
species because the actions are relatively recent (i.e., in the last 
few years) and successful reproduction and replacement of outplanted 
individuals by seedlings, juveniles, and adults has not yet been 
observed in the wild. We are unaware of any voluntary conservation 
actions to address the threat to four plant species from hybridization, 
the threat of lack of regeneration to Pleomele fernaldii, or the threat 
from human trampling to Cyanea maritae and Wikstroemia villosa.
    The State's University of Hawaii receives funding from the Service 
and other sources to propagate and maintain in captivity the two Lanai 
tree snails, Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis, and Newcomb's 
tree snail (Newcombia cumingi). While these actions appear to be a step 
toward increasing the overall numbers of these species in captivity, 
both Lanai tree snail species appear to be declining in captivity and

[[Page 32060]]

individuals of Newcomb's tree snail do not survive long in captivity 
(Hadfield 2008, p. 1-11; Hadfield 2010, pers. comm.; Hadfield 2011, 
pers. comm.) (see Disease or Predation, above).
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued 
Existence
    The conservation measures described above are insufficient to 
eliminate the threat from other natural or manmade factors to each of 
the 40 species addressed in this final rule. We consider the limited 
numbers of populations and few individuals (less than 50) to be a 
serious and ongoing threat to 20 of the 37 plant species in this final 
rule (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. 
maritae, C. mauiensis, C. munroi, C. obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Festuca molokaiensis, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. pilosa, Pittosporum 
halophilum, Schiedea jacobii, S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and 
Wikstroemia villosa) 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 three tree snails Newcombia cumingi, Partulina 
semicarinata, and P. variabilis from limited numbers of populations and 
individuals is ongoing and is expected to continue into the future 
because: (1) These species may experience reduced reproductive vigor 
due to 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 (e.g., hurricane, 
drought) may result in extirpation of remaining populations and 
extinction of these species. The limited distribution of these three 
species thus compounds the severity of the impact of the other threats 
discussed in this final rule.
    In addition, the threat to Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea obtusa, and Peperomia 
subpetiolata from hybridization is ongoing and expected to continue 
into the future because hybrids are reported between these species and 
other, more abundant species, and no efforts are being implemented in 
the wild to prevent potential hybridizations. In addition, we consider 
the threat to Pleomele fernaldii 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, or predation by ungulates or rats, could lead to the 
extirpation of this species. Also, ongoing human activities (e.g., 
trampling and hiking) are a threat to Cyanea maritae and Wikstroemia 
villosa and are expected to continue into the future because field 
biologists have reported trampling of vegetation near populations of 
Cyanea maritae and the two remaining wild individuals of Wikstroemia 
villosa, and the effects of these activities could lead to injury and 
death of individual plants, potentially resulting in extirpation from 
the wild.
Summary of Factors
    The primary factors that pose serious and ongoing threats to one or 
more of the 40 species throughout their ranges in this final rule 
include: Habitat degradation and destruction by agriculture and 
urbanization, nonnative ungulates and plants, fire, natural disasters, 
and climate change, and the interaction of these threats (Factor A); 
overutilization due to collection of the three tree snail species for 
trade or market (Factor B); predation by nonnative animal species 
(pigs, goats, axis deer, mouflon sheep, cattle, rats, Jackson's 
chameleon, slugs, snails, and flatworms) (Factor C); inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms to address the threats posed by nonnative species 
(Factor D); and limited numbers of populations and individuals, 
hybridization, lack of regeneration, and ongoing human activities 
(e.g., trampling and hiking) (Factor E). While we acknowledge the 
voluntary conservation measures described above may help to ameliorate 
one or more of the threats to the 40 species addressed in this final 
rule, these conservation measures are insufficient to control or 
eradicate these threats from all areas where these species occur now or 
occurred historically.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to each of 
the 40 Maui Nui species. We find that all of these species face 
significant threats to their existence, which are ongoing and expected 
to continue into the future throughout their ranges, from the present 
destruction and modification of their habitats, primarly from nonnative 
feral ungulates and nonnative plants. Thirteen of the plant species 
(Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea 
magnicalyx, C. mauiensis, C. obtusa, Festuca molokaiensis, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, P. haliakalae, Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea salicaria, and Stenogyne 
kauaulaensis) experience threats from habitat destruction and 
modification from fire, and 16 plant species (Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. duvalliorum, C. grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. mauiensis, C. 
munroi, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Schiedea jacobii, 
S. laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa) experience 
threats from habitat destruction and modification from landslides, 
rockfalls, treefalls, or flooding. The plants Canavalia pubescens, 
Cyanea horrida, Festuca molokaiensis, Schiedea jacobii, S. salicaria, 
and Stenogyne kauaulaensis, as well as the tree snails Newcombia 
cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis, experience threats 
from habitat loss or degradation due to drought. All 40 species 
experience threats from the destruction and modification of their 
habitats from hurricanes, although their occurrence is not predictable. 
In addition, 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 (Factor A).
    Overcollection for commercial and recreational purposes poses a 
serious potential threat to all three tree snail species (Factor B). 
Predation and herbivory on all 37 plant species by feral pigs, goats, 
cattle, axis deer, mouflon, rats, and slugs poses a serious and ongoing 
threat, as does predation of all three tree snail species (N. cumingi, 
P. semicarinata, and P. variabilis) by rats, nonnative snails, and 
potentially Jackson's chameleon (Factor C). Existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to reduce current and ongoing threats posed 
by nonnative plants and animals to all 40 species (Factor D). There are 
current and ongoing threats to 20 plant species (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, C. horrida, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. mauiensis, C. 
munroi, C.

