Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species, 17789-18110 [2016-06069]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 61
March 30, 2016
Part II
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
for 135 Species; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17790
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2015–0071;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AZ25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
for 135 Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, designate or revise
critical habitat for 125 listed species on
the islands of Maui, Molokai, and
Kahoolawe in the State of Hawaii. We
are designating critical habitat for 50
plant and animal species, and revising
critical habitat for 85 plant species. In
total, approximately 157,002 acres (ac)
(63,537 hectares (ha)) on the islands of
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe fall
within the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. Although we
proposed critical habitat on 25,413 ac
(10,284 ha) on the island of Lanai, this
area is excluded from final designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act. In addition, under section
4(b)(2), approximately 59,479 ac (24,070
ha) on the islands of Maui and Molokai
are excluded from critical habitat
designation. These exclusions mean that
we are not designating critical habitat
for 10 of the species included in our
proposed rule. We also removed 29,170
ac (11,805 ha) of areas we determined
do not meet the definition of critical
habitat. In this final rule, we accept
name changes or corrections for 10
endangered plants and 2 endangered
birds. The effect of this rule is to
conserve these 125 species and their
habitats under the Endangered Species
Act.
DATE: This rule is effective on April 29,
2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final
economic analysis, and the document
‘‘Supplementary Information for the
Designation and Nondesignation of
Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species’’
are available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2015–0071. Comments
and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300
Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122,
Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at
808–792–9400; or by facsimile at 808–
792–9581.
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at https://www.fws.gov/
pacificislands, at https://www.
regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–
R1–ES–2015–0071, and at the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300
Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122,
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:
Organization of the Final Rule
This final rule describes the final
critical habitat designation for 135 Maui
Nui species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or
ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The pages
that follow summarize the comments
and information received during
multiple open comment periods and a
public hearing in response to the
proposed rule published on June 11,
2012 (77 FR 34464), and in response to
the notice of availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation published on January 31,
2013 (78 FR 6785), describe any changes
from the proposed rule, and detail the
final designation for the Maui Nui
species. To assist the reader, the content
of the document is organized as follows:
I. Executive Summary
II. Previous Federal Actions
III. Background
Maui Nui Species Addressed in This Final
Rule
An Ecosystem-Based Approach To
Determining Primary Constituent
Elements of Critical Habitat
IV. Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
Peer Review
Comments from Federal Agencies
Comments from State of Hawaii Elected
Officials
Comments from State of Hawaii Agencies
Comments from Maui County
Public Comments
Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis
(DEA)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
V. Summary of Changes From the Proposed
Rule
VI. Critical Habitat
Background
VII. Methods
Occupied Areas
Essential Physical or Biological Features
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
Unoccupied Areas
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation
Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units
IX. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Application of the ‘‘Adverse Modification’’
Standard
X. Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
XI. Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors
Summary of Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors
XII. Required Determinations
XIII. References Cited
Regulation Promulgation
I. Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This
is a final rule to designate or revise
critical habitat for 135 species from the
island cluster of Maui Nui (Molokai,
Maui, Lanai, and Kahoolawe) in the
State of Hawaii. Under the Act, any
species that is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species
requires critical habitat to be designated,
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and
revisions of critical habitat can only be
completed by issuing a rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), listed 96 of the 135
species as endangered or threatened
species at various times (see 77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012). On June 11, 2012,
we published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule to list 38 Maui Nui
species as endangered, reaffirm the
listing of 2 species as endangered, and
designate or revise critical habitat for
135 Maui Nui species (77 FR 34464). On
May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014) we listed
38 Maui Nui species as endangered and
reaffirmed the listing of 2 species as
endangered. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
states that the Secretary shall designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
The critical habitat areas we are
designating in this rule constitute our
current best assessment of the areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
125 of the 135 Maui Nui species. Here
we are designating as critical habitat
approximately 157,002 acres (ac)
(63,537 hectares (ha)) in 165 unique
units for 125 Maui Nui species: 31,513
ac (12,753 ha) on Molokai; 119,349 ac
(48,299 ha) on Maui; and 6,142 ac (2,486
ha) on Kahoolawe. No critical habitat is
designated on the island of Lanai as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act; as a
consequence, final critical habitat is not
designated for 10 of the Maui Nui
species.
In this final rule, 29,170 ac (11,805
ha) have been removed from the area
originally proposed as a result of
refinement in unit areas made in
response to public comments and
additional field visits. We removed
these areas based on our determination
that they do not meet the definition of
critical habitat. In addition, 84,891 ac
(34,354 ha) of non-Federal lands on
Maui, Molokai, and Lanai have been
excluded from final designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For these
lands, the Secretary has determined that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of critical habitat designation
and that these exclusions will not result
in the extinction of the species.
In this final rule, we also recognize
taxonomic changes and spelling
corrections of the scientific names for 10
plant species and 2 bird species, and
revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
accordingly.
We have prepared an economic
analysis of the designation of critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we have prepared an analysis
of the economic impacts of the critical
17791
habitat designation and related factors.
We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the
Federal Register on January 31, 2013
(78 FR 6785), allowing the public to
provide comment on our analysis. We
also held a public information meeting
and public hearing on our proposed
rulemaking and associated DEA in
Kihei, Maui, on February 21, 2013. We
have considered the comments and have
completed the final economic analysis
(FEA) concurrently with this final
determination.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We obtained
opinions from four knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to
review our technical assumptions and
analysis, and to determine whether or
not we had used the best available
scientific information. These peer
reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve this final
rule. Information we received from peer
review is incorporated into this final
designation. We also considered all
comments and information we received
from the public during multiple
comment periods, which totaled 135
days in length.
designate critical habitat for 135 Maui
Nui species. (Please note that because
the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat was originally published in
conjunction with the proposed listing
rule, which has already been finalized,
the proposed rule critical habitat rule
and associated documents, such as the
draft economic analysis, are posted at
https://www.regulations.gov under the
original Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–
0098). Publication of the June 11, 2012,
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. 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. 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 on the draft economic
analysis on the proposed critical habitat
designation, and announced both a
public information meeting and a
hearing to be held in Kihei, Maui, on
February 21, 2013. This second
comment period closed on March 4,
2013. We opened a final comment
period on the proposed critical habitat
designation for an additional 15 days on
June 10, 2015 (80 FR 32922).
II. Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for these species are
outlined in our May 28, 2013 (78 FR
32014), final rule to list 38 Maui Nui
species and reaffirm the listing of 2
endangered plants and in our June 11,
2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule to
list 38 species as endangered and
III. Background
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. ‘‘NCN’’ indicates no common name. ‘‘E’’ denotes endangered status under the
act; ‘‘T’’ denotes threatened status under the act]
Listing
status
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Scientific name
Common name(s)
Plants:
Abutilon eremitopetalum ........................................................
Acaena exigua .......................................................................
Adenophorus periens .............................................................
Alectryon macrococcus ..........................................................
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum ................
Asplenium dielerectum ...........................................................
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare .....................................
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera ...................................
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis .................................
Bidens conjuncta ....................................................................
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha ...........................................
Bidens wiebkei .......................................................................
Bonamia menziesii .................................................................
Brighamia rockii .....................................................................
Calamagrostis hillebrandii ......................................................
Canavalia molokaiensis .........................................................
Canavalia pubescens .............................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
liliwai ..........................................................
pendent kihi fern ........................................
mahoe ........................................................
ahinahina (= Haleakala silversword) .........
asplenium-leaved diellia ............................
[NCN] .........................................................
kookoolau ..................................................
kookoolau ..................................................
kookoolau ..................................................
kookoolau ..................................................
kookoolau ..................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
pua ala .......................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
awikiwiki .....................................................
awikiwiki .....................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
30MRR2
Critical habitat 1
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
17792
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—THE MAUI NUI SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THIS FINAL RULE—Continued
[Note that many of the species share the same common name. ‘‘NCN’’ indicates no common name. ‘‘E’’ denotes endangered status under the
act; ‘‘T’’ denotes threatened status under the act]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Scientific name
Cenchrus agrimonioides ........................................................
Clermontia lindseyana ...........................................................
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes ....................................
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis .................................
Clermontia peleana ................................................................
Clermontia samuelii ...............................................................
Colubrina oppositifolia ............................................................
Ctenitis squamigera ...............................................................
Cyanea asplenifolia ................................................................
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis .................................
Cyanea dunbariae ..................................................................
Cyanea duvalliorum ...............................................................
Cyanea gibsonii .....................................................................
Cyanea glabra ........................................................................
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana .....................................
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora .....................................
Cyanea horrida ......................................................................
Cyanea kunthiana ..................................................................
Cyanea lobata ........................................................................
Cyanea magnicalyx ................................................................
Cyanea mannii .......................................................................
Cyanea maritae ......................................................................
Cyanea mauiensis .................................................................
Cyanea mceldowneyi .............................................................
Cyanea munroi .......................................................................
Cyanea obtusa .......................................................................
Cyanea procera .....................................................................
Cyanea profuga .....................................................................
Cyanea solanacea .................................................................
Cyperus fauriei .......................................................................
Cyperus pennatiformis ...........................................................
Cyperus trachysanthos ..........................................................
Cyrtandra ferripilosa ...............................................................
Cyrtandra filipes .....................................................................
Cyrtandra munroi ...................................................................
Cyrtandra oxybapha ...............................................................
Diplazium molokaiense ..........................................................
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis .........................................
Eugenia koolauensis ..............................................................
Festuca molokaiensis ............................................................
Flueggea neowawraea ...........................................................
Geranium arboreum ...............................................................
Geranium hanaense ..............................................................
Geranium hillebrandii .............................................................
Geranium multiflorum .............................................................
Gouania hillebrandii ...............................................................
Gouania vitifolia .....................................................................
Hesperomannia arborescens .................................................
Hesperomannia arbuscula .....................................................
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus .................................
Hibiscus brackenridgei ...........................................................
Huperzia mannii .....................................................................
Ischaemum byrone ................................................................
Isodendrion pyrifolium ............................................................
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi ......................................................
Kadua coriacea ......................................................................
Kadua laxiflora .......................................................................
Kanaloa kahoolawensis .........................................................
Kokia cookei ...........................................................................
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis ............................................
Labordia triflora ......................................................................
Lysimachia lydgatei ................................................................
Lysimachia maxima ...............................................................
Marsilea villosa ......................................................................
Melanthera kamolensis ..........................................................
Melicope adscendens ............................................................
Melicope balloui .....................................................................
Melicope knudsenii ................................................................
Melicope mucronulata ............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Listing
status
Common name(s)
PO 00000
Frm 00004
kamanomano (= sandbur, agrimony) ........
oha wai ......................................................
oha wai ......................................................
oha wai ......................................................
oha wai ......................................................
oha wai ......................................................
kauila .........................................................
pauoa .........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha nui .....................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
haha ...........................................................
popolo ........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
puukaa .......................................................
haiwale .......................................................
haiwale .......................................................
haiwale .......................................................
haiwale .......................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
naenae .......................................................
nioi .............................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
mehamehame ............................................
Hawaiian red-flowered geranium ...............
nohoanu .....................................................
nohoanu .....................................................
nohoanu .....................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
kokio keokeo ..............................................
mao hau hele .............................................
wawaeiole ..................................................
Hilo ischaemum .........................................
wahine noho kula ......................................
kopa ...........................................................
kioele .........................................................
pilo .............................................................
kohe malama malama o kanaloa ..............
Cooke’s kokio ............................................
kamakahala ...............................................
kamakahala ...............................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
ihi ihi ..........................................................
nehe ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
30MRR2
Critical habitat 1
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Not Determinable
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—1984
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17793
TABLE 1—THE MAUI NUI SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THIS FINAL RULE—Continued
[Note that many of the species share the same common name. ‘‘NCN’’ indicates no common name. ‘‘E’’ denotes endangered status under the
act; ‘‘T’’ denotes threatened status under the act]
Listing
status
Critical habitat 1
Scientific name
Common name(s)
Melicope munroi .....................................................................
Melicope ovalis ......................................................................
Melicope reflexa .....................................................................
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea .............................................
Myrsine vaccinioides ..............................................................
Neraudia sericea ....................................................................
Nototrichium humile ...............................................................
Peperomia subpetiolata .........................................................
Peucedanum sandwicense ....................................................
Phyllostegia bracteata ............................................................
Phyllostegia haliakalae ..........................................................
Phyllostegia hispida ...............................................................
Phyllostegia mannii ................................................................
Phyllostegia pilosa .................................................................
Pittosporum halophilum .........................................................
Plantago princeps ..................................................................
Platanthera holochila .............................................................
Pleomele fernaldii ..................................................................
Portulaca sclerocarpa ............................................................
Pteris lidgatei .........................................................................
Remya mauiensis ..................................................................
Sanicula purpurea ..................................................................
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense ......................................
Schenkia sebaeoides .............................................................
Schiedea haleakalensis .........................................................
Schiedea jacobii .....................................................................
Schiedea laui .........................................................................
Schiedea lydgatei ...................................................................
Schiedea salicaria ..................................................................
Schiedea sarmentosa ............................................................
Sesbania tomentosa ..............................................................
Silene alexandri .....................................................................
Silene lanceolata ....................................................................
Solanum incompletum ...........................................................
Spermolepis hawaiiensis .......................................................
Stenogyne bifida ....................................................................
Stenogyne kauaulaensis ........................................................
Tetramolopium capillare .........................................................
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum ..............................
Tetramolopium remyi .............................................................
Tetramolopium rockii ..............................................................
Vigna o-wahuensis .................................................................
Viola lanaiensis ......................................................................
Wikstroemia villosa ................................................................
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense .......................................................
Animals:
Birds:
Palmeria dolei ........................................................................
Pseudonestor xanthophrys ....................................................
Snails:
Newcombia cumingi ...............................................................
Partulina semicarinata ...........................................................
Partulina variabilis ..................................................................
alani ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
alani ...........................................................
sea bean ....................................................
kolea ..........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
kului ...........................................................
alaala wai nui .............................................
makou ........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
hoawa ........................................................
laukahi kuahiwi ..........................................
[NCN] .........................................................
hala pepe ...................................................
poe .............................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
Maui remya ................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
iliahi ............................................................
awiwi ..........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
ohai ............................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
popolo ku mai ............................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
pamakani ...................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
[NCN] .........................................................
akia ............................................................
ae ...............................................................
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Revised—2003.
Final.
Final.
Revised—2003.
Akohekohe, crested honeycreeper ............
Kiwikiu, Maui parrotbill ...............................
....................................................................
Newcomb’s tree snail ................................
Lanai tree snail ..........................................
Lanai tree snail ..........................................
E
E
Final.
Final.
E
E
E
Final.
Final.
Final.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
1 Listed species for which critical habitat is designated for the first time are classified here as ‘‘Final.’’ If this is a revision of previously designated critical habitat, the species is classified as ‘Revised’’ followed by the year of the original designation.
Taxonomic Changes and Spelling
Corrections Since Listing for 2 Bird
Species and 10 Plant Species From
Maui Nui
As described in detail in our proposed
rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464), in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
this final rule we are accepting name or
spelling changes for 2 bird species and
10 plant species. In brief, we accept the
recently adopted Hawaiian common
name, kiwikiu, for the Maui parrotbill
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys). We also
add the Hawaiian common name,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
akohekohe, to the listing for the crested
honeycreeper (Palmeria dolei).
Additionally, based on recent botanical
work, we accept various name changes
and spelling corrections for 10
endangered plant species listed between
1991 and 1999 (Table 2).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17794
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—NAME CHANGES AND SPELLING CORRECTIONS FOR 2 LISTED ENDANGERED HAWAIIAN BIRDS AND 10 LISTED
ENDANGERED HAWAIIAN PLANTS
Listing
Family
Birds:
32 FR 4001 .......
Fringillidae ........
Maui parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys)
32 FR 4001 .......
Fringillidae ........
Crested honeycreeper (Palmeria dolei) ........
Aspleniaceae ....
Gentianaceae ...
Campanulaceae
Campanulaceae
Aspleniaceae ....
Rubiaceae ........
Rubiaceae ........
Asteraceae .......
Cyperaceae ......
Lycopodiaceae
Asplenium fragile var. insulare .....................
Centaurium sebaeoides ................................
Cyanea dunbarii ............................................
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii ................
Diellia erecta .................................................
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi .......
Hedyotis mannii ............................................
Lipochaeta kamolensis .................................
Mariscus fauriei .............................................
Phlegmariurus mannii ...................................