[[Page 32061]]

obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. 
haliakalae, P. pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Schiedea jacobii, S. 
laui, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa) and the three 
tree snails due to factors associated with small numbers of populations 
and individuals; to Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca 
ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea obtusa, and Peperomia subpetiolata from 
hybridization; to Pleomele fernaldii from the lack of regeneration in 
the wild; and to Cyanea maritae and Wikstroemia villosa from hiking and 
trampling (Factor E) (see Table 4). 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 endemic 
species is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire 
range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats 
described above. Based on our analysis, we have no reason to believe 
that population trends for any of the species addressed in this final 
rule will improve, nor will the negative impacts of current threats 
acting on the species be effectively ameliorated in the future. 
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
data, we are listing, or--in the case of Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense--reaffirming the 
listing of, the following 40 species as endangered in accordance with 
section 3(6) of the Act: the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, Cyanea 
duvalliorum, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea horrida, Cyanea 
kunthiana, Cyanea magnicalyx, Cyanea maritae, Cyanea mauiensis, Cyanea 
munroi, Cyanea obtusa, Cyanea profuga, Cyanea solanacea, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, Cyrtandra filipes, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, Geranium hillebrandii, Mucuna sloanei 
var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, Phyllostegia pilosa, 
Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Schiedea laui, Schiedea salicaria, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa; and the tree snails 
Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and Partulina variabilis.
    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 40 endemic Maui Nui 
species in this final 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' range 
and are not restricted to any particular portion of that range. 
Accordingly, our assessment and determination applies to each species 
throughout its entire range.
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 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 (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, non-government 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, control of 
nonnative plants), management of threats from predation (e.g., feral 
ungulate control, rat control), 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.
    Funding for recovery actions may 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 will be eligible for Federal funds to implement 
management actions that promote the protection and recovery of the 40 
species. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid 
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.

[[Page 32062]]

    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for these listed 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 under 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 40 plants and animals listed or reaffirmed as endangered in 
this final 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 (NRCS), 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 and 
17.61, 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 and plant species under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.22 and 17.62 for endangered species. 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. With regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued 
for the following purposes: 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 listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. 
The following activities could potentially result in a violation of 
section 9 of the Act; 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) Activities that take or harm the three tree snail species by 
causing significant habitat modification or degradation such that it 
causes actual injury by significantly impairing essential behavioral 
patterns. This may include introduction of nonnative species that 
compete with or prey upon the three species of tree snails or the 
unauthorized release of biological control agents that attack any life 
stage of these three species; and
    (3) Damaging or destroying any of the 37 listed plants in violation 
of the Hawaii State law prohibiting the take of listed 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 species and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be 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).
    The State of Hawaii's endangered species law (HRS, Section 195-D) 
is automatically invoked when a species is listed, and provides 
supplemental protection, including prohibiting take of these species 
and encouraging conservation by State government agencies. Further, the 
State may 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 
listed species is reinforced and supplemented by protection under State 
law.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this

[[Page 32063]]

determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on 
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2011-0098 and upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES, 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, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--AMENDED