Plants:
59
56
61
56
59
64
57
57
59
57
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
49025
55770
53130
47686
56333
48307
46325
20772
10305
20772
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Name as previously listed
All of the aforementioned taxonomic
changes and spelling corrections are
currently accepted by the scientific
community; detailed background
information on each of the changes is
provided in our supporting document
‘‘Supplementary Information for the
Designation and Nondesignation of
Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species,’’
available at https://www.regulations.gov
and at https://www.fws.gov/
pacificislands (see ADDRESSES). In
accordance with the references cited in
our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR
34464) and our supporting
documentation, we are revising the List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants at
50 CFR 17.12 and the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at
50 CFR 17.11. In addition, we made
editorial revisions to a limited number
of units and species descriptions in 50
CFR 17.99(a)(1) and (b) (Kauai), 50 CFR
17.99(i) and (j) (Oahu), 50 CFR 17.99(k)
and (l) (Hawaii Island) to adopt the
taxonomic changes.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Current Status of 135 Listed Maui Nui
Species
Plants
In order to avoid confusion regarding
the number of locations of each species,
we use the word ‘‘occurrence’’ instead
of ‘‘population.’’ It is important to note
that a ‘‘location’’ or ‘‘occurrence’’ as
used here is not the same as a
‘‘population,’’ as in many cases a
location or occurrence may represent
only one or very few representative
individuals of the species present. A
population, on the other hand,
represents a group of interbreeding
organisms sufficiently represented in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Newly accepted name
Kiwikiu, Maui parrotbill .............................
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys) ....................
Akohekohe,
crested
honeycreeper
(Palmeria dolei).
No.
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare .......
Schenkia sebaeoides ...............................
Cyanea dunbariae ....................................
Cyanea gibsonii .......................................
Asplenium dielerectum .............................
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi ........................
Kadua laxiflora .........................................
Melanthera kamolensis ............................
Cyperus fauriei .........................................
Huperzia mannii .......................................
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
numbers of individuals, age class, and
genetic diversity to remain viable over
the long term in the face of
demographic, environmental, and
genetic stochasticity, and natural
catastrophes. This distinction is
particularly important in evaluating the
current status of each species relative to
the determination of what is essential
for the conservation of the species, as
guided, for example, by the recovery
plan for the plant or animal species, if
available (e.g., as defined for several of
the plant species in this final rule in the
Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant
Cluster; Service 1997, pp. iv–v), or by
the general guidelines of the Hawaii and
Pacific Plant Recovery Coordinating
Committee (HPPRCC, 1998, 32 pp. +
appendices). In general, populations are
considered as meeting the objectives for
conservation if they are secure, stable,
and naturally reproducing over some
minimum period of time, depending
upon their life history. As reported here,
each occurrence is composed only of
wild (i.e., not propagated and
outplanted) individuals, unless
otherwise specified. In this rule,
outplanted occurrences are generally
not considered as meeting specified
recovery objectives because currently
these outplants have not been observed
to be naturally reproducing and stable
(over at least two generations), and as
such have not demonstrated the
capacity for reproduction and
recruitment necessary to maintain or
increase the population over time.
Abutilon eremitopetalum (no
common name (NCN)), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the mallow family
(Malvaceae), is endemic to Lanai (Bates
1999, pp. 871–872). At the time we
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Change in
range
of listed
entity?
No.
designated critical habitat in 2003, A.
eremitopetalum was known from a
single occurrence of seven individuals
on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
Currently, there are nine individuals at
Puu Mahanalua in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
PEPP 2008, p. 45: PEPP 2011, p. 49).
Acaena exigua (liliwai), a short-lived
perennial herb in the rose family
(Rosaceae), is known from west Maui
and Kauai (Wagner et al. 1999p, pp.
1,102–1,103). Acaena exigua was
rediscovered in 1997 at Puu Kukui on
west Maui, when one individual was
found growing in a bog in the montane
wet ecosystem, but this individual died
in 2000 (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer et al.
2002, p. 1). This area on west Maui was
searched as recently as 2008 by
botanists; however, no plants were
found (Aruch 2010, in litt.). Botanists
continue to survey the potentially
suitable habitat in the area where this
species was last observed.
Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi
fern), a short-lived perennial fern in the
grammitis family (Grammitidaceae), is
epiphytic on the native tree Acacia koa
(koa). Adenophorus periens is known
from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and the
island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, p. 39).
At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003 and 2012, A. periens was
known from Kauai, Molokai, the island
of Hawaii, and Oahu (68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March
18, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77
FR 57648, September 18, 2012).
Adenophorus periens was last seen on
Molokai in 1995, in the montane wet
ecosystem, at the edge of Pepeopae bog
(Perlman 2008b, in litt.). It was last
collected in the late 1800s to early 1900s
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
from the montane wet ecosystem on east
Maui and Lanai (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010).
Alectryon macrococcus (mahoe), a
long-lived perennial tree in the
soapberry family (Sapindaceae), is
known from two varieties: Alectryon
macrococcus var. auwahiensis (east
Maui) and A. macrococcus var.
macrococcus (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
and Maui) (Wagner et al. 1999x, p.
1,225). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, A. macrococcus
var. auwahiensis was known from three
occurrences on east Maui (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Currently, A.
macrococcus var. auwahiensis is found
in one occurrence of seven individuals
in Auwahi, in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
NTBG Provenance Report 1993; PEPP
2009, p. 33). This variety was
historically found in the lowland dry,
montane dry, and montane mesic
ecosystems, not lower than 1,200 feet
(ft) (360 meters (m)) in elevation (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010; Wagner et al. 1999,
p. 1,225). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, A.
macrococcus var. macrococcus was
found on Kauai, Molokai, west Maui,
and Oahu (68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). Currently, on
Molokai, this variety is found in three
known occurrences: One individual at
Kahawai, eight individuals from
Kaunakakai to Kawela, and one
individual in Makolelau, in the lowland
mesic and montane mesic ecosystems.
On west Maui, A. macrococcus var.
macrococcus is found in 6 occurrences
totaling 11 individuals (1 individual
each at Honokowai Stream, Wahikuli,
Kahoma Ditch Trail, Olowalu, and Iao
Valley, and 6 individuals at Honokowai)
in the lowland wet and wet cliff
ecosystems. On east Maui, there are an
unknown number of individuals at
Kahakapao in the montane mesic
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008;
Oppenheimer 2010p, in litt.).
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum (ahinahina, Haleakala
silversword) is a short-lived perennial
rosette shrub in the sunflower family
(Asteraceae) and is known from within
a 2,500-ac (1,000-ha) area, between
6,900 to 9,800 ft (2,100 to 3,000 m) in
elevation, at the summit and crater of
Haleakala on east Maui (Carr 1999a, p.
261; Service 2010, in litt.; Haleakala
National Park (HNP) 2012, in litt.;
Service 2015, in litt.). In 2006, seven
occurrences totaled approximately
50,000 individuals (a decline from
75,000 known individuals in 1990), and
span across adjoining dry cliff,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
subalpine, and alpine ecosystems (TNC
2007; Perlman 2008c, in litt., p. 1;
Service 2010, in litt.; HNP 2012, in litt.;
Service 2015, in litt.). These seven
occurrences are generally considered to
represent one single population, which
is greatly reduced in its distribution
from its historical range on Haleakala.
One individual is found in Hanawi
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) in the
montane mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007;
Perlman 2008c, p. 1; HBMP 2010). This
species is monocarpic (dies after
flowering) and reaches full maturity
after 15 to 50 years. The triggers for
blooming are unknown, and plants
flower sporadically, or sometimes all at
once, from June through October (Starr
et al. 2007, in litt.; Starr et al. 2009, p.
1). This species experiences reduced
reproductive success in low-flowering
years (Forsyth 2003; Krushelnycky et al.
2012, p. 8). As populations and numbers
of individuals decrease in numbers,
they are less likely to be visited by
pollinators, and fitness is reduced as
population size decreases, with
extinction of these groups of plants
becoming more likely as the population
declines (Forsyth 2002, pp. 26–27;
Krushelnycky et al. 2012, p. 9;
Krushelnycky 2014, p. 12). In addition,
this species is an obligate out-crosser,
meaning it cannot fertilize itself, but
must have pollen from other non-related
individuals to set fertile seed
(Krushelnycky 2014, p. 5). Lower
numbers of populations and individuals
increases the distances pollinators are
required to travel, also contributing to
lack of pollination from other nonrelated individuals (Forsyth 2002, p.
40). Research also indicated that, even
with greater than 2,700 individuals
blooming simultaneously, there would
be very little, if any, seed set (Forsyth
2002, p. 40). Furthermore, because all of
the plants that flower die afterward,
large numbers of individuals are lost
following such an event, and without
subsequent seed set and recruitment,
this represents a significant loss to the
total population. Given that there are
very low-flowering years in the current
population of approximately 50,000
individuals, it is likely that, if the
population continues to decline, even
fewer plants would have reproductive
success (Forsyth 2002, p. 42).
Altogether, this combination of life
history characteristics results in a
population that may appear to be
relatively large, but is actually highly
vulnerable to large losses of individuals
very quickly under certain
circumstances (such as when
environmental conditions trigger large
numbers of adults to flower and die all
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17795
at once). Yearly measurements in census
plots indicate a population decline of 73
percent since 1982, likely associated
with changing climatic conditions (Starr
et al. 2009; in litt.; Krushelnycky et al.
2012, p. 8). Threats, including
competition with nonnative plants, loss
of native pollinators (affecting seed set),
drought, predation by rats (Rattus spp.),
slugs, and nonnative insects, and
predation and competition with native
pollinators by nonnative ants, continue
to affect this species (Cole et al. 1992,
pp. 1320–1321; Starr and Starr 2002, pp.
3–4; Forsyth 2002, p. 81; Krusheknycky
2014, pp. 8–10). Weather and rainfall
changes resulting from climate change
are potential threats, as suitable habitat
to the summit of Haleakala will
continue to diminish over time (Starr et
al. 2009, in litt.). To attain delisting
goals, the threats to its pollinators must
be controlled, and the widespread
occurrences must exceed and be
maintained at over 50,000 individuals to
ensure genetic variability and long-term
persistence (Forsyth 2002, p. 42;
Krushelnycky et al. 2012, p. 12).
Because of its unique reproductive
features, the ongoing and potential
threats to this species, and the small
range of its current occurrences at
higher elevations on east Maui, and to
accommodate loss of habitat with
expected climate change, we consider
the single remaining population of A.
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum to be
vulnerable to extinction. The
establishment of additional populations
in currently unoccupied habitat (in
addition to occupied habitat) is essential
to this species’ conservation, to achieve
redundancy in populations and provide
the species with the resiliency to
withstand threats and respond to
climate change over time. For this
species in particular, with all remaining
individuals highly concentrated in one
small area, it is essential to achieve a
widespread distribution of multiple
populations across areas that are
presently unoccupied to reduce risk
from stochastic events, as well as to
allow for blooming at different times so
not all reproductive individuals in a
population die simultaneously.
Asplenium dielerectum (aspleniumleaved diellia) (formerly Diellia erecta),
a short-lived perennial fern in the
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is
historically known from Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of
Hawaii (Palmer 2003, pp. 117–119). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003 and 2012, this species was
known from Kauai, Molokai, Maui, the
island of Hawaii, and Oahu (68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17796
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003;
68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
77 FR 57648). Currently, A. dielerectum
is known from two occurrences on
Molokai, where an unknown number of
plants were last seen in Onini and
Makolelau gulches in the 1990s, in the
lowland mesic ecosystem (Lau 2010, in
litt.). Historically, this species was also
found in the montane mesic and
lowland wet ecosystems (HBMP 2010).
Botanists believe that additional
individuals of this species may be found
during further searches of potentially
suitable habitat on Molokai (Lau 2010,
in litt.). In addition, there are two
occurrences totaling five individuals on
Maui. Four individuals occur on west
Maui at Hanaulaiki in the lowland dry
ecosystem, and on east Maui, one
individual occurs at Polipoli in the
montane mesic ecosystem
(Oppenheimer 2010q, in litt.).
Historically, A. dielerectum was also
found in the lowland mesic and
lowland wet ecosystems on west Maui,
and in the lowland dry and dry cliff
ecosystems on Lanai (HBMP 2010).
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare
(NCN) (formerly Asplenium fragile var.
insulare) is a short-lived perennial
terrestrial fern in the spleenwort
(Aspleniaceae) family, from Maui and
the island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, pp.
70–71). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this variety was
found on east Maui in 2 occurrences
and on the island of Hawaii in 36
occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003).
Currently, on east Maui, A. peruvianum
var. insulare is known from five
occurrences at Waikamoi Stream, at Puu
Luau, east of Hosmer Grove, north of
Kalapawili Ridge, and in Hanawi
Natural Area Reserve. These
occurrences total as many as 100
individuals, in the montane wet,
montane mesic, and subalpine
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010r, in litt.).
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera
(kookoolau), a short-lived 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;
Welton 2008, in litt.; National Tropical
Botanical Garden (NTBGa) 2009, pp. 1–
2; Fay 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010). It is
uncertain if plants observed in the Hana
FR at Waihoi Valley are B.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 FR) 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 short-lived 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 2010).
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 2010;
Welton 2008, in litt.). Approximately
200 plants are scattered over an area of
about 2.5 miles (mi) (4 kilometers (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 shortlived perennial herb in the sunflower
family (Asteraceae), occurs only on west
Maui (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp.
273–274). Historically, this species was
known from the mountains of the
Honokohau drainage basin, from the
west Maui summit to as low as 2,500 ft
(760 m) elevation (Sherff 1923, p. 162;
HBMP 2010). In the 1990s, this species
occurred in two areas encompassing
over 800 ac (330 ha). Currently, B.
conjuncta is found scattered in nine
locations at elevations above 3,000 ft
(914 m) in the lowland wet, montane
wet, and wet cliff ecosystems. The
largest numbers of individuals are found
in two upper elevation areas
encompassing only 135 ac (55 ha). A
rough estimate is that all known
occurrences may total from 3,000 to as
many as 7,000 individuals
(Oppenheimer 2005–GIS data; TNC
2007; Oppenheimer 2008a, in litt.;
HBMP 2010; Perlman 2010, in litt.).
However, it is not known whether any
of these occurrences may meet the
criteria for qualifying as a selfsustaining population. Currently, the
greatest threat to B.conjuncta is
competition with nonnative plants.
Other threats include habitat
modification by pigs, goats, and
nonnative plants, herbivory by pigs,
goats, slugs, and rats, seed predation by
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rats, hurricanes, and effects of climate
change. To be considered for delisting,
these threats must be managed or
controlled, with a minimum of 8 to 10
self-sustaining populations consisting of
all size classes sustained over a period
of 5 years. These goals have not yet been
met; in addition, all threats are not
being sufficiently managed throughout
all of the occurrences. Designation of
unoccupied habitat (in addition to
occupied habitat) is essential to the
conservation of B. conjuncta as it
remains in danger of extinction
throughout its range, therefore it
requires sufficient habitat to allow the
species to persist in the face of ongoing
threats and to provide for the expansion
and reestablishment of populations in
areas presently unoccupied by the
species to meet recovery goals.
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha
(kookoolau), a short-lived perennial
herb in the sunflower family
(Asteraceae), is known from Lanai and
Maui (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp.
278–279). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this subspecies
was known from one occurrence on
Lanai and four occurrences on east Maui
(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha is known from
4 occurrences totaling over 200
individuals on Lanai and Maui. On
Lanai, this subspecies is known from 1
occurrence of 12 to 14 individuals north
of Waiapaa Gulch in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (Puttock 2003, p. 1; TNC
2007; HBMP 2010). On east Maui, there
are 4 occurrences: approximately 200
individuals south of Puu Keokea, a few
individuals above Polipoli State Park,
and 2 wild occurrences in Haleakala
National Park (with an unreported
number of individuals) (National Park
Service (NPS) 2012, in litt.). The Park
has outplanted 585 individuals at 18
locations (NPS 2012, in litt.). Two
occurrences are in the subalpine
ecosystem, and two are in the dry cliff
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer
2010s, in litt.; NPS 2012, in litt.; HNP
2012, in litt.). On west Maui, there are
four to six individuals at Honokowai in
the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010). This subspecies was
historically known from the lowland
dry and dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai,
and from the montane mesic and
lowland dry ecosystems on east Maui
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Bidens wiebkei (kookoolau), a shortlived perennial herb in the sunflower
family (Asteraceae), is endemic to
Molokai (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp.
282–283). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this species was
known from five occurrences on
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, B. wiebkei is known from 6
occurrences totaling as many as 500
individuals. In the coastal ecosystem,
several hundred plants occur on the
windward sea cliffs from Papalaua
Valley to Puahaunui Point, and 200 or
more individuals are found on rolling
hills and sea cliffs at Lamaloa Gulch.
Approximately 40 individuals occur
west of Waialua near Kahawaiiki Gulch
in the lowland wet ecosystem, and
about 10 individuals occur at Kumueli
in the montane wet ecosystem. In the
montane mesic ecosystem, there are 2
occurrences: 10 to 20 individuals below
Puu Kolekole, and 1 individual at
Kawela Gulch (Wood and Perlman 2002,
pp. 1–2; Perlman 2006a, pp. 1–2; TNC
2007; Oppenheimer 2009a, in litt.;
Wood 2009b, pp. 1–2; HBMP 2010).
Bonamia menziesii (NCN) is a shortlived perennial liana (vine) in the
morning glory family (Convolvulaceae).
Bonamia menziesii is known from
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Hawaii Island (Austin 1999, p. 550;
HBMP 2010). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, B.
menziesii was known from 3
occurrences on Lanai, 9 occurrences on
Kauai, 6 occurrences on Maui, 2
occurrences on Hawaii Island, and 12 to
13 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February
27, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003;
68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). However, no
critical habitat was designated for this
species on Lanai or Molokai in 2003 (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003). Currently, B. menziesii
is known from 6 occurrences on Lanai
and Maui, totaling over 10 individuals.