0
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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, by adding entries for ``Snail, Lanai tree'' (Partulina 
semicarinata), ``Snail, Lanai tree'' (Partulina variabilis), and 
``Snail, Newcomb's tree'' (Newcombia cumingi), in alphabetical order 
under SNAILS, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species                                                   Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------                       population  where                  When
                                                          Historic range       endangered or        Status     listed   Critical  habitat  Special rules
           Common name              Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
SNAILS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Snail, Lanai tree...............  Partulina            U.S.A. (HI)........  NA.................  E..........      815  NA................  NA
                                   semicarinata.
Snail, Lanai tree...............  Partulina            U.S.A. (HI)........  NA.................  E..........      815  NA................  NA
                                   variabilis.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Snail, Newcomb's tree...........  Newcombia cumingi..  U.S.A. (HI)........  NA.................  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
as follows:
0
a. By removing the entries for Gahnia lanaiensis and Santalum 
freycinetianum var. lanaiense under FLOWERING PLANTS;
0
b. By revising the entry for Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana under 
FLOWERING PLANTS; and
0
c. By adding entries for Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, Cyanea 
duvalliorum, Cyanea horrida, Cyanea kunthiana, Cyanea magnicalyx, 
Cyanea maritae, Cyanea mauiensis, Cyanea munroi, Cyanea obtusa, Cyanea 
profuga, Cyanea solanacea, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Cyrtandra filipes, 
Cyrtandra oxybapha, Festuca molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, Geranium 
hillebrandii, Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, 
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, Phyllostegia 
haliakalae, Phyllostegia pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele 
fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, 
Schiedea laui, Schiedea salicaria, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and 
Wikstroemia villosa in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species
------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family           Status      When    Critical  habitat     Special
         Scientific name              Common name                                                              listed                          rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bidens campylotheca ssp.          Kookoolau..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asteraceae.........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 pentamera.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bidens campylotheca ssp.          Kookoolau..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asteraceae.........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 waihoiensis.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bidens conjuncta................  Kookoolau..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asteraceae.........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Calamagrostis hillebrandii......  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Poaceae............  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 

[[Page 32064]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Canavalia pubescens.............  Awikiwiki..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Fabaceae...........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea asplenifolia.............  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea duvalliorum..............  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.            Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........     592,  17.99(c), (e)(1),   NA
 grimesiana.                                                                                                      815   and (i).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea horrida..................  Haha nui...........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea kunthiana................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea magnicalyx...............  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea maritae..................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea mauiensis................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea munroi...................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea obtusa...................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea profuga..................  Haha...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyanea solanacea................  Popolo.............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyrtandra ferripilosa...........  Haiwale............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Gesneriaceae.......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyrtandra filipes...............  Haiwale............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Gesneriaceae.......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cyrtandra oxybapha..............  Haiwale............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Gesneriaceae.......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Festuca molokaiensis............  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Poaceae............  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Geranium hanaense...............  Nohoanu............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Geraniaceae........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Geranium hillebrandii...........  Nohoanu............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Geraniaceae........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea..  Sea bean...........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Fabaceae...........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Myrsine vaccinioides............  Kolea..............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Myrsinaceae........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Peperomia subpetiolata..........  Alaala wai nui.....  U.S.A. (HI)........  Piperaceae.........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Phyllostegia bracteata..........  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Lamiaceae..........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Phyllostegia haliakalae.........  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Lamiaceae..........  E..........      815  NA................  NA

[[Page 32065]]

 
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Phyllostegia pilosa.............  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Lamiaceae..........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Pittosporum halophilum..........  Hoawa..............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Pittosporaceae.....  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Pleomele fernaldii..............  Hala pepe..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asparagaceae.......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Santalum haleakalae var.          Lanai sandalwood or  U.S.A. (HI)........  Santalaceae........  E..........     215,  NA................  NA
 lanaiense.                        iliahi.                                                                        815
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Schiedea jacobii................  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Caryophyllaceae....  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Schiedea laui...................  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Caryophyllaceae....  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Schiedea salicaria..............  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Caryophyllaceae....  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Stenogyne kauaulaensis..........  None...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Lamiaceae..........  E..........      815  NA................  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Wikstroemia villosa.............  Akia...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Thymelaeaceae......  E..........      815  NA................  NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12105 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P