On Lanai, B. menziesii is found at
Kanepuu (one individual observed dead
in 2008, two other individuals not
observed since 2001) and at Puhielelu
Ridge (two individuals were observed in
1996) in the lowland mesic ecosystem
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010t, in litt.). This species is found on
west Maui at Honokowai (two
individuals) in the wet cliff ecosystem,
and on east Maui at Puu o Kali (one
individual), Kaloi (one individual), and
Kanaio NAR (four individuals), in the
lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; Bily
2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010). This species
was last seen in the dry cliff ecosystem
on west Maui in 1920 (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010). Bonamia menziesii has
not been observed on Molokai (in the
lowland dry and lowland mesic
ecosystems) since the early 1900s
(HBMP 2010).
Brighamia rockii (pua ala), a shortlived perennial stem succulent in the
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
known from east Molokai and Lanai,
and may have occurred on Maui
(Lammers 1999, p. 423). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Maui and
Molokai in 2003, this species was
known from five occurrences on
Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003;
68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently,
B. rockii is found on Molokai at Lepau
Point (one individual); at Waiehu, (four
individuals), and on Huelo islet (one
individual), in the coastal and wet cliff
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
NTBG 2009i; Oppenheimer 2010u, in
litt.). This species was last observed on
Lanai in 1911, in the dry cliff ecosystem
(HBMP 2010). According to Lammers
(1999, p. 423), B. rockii was likely found
in the coastal ecosystem on Maui.
Calamagrostis hillebrandii (NCN), a
short-lived 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 2010; Oppenheimer
2010a, in litt.).
Canavalia molokaiensis (awikiwiki), a
short-lived perennial climbing herb in
the pea family (Fabaceae), is endemic to
east Molokai (Wagner and Herbst 1999,
p. 653). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this species was
known from seven occurrences on
Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, C. molokaiensis is found in 9
occurrences totaling approximately 170
individuals in the following locations:
Kawailena drainage in Pelekunu Valley
(1 individual); Kua Gulch
(approximately 100 individuals); near
the junction at Kupiaia Gulch (10 to 20
individuals); Waiehu (5 to 10
individuals); west Kawela Gulch (6
individuals); Kukaiwaa (approximately
15 individuals); Mokomoko Gulch (a
few individuals); Wailua (10
individuals); and Waialeia Stream (a
few individuals) (Perlman 2008d, pp. 1–
2; HBMP 2010; Tangalin 2010, in litt.).
These plants are found in the coastal,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007).
Canavalia pubescens (awikiwiki), a
short-lived 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17797
in Haao Valley that was last observed in
1949 (HBMP 2010). On Kauai, this
species was known from six populations
ranging from Awaawapuhi to Wainiha,
where it was last observed in 1977
(HBMP 2010). 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
2010). At present, the only known
occurrence is on east Maui, from Puu o
Kali south to Pohakea, in the lowland
dry ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2006a, in
litt.; Starr 2006, in litt.; Altenburg 2007,
pp. 12–13; Oppenheimer 2007, in litt.;
Greenlee 2013, in litt.). All plants of this
species that formerly were found in the
Ahihi-Kinau NAR on Maui were
destroyed by feral goats (Capra hircus)
by the end of 2010 (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 NAR and the loss of plants
at Palauea-Keahou, C. pubescens may
currently total fewer than 200
individuals at a single location.
Cenchrus agrimonioides
(kamanomano (also known as sandbur
or agrimony)), a short-lived perennial in
the grass family (Poaceae), is known
from two varieties: C. agrimonioides var.
agrimonioides (Lanai, Maui, Oahu, and
Hawaii) and C. agrimonioides var.
laysanensis (Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll,
and Laysan) (O’Connor 1999, pp. 1,511–
1,512). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, C.
agrimonioides was known from one
occurrence on east Maui, one
occurrence on west Maui, and three to
six occurrences on Oahu (HBMP 2010;
68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR
57648, September 18, 2012). Currently,
on Maui, C. agrimonioides is known
from four occurrences totaling five
individuals in the lowland dry
ecosystem. On west Maui, this variety
occurs in Hanaulaiki and Papalaua
gulches (one individual at each
location). On east Maui, C.
agrimonioides occurs in Kanaio (2
individuals), and within the Kanio NAR
(one individual) (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008,
pp. 47–48; PEPP 2009, p. 39; HBMP
2010). This plant was last observed on
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17798
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Lanai in 1915, in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Clermontia lindseyana (oha wai), a
short-lived perennial shrub or tree in
the bellflower family (Campanulaceae),
is known from Maui and Hawaii Island
(Lammers 1999, p. 431). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, C.
lindseyana was known from 2
occurrences on Maui and from 15
occurrences on Hawaii Island (68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July
2, 2003). Currently, there is 1 known
occurrence totaling approximately 30
individuals on east Maui at Wailaulau
in the montane mesic ecosystem
(Perlman 2007a, in litt.; TNC 2007;
PEPP 2009, pp. 40–41; Wood 2009c, in
litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010a,
in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010v, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010w, in litt.).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes
(oha wai), a short-lived perennial shrub
or tree in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is endemic to east
Molokai (Lammers 1999, pp. 432–433).
At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003, this species was known
from one occurrence in Kamakou
Preserve (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003;
Perlman 2009d, in litt.). Currently, C.
oblongifolia ssp. brevipes is found in 1
known occurrence totaling 11
individuals on Uapa Ridge in the
montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Bakutis 2009a, in litt.;
Perlman 2009d, in litt.). Historically,
this subspecies also occurred in the
lowland mesic, lowland wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis (oha wai), a short-lived
perennial shrub or tree in the bellflower
family (Campanulaceae), is known from
Lanai and Maui (Lammers 1999, pp.
432–433). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this species was
known from one occurrence of two
individuals on west Maui, and from
historical occurrences on Lanai and east
Maui (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003; Perlman
2009e, in litt.; HBMP 2010). However,
no critical habitat was designated for
this species on Maui in 2003 (68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, C.
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is found in
one known occurrence totaling four
individuals in Haipuena Gulch in the
montane wet ecosystem on east Maui
(TNC 2007; Perlman 2009e, in litt.;
HBMP 2010). Historically, this species
was also found in the lowland mesic
and lowland wet ecosystem on Lanai,
and the lowland wet ecosystem on Maui
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). An
examination of the type specimen and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
other collections indicates that C.
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis may be a
hybrid; however, further examination of
specimens from Lanai and Maui are
necessary (Albert 2001, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010s, in litt.).
Clermontia peleana (oha wai) is a
short-lived perennial shrub or tree in
the bellflower family (Campanulaceae).
There are two subspecies: C. peleana
ssp. peleana (Hawaii Island) and C.
peleana ssp. singuliflora (east Maui and
Hawaii Island) (Lammers 1999, p. 435).
This species is observed to be epiphytic
on Metrosideros spp. (ohia), Acacia koa
(koa), and Cheirodendron (olapa)
(Lammers 1999, p. 435). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Maui in
2003, C. peleana had not been observed
on either island since the early 1900s
(68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003). Critical habitat was
designated on the island of Hawaii in
2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003).
Currently, there are no known
individuals of C. peleana spp.
singuliflora on Maui; however, this
subspecies was recently rediscovered on
Hawaii Island (TNC 2010). Clermontia
peleana ssp. singuliflora was last seen
in 1920, on east Maui in the lowland
wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Clermontia samuelii (oha wai), a
short-lived perennial shrub in the
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is
known from Maui (Lammers 1999, p.
436). There are two subspecies: C.
samuelii ssp. hanaensis, which
generally is found at lower elevations,
and C. samuelii ssp. samuelii (Lammers
1995, p. 344). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, C. samuelii was
known from seven occurrences on east
Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Currently, C. samuelii ssp. hanaensis is
found in bog margins in the lowland
wet and montane wet ecosystems at
Kopiliula, and at Kawaipapa, with
historical occurrences at Kuhiwa Valley,
Palikea Stream, and Waihoi Valley (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b,
in litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.).
Clermontia samuelii ssp. samuelii is
found in 2 known occurrences, in East
Maui’s montane wet ecosystem (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010; Welton 2010a, in
litt.). Five individuals have been
outplanted in two locations within
Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in
litt.) There is a report of one individual
(subspecies unknown) at Papanalahou
Point on west Maui (HBMP 2010).
Colubrina oppositifolia (kauila), a
long-lived perennial tree in the
buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae), is
known from Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii
(Wagner et al. 1999y, p. 1,094). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003 and 2012, this species was known
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
from two occurrences on west Maui,
five occurrences on Hawaii Island, and
four occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2,
2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). Currently, on west Maui, there
are two individuals in the lowland
mesic ecosystem. Historically, this
species was also reported from the
lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui
(TNC 2007; Perlman 2008e, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2009b, in litt.; HBMP
2010).
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa), a shortlived perennial terrestrial fern in the
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is
known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii
(Palmer 2003, pp. 100–102). At the time
we designated critical habitat in 2003 on
Kauai, Molokai, and Maui, and in 2012
on Oahu, C. squamigera was known
from 2 occurrences on Lanai, 1
occurrence on Molokai, 12 occurrences
on Maui, and 4 occurrences on Oahu (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). No critical habitat was designated
for this species on Lanai or Hawaii in
2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68
FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, C.
squamigera is found in 12 known
occurrences totaling over 120
individuals on Lanai, Molokai, and west
Maui (Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). On
Lanai, an unknown number of
individuals occur on the leeward
(south) side of the island at Waiapaa in
the wet cliff ecosystem. There are
historical records from the dry cliff and
wet cliff ecosystems at upper Kehewai
Gulch, Haalelepaakai, and Kaiholena
(HBMP 2010). On Molokai, 20
individuals occur at Wawaia in the
lowland mesic ecosystem. On west
Maui, there are 9 occurrences totaling
80 to 84 individuals in the lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
mesic, and wet cliff ecosystems. Ctenitis
squamigera is found in Honokowai
Valley (20 individuals), Puu Kaeo (2 to
4 individuals), Kahana Iki (1
individual), Kahana (14 individuals),
Kanaha Valley (10 individuals), Kahoma
(1 individual), Puehuehunui (1 to 2
individuals), Ukumehame Valley (1 to 2
individuals), and Iao Valley
(approximately 30 individuals). On east
Maui, there are 28 individuals at
Pohakea in the lowland dry ecosystem
and a historical record from the lowland
mesic ecosystem. This species was
apparently found in the Kipahulu FR
(Kaapahu) area on east Maui, but no
further details have been provided
(Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 7; East
Maui Watershed Partnership 2006, p.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010r, in litt.).
Cyanea asplenifolia (haha), a shortlived perennial 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 2010). 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 NAR. On
east Maui, C. asplenifolia is found in 1
occurrence each in the lowland mesic
ecosystem in Haleakala National Park
(53 individuals) and Kipahulu FR (140
individuals), and 1 occurrence in the
lowland wet ecosystem in the Makawao
FR (5 individuals) (TNC 2007;
Oppenheimer 2008b, in litt, 2010b, in
litt.; PEPP 2008, p. 48; Welton and Haus
2008, p. 12; NTBG 2009c, pp. 3–5;
HBMP 2010; 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 (Haleakala
National Park (HNP) 2012, in litt.).
Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis (haha), a short-lived
perennial vine-like shrub in the
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is
known from Maui (Lammers 1999, pp.
445–446). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this subspecies
was known from five occurrences on
Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Currently, C. copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis is found in 7 widely
distributed occurrences totaling over
600 individuals on east Maui. One
occurrence of over 20 scattered
individuals is found in east Makaiwa in
the lowland wet ecosystem; 4
occurrences totaling approximately 100
individuals are found along streams in
Keanae in the lowland wet and montane
wet ecosystems; 2 occurrences totaling
approximately 500 individuals are
found in Kipahulu Valley, in the
montane wet, wet cliff, and lowland wet
ecosystems; and a few individuals are
found at Kaapahu in the montane wet
and lowland mesic ecosystems (HNP
2004, pp. 5–6; HNP 2005, pp. 5–6; HNP
2007, pp. 2, 4; TNC 2007; Perlman
2007b, in litt.; Bily et al. 2008, p. 37;
Welton and Haus 2008, pp. 12–13;
Wood 2009d, in litt; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; 2010x, in
litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Forty-six
individuals have been outplanted at 10
sites within Haleakala National Park
(NPS 2012, in litt.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Cyanea dunbariae (haha) (formerly
Cyanea dunbarii), is a short-lived
perennial shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), and is endemic to
Molokai (Lammers 1999, p. 448). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, this species was known from one
occurrence at Mokomoko Gulch (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there
are 10 individuals in Mokomoko Gulch
in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC
2007; PEPP 2008, p. 48; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.; NTBG
2011a). Historically, this species was
also found in Molokai’s lowland wet
and montane mesic ecosystems (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010).
Cyanea duvalliorum (haha), a shortlived perennial 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 gibsonii (haha) (formerly
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii), is a
short-lived perennial tree in the
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), and
is known from Lanai (Lammers 1999, p.
457). In 2003, this species was known
from two occurrences (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003). However, no critical
habitat was designated for this species
on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January
9, 2003). Currently, there are about 10
to 20 individuals in Hauola Gulch, in
the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
PEPP 2009, p. 53; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.).
Historically, this species was also found
north of Lanaihale and at Puu Alii in the
wet cliff and montane wet ecosystems
(PEPP 2009, p. 53).
Cyanea glabra (haha), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the bellflower family
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17799
(Campanulaceae), is endemic to Maui
(Lammers 1999, pp. 449, 451). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, this species was known from one
occurrence on west Maui (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). However, on west Maui,
individuals identified as C. glabra in the
lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems
may be an undescribed species related
to C. acuminata (Lorence 2010, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010y, in litt.). On east
Maui, wild individuals of C. glabra in
the montane wet and montane mesic
ecosystems may more closely resemble
the endangered C. maritae
(Oppenheimer 2010y, in litt.). Further
taxonomic study of these occurrences is
needed (TNC 2007; Perlman 2009f, in
litt.; HBMP 2010). In the meantime, we
will continue to identify these
individuals as C. glabra.
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana
(haha), a short-lived perennial 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 2010).
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora
(haha), a short-lived perennial palm-like
tree in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known from east
Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 452). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, there were nine occurrences (68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently,
there are at least 9 occurrences totaling
between 458 and 558 individuals in the
lowland wet and montane wet
ecosystems, at Haipuaena Stream,
Wailuaiki Stream, above Kuhiwa Valley,
in Kipahulu Valley, and at Kaapahu
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 50–51;
Welton and Haus 2008, p. 26; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.;
Welton 2010a, in litt.). Historically, this
subspecies also occurred in the montane
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010). Seventeen individuals have been
outplanted at three sites in Haleakala
National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
Cyanea horrida (haha nui), a member
of the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is a short-lived
perennial 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 2010). 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17800
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Area Reserve, and Haleakala National
Park on east Maui (TNC 2007; PEPP
2009, p. 52; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010c, in litt.; PEPP 2010, pp. 46–47;
TNCH 2010a, p. 1).
Cyanea kunthiana (haha), a shortlived perennial 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 2010). 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
2010). Currently, in the east Maui
mountains, C. kunthiana occurs in the
lowland wet and montane wet
ecosystems in Waikamoi Preserve,
Hanawi NAR, 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; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Perlman
2010, 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 2010; Fay
2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in
litt.; Osternak 2010, in litt.).
Cyanea lobata (haha), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known from two
subspecies, C. lobata ssp. baldwinii
(Lanai) and C. lobata ssp. lobata (west
Maui) (Lammers 1999, pp. 451, 454). At
the time we designated critical habitat
on Maui in 2003, there were no known
occurrences of C. lobata ssp. baldwinii
on Lanai and five occurrences of C.
lobata ssp. lobata on west Maui (68 FR
1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). However, no critical
habitat was designated for this species
on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January
9, 2003). In 2006, C. lobata ssp.
baldwinii was rediscovered around
Hauola on Lanai, in the montane wet
ecosystem (Wood 2006a, p. 15; TNC
2007; Wood 2009e, in litt.). Currently,
there are three to four individuals at this
location (Perlman 2007c, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2009c, in litt.; PEPP 2009,
p. 53). On west Maui, there are five
occurrences of C. lobata ssp. lobata
totaling eight individuals at Honokohau,
Honokowai, and Mahinahina, in the
lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010i, in litt.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Cyanea magnicalyx (haha), a shortlived 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 2009d, in
litt.).
Cyanea mannii (haha), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is endemic to east
Molokai (Lammers 1999, p. 456). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, there were eight occurrences at
Puu Kolekole and Kawela Gulch (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there
are fewer than 200 individuals in 11
occurrences extending across the
summit area from Mokomoko Gulch to
Kua Gulch, in the lowland mesic,
montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems (Perlman 2002a, in litt.;
Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 2; TNC
2007; Wood 2009f, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Cyanea maritae (haha), a short-lived
perennial 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 and 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 shortlived 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 mceldowneyi (haha), a shortlived perennial shrub in the bellflower
family (Campanulaceae), is found on
east Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 457). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, this species was known from 11
occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2003). Currently, C. mceldowneyi is
known from at least 10 occurrences
totaling over 100 individuals in the
lowland wet, montane wet, and
montane mesic ecosystems (PEPP 2007,
p. 39; TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 53–54;
PEPP 2009, pp. 53, 57; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.).
Cyanea munroi (haha), a short-lived
perennial 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; Perlman
2008a, in litt.; Wood 2009a, in litt.;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010d, in
litt.).
Cyanea obtusa (haha), a short-lived
perennial 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 2010). 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
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 2010).
Cyanea procera (haha), a short-lived
perennial tree in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known from
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Molokai (Lammers 1999, p. 460). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, this species was known from five
occurrences (68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003). Currently, there are one to two
individuals near Puuokaeha in Kawela
Gulch in the montane mesic ecosystem
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 55–56;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.; NTBG
2011b). Historically, this species was
also found in the lowland mesic and
montane wet ecosystems (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010).
Cyanea profuga (haha), a short-lived
perennial 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 short-lived perennial 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
2010). Currently, there are four small
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
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).
Cyperus fauriei (formerly Mariscus
fauriei) (NCN), is a short-lived perennial
in the sedge family (Cyperaceae), and is
known from Molokai, Lanai, and the
island of Hawaii (Koyama 1999, p.
1,417). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, C. fauriei was
known from 1 occurrence of 20 to 30
individuals on Molokai and 2
occurrences on the island of Hawaii (68
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624,
July 2, 2003). Currently, on Molokai, an
unknown number of individuals are
found in the area of Makolelau, at
Kamakou Preserve at Makakupaia, at
Waihanau drainage, and at Kamalo, in
the lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems (TNC 20007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). Cyperus
fauriei was last observed on Lanai in the
early 1900s, in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Cyperus pennatiformis (NCN), a shortlived perennial in the sedge family
(Cyperaceae), is known from Laysan
Island, Kauai, Oahu, east Maui, and the
island of Hawaii (Koyama 1999, pp.
1,421–1,423). There are two varieties: C.
pennatiformis var. bryanii (Laysan) and
C. pennatiformis var. pennatiformis
(main Hawaiian Islands). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Laysan,
Kauai, and Maui in 2003, and on Oahu
in 2012, this species was known from
only one occurrence (totaling an
unknown number of individuals) on
Laysan Island (C. pennatiformis var.
bryanii), and one occurrence (totaling 30
individuals) on east Maui (C.
pennatiformis var. pennatiformis) (68
FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May
22, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). Both occurrences were in the
coastal ecosystem (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May 22, 2003).
The known occurrence of C.
pennatiformis var. pennatiformis in the
coastal ecosystem on east Maui has not
been relocated (Wagner et al. 2005;
HBMP 2010).
Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa), a
short-lived grass-like perennial in the
sedge family (Cyperaceae), is known
from the islands of Niihau, Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, and Lanai (Koyama 1999, pp.
1,399–1,400). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, C.
trachysanthos was found on Kauai and
Oahu, respectively (68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). This species has
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17801
not been observed on the islands of
Lanai and Molokai, in the lowland dry
ecosystems since 1912 and 1919,
respectively (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Cyrtandra ferripilosa (haiwale), a
short-lived perennial 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 shortlived perennial 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 munroi (haiwale), a shortlived perennial shrub in the African
violet family (Gesneriaceae), is known
from Lanai and west Maui (Wagner et al.
1999d, p. 770; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). At the time we designated critical
habitat on Maui in 2003, C. munroi was
known from two occurrences on Lanai
and five occurrences on west Maui (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). However, no critical
habitat was designated for this species
on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
Currently, on Lanai, C. munroi is found
in 3 occurrences totaling 23 individuals
at Puu Alii (20 individuals), Waialala
Gulch (1 individual), and Lanaihale (2
individuals), in the montane wet and
wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). On
west Maui, C. munroi is found in 6
occurrences totaling 45 individuals at
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17802
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Makamakaole Gulch (1 individual),
Honokohau Gulch (1 individual),
Kahana Valley (1 individual), Hahakea
Gulch (1 individual), Kapunakea
Preserve (12 individuals), and Amalu
Stream (29 individuals), in the lowland
wet and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in
litt.).
Cyrtandra oxybapha (haiwale), a
short-lived perennial 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.).
Diplazium molokaiense (NCN), a
short-lived perennial terrestrial fern in
the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is
known from all of the major Hawaiian
Islands except Hawaii Island (Palmer
2003, p. 125). At the time we designated
critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and
Maui, in 2003, and on Oahu in 2012, D.
molokaiense was known only from east
Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). Currently, D. molokaiense is
known from three occurrences on Maui.
On west Maui, there are five individuals
at Puehuehunui in the montane mesic
ecosystem. On east Maui, there are 2
occurrences, one at Honomanu (about
15 individuals) in the montane wet
ecosystem, and one in the Kula FR
(about 50 individuals) in the montane
mesic ecosystem (Wood 2006b, pp. 32–
34; TNC 2007; Wood 2007, p. 14; PEPP
2009, p. 71; HBMP 2010). Diplazium
molokaiense occurred historically in the
dry cliff ecosystem on east Maui, and
the lowland wet and dry cliff
ecosystems on west Maui (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010). It was also found in the
lowland mesic and dry cliff ecosystems
on Lanai, and in the lowland mesic
ecosystem on Molokai (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010).
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis
(naenae), a short-lived perennial shrub
or small tree in the sunflower family
(Asteraceae), is known from west Maui
(Carr 1999b, pp. 304–305). At the time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
we designated critical habitat in 2003,
D. plantaginea ssp. humilis was known
from 2 occurrences totaling 60 to 65
individuals on west Maui (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Currently, D.
plantaginea ssp. humilis is known from
1 occurrence of 35 individuals in Iao
Valley, in the wet cliff ecosystem (TNC
2007; PEPP 2009, p. 72; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
Eugenia koolauensis (nioi), a longlived perennial shrub or small tree in
the myrtle family (Myrtaceae), is known
from Oahu and Molokai (Wagner et al.
1999w, p. 960). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Molokai in
2003 and on Oahu in 2012, this species
was only known from 13 occurrences on
Oahu (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 77
FR 57648, September 18, 2012).
Currently, E. koolauensis is extant only
on Oahu. This species was last seen on
Molokai in 1920, in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Festuca molokaiensis (NCN), a shortlived perennial in 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.
Flueggea neowawraea (mehamehame)
is a long-lived perennial tree in the
family Euphorbiaceae. This species is
known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Hayden
1999, pp. 620–621). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, there
were 100 occurrences on Kauai, 4
occurrences on Maui, and 2 occurrences
on the island of Hawaii; in 2012, there
were 18 occurrences on Oahu, (68 FR
9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR
57648, September 18, 2012). Flueggea
neowawraea was last observed at Waihii
on Molokai in 1931 (HBMP 2010).
Currently, two individuals of F.
neowawraea are found on east Maui’s
southern flank of Haleakala at Auwahi,
in the lowland dry ecosystem (PEPP
2009, p. 73; Oppenheimer 2010b, in
litt.). Flueggea neowawraea was last
observed on Molokai in 1931 at
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Waianui, in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (HBMP 2010).
Geranium arboreum (Hawaiian redflowered geranium), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the geranium family
(Geraniaceae), is known from east Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999e, p. 729). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, there were 12 occurrences totaling
158 individuals (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Currently, there are 5 occurrences
totaling fewer than 30 individuals in
east Maui’s montane mesic and
subalpine ecosystems. Historically, G.
arboreum was also found in the
montane dry ecosystem (TNC 2007;
Oppenheimer 2009d, in litt.; Perlman
2009g, in litt.; Wood 2009g, in litt.;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in
litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). One
hundred and eighty-nine individuals
have been outplanted at 11 sites within
Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in
litt.).
Geranium hanaense (nohoanu), a
short-lived perennial 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
short-lived perennial 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
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
2010; Oppenheimer 2010h, in litt.).
These occurrences are found in the
montane wet and montane mesic
ecosystems on west Maui (TNC 2007).
Geranium multiflorum (nohoanu), a
short-lived perennial shrub in the
geranium family (Geraniaceae), is
known from east Maui (Wagner et al.
1999e, pp. 733–734). At the time we
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
designated critical habitat in 2003, there
were 13 occurrences. Due to the
inaccessibility of the plants, and the
difficulty in determining the number of
individuals (because of the plant’s
multi-branched form), the total number
of individuals of this species was not
known; however, it was assumed to not
exceed 3,000 (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Currently, G. multiflorum is
found in nine occurrences on east Maui,
from Koolau Gap to Kalapawili Ridge, in
the subalpine, montane mesic, montane
wet, and dry cliff ecosystems. It is
estimated there may be as many as 500
to 1,000 individuals (Bily et al. 2003,
pp. 4–5; TNC 2007; Perlman 2009h, in
litt.; Wood 2009h, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; HNP 2012,
in litt.). One hundred and fifty plants
have been outplanted at eight locations
within Haleakala National Park (NPS
2012, in litt.).
Gouania hillebrandii (NCN), a shortlived perennial shrub in the buckthorn
family (Rhamnaceae), is known from
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
(Wagner et al. 1999z, p. 1,095). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
1984 on Maui, there was one occurrence
(49 FR 44753, November 9, 1984).
Currently, on Molokai, there is 1
occurrence of about 50 individuals at
Puu Kolekole in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (USFWS 1990, pp. 4–10; TNC
2007; PEPP 2008, p. 61; Perlman 2008f,
in litt.; Wood 2009i, in litt.). On west
Maui, there are fewer than 1,000
individuals in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). This
species was last observed on Lanai and
Kahoolawe in the 1800s (HBMP 2010).
Gouania vitifolia (NCN), a short-lived
perennial climbing shrub or woody vine
in the buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae),
is known from Oahu, Maui, and the
island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999z,
p. 1,097). At the time we designated
critical habitat on Maui and Hawaii in
2003 and Oahu in 2012, G. vitifolia was
only known from one occurrence on the
island of Hawaii and two occurrences
on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003;
68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). Currently,
botanists are searching potentially
suitable habitat in the wet cliff
ecosystem on west Maui where G.
vitifolia was last seen in the 1800s (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010z,
in litt.).
Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN), a
short-lived perennial shrubby tree in the
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known
from Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999m, p. 325). At the
time we designated critical habitat on
Molokai and Maui in 2003 and on Oahu
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
in 2012, H. arborescens was known
from 1 occurrence on Molokai, 4
occurrences on west Maui, and 19
occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). However, no critical habitat was
designated for this species on Maui in
2003 (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Currently, there are five or six
occurrences on Molokai and Maui
totaling 122 to 125 individuals. On
Molokai, there are 30 individuals
between Wailau and Pelekunu in the
wet cliff ecosystem. Historically, this
species was also reported from the
montane wet ecosystem (HBMP 2010).
On west Maui, 4 or 5 occurrences
totaling 92 to 95 individuals are found
in the lowland wet and wet cliff
ecosystems, in Honokohau (30
individuals), Waihee (approximately 60
individuals), Kapilau Ridge (1
individual), and Lanilili (1 individual).
There is some question regarding the
identification of three individuals in Iao
Valley (HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010i, in litt.). This species has not been
observed since 1940 on Lanai, in the
wet cliff ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010). The results of a recent research
study indicate that the plants on Oahu
may be genetically distinct from plants
on Molokai, Maui, and Lanai (ChingHarbin 2003, p. 81; Morden and Harbin
2013).
Hesperomannia arbuscula (NCN), a
short-lived perennial tree or shrub in
the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is
known from Oahu and west Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999m, p. 325). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003 on Maui and in 2012 on Oahu,
eight occurrences were found on west
Maui, and five occurrences were known
from Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003;
77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012).
Currently, on west Maui, there are three
individuals in Iao Valley, in the lowland
wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010aa, in litt.). This
species was last observed in the 1990s
in the wet cliff, dry cliff, and lowland
dry ecosystems on west Maui (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010). The results of a
recent research study indicate that the
plants on west Maui may be H.
arborescens; if a taxonomic change
should be required, we will address that
change in a future rulemaking (ChingHarbin 2003, p. 81; Morden and Harbin
2013).
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.
immaculatus (kokio keokeo), a longlived perennial tree in the mallow
family (Malvaceae), is endemic to east
Molokai (Bates 1999, pp. 882–883). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, this subspecies was known
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17803
from three occurrences on east Molokai
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, H. arnottianus ssp.
immaculatus is found in 5 occurrences,
totaling fewer than 100 individuals,
from Waiehu to Papalaua in the coastal
and wet cliff ecosystems (Perlman
2002b, in litt.; TNC 2007; NTBG 2009j;
Wood 2009j, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)
is a short-lived perennial shrub or small
tree in the mallow family (Malvaceae).
This species is known from the islands
of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
Hawaii, and possibly Kahoolawe. There
are three subspecies: H. brackenridgei
ssp. brackenridgei (Lanai, Maui, and
Hawaii), H. brackenridgei ssp.
mokuleianus (Kauai and Oahu), and H.
brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana (Molokai
and Oahu) (Wilson 1993, p. 278; Bates
1999, pp. 885–886). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Molokai,
Maui, and Hawaii in 2003 and on Oahu
in 2012, H. brackenridgei ssp.
brackenridgei was known from 2
occurrences on Lanai, 5 occurrences on
Maui, and 4 occurrences on Hawaii, and
H. brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus was
known from 7 occurrences totaling
between 47 and 50 individuals on Oahu.
Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana
was reported from one occurrence on
Oahu and had not been seen on Molokai
since 1920 (68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). No critical habitat
was designated for this species on Lanai
in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
Currently, H. brackenridgei ssp.
brackenridgei is extant on the islands of
Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Lanai,
there are two individuals near Keomuku
Road, and one individual at Kaena, both
in the lowland dry ecosystem.
Historically, this subspecies was also
known from Lanai’s coastal ecosystem
(TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.).
On west Maui, there are a few
individuals in Kaonohue Gulch in the
lowland dry ecosystem. On east Maui,
there is 1 occurrence of about 10
individuals at Keokea, in the lowland
dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008,
pp. 64–65; PEPP 2009, pp. 76–78;
Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.; 2010u, in
litt.; 2010bb, in litt; PEPP 2011, p. 118).
Historically, on Molokai, Hibiscus
brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana was
found in the coastal ecosystem at
Kihaapilani (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Huperzia mannii (wawaeiole), is a
short-lived perennial fern ally in the
hanging fir-moss family (Lycopodiaceae)
that is typically epiphytic on native
plants such as Metrosideros polymorpha
or Acacia koa. This species is known
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17804
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
from Kauai, Maui, and the island of
Hawaii (Palmer 2003, p. 256). At the
time we designated critical habitat on
Kauai and Maui in 2003, this species
was known from Maui and the island of
Hawaii (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). No
critical habitat was designated for this
species on Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39624,
July 2, 2003). Currently, on Maui there
are 6 occurrences totaling 97 to 100
individuals. On west Maui, 14 to 17
individuals of H. mannii occur in the
West Maui NAR, in the montane mesic
ecosystem. This species also occurred
historically in the lowland wet and
montane wet ecosystems (HBMP 2010).
On east Maui, 2 individuals are reported
north of Waikamoi Preserve in the
montane wet ecosystem; 10 individuals
occur at Kipahulu in the lowland wet
ecosystem; approximately 40
individuals occur at Cable Ridge in the
lowland mesic ecosystem;
approximately 30 individuals occur at
Kaapahu in the lowland mesic
ecosystem; and 1 individual was
observed at Manawainui (Kipahulu FR)
in the montane mesic ecosystem (HNP
2004, pp. 5–7; HNP 2006, p. 3; TNC
2007; Welton and Haus 2008, pp. 12–13;
Perlman 2009i, in litt., 2009j, in litt.;
Wood 2009k, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Welton 2010a, in litt.). Sixty-seven
plants have been outplanted at eight
locations within Haleakala National
Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum)
is a short-lived stoloniferous (creeping
along the ground with rooting from
nodes) perennial in the grass family
(Poaceae) known from Kauai, Oahu
(historical), Molokai, east Maui, and
Hawaii island (O’Connor 1999, pp.
1,556–1,557). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, I.
byrone was known from two
occurrences on Kauai (2 individuals,
last observed in 1993); two occurrences
on Molokai (100 to 1,000 individuals,
last observed in 1994), six occurrences
on Maui (fewer than 2,000 individuals),
and six occurrences on Hawaii Island
(unknown numbers, last observed in
1997) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003;
68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July
2, 2003; Pratt 2009, in litt.; Wood 2009,
in litt.). In 2004, I. byrone was reobserved on Hawaii Island (unknown
number of individuals) (HBMP 2010).
Currently, I. byrone is known from six
occurrences on Molokai and Maui,
possibly totaling several thousand
individuals (HBMP 2010). On Molokai,
I. byrone is found in the coastal
ecosystem from Wailau to Waiehu
(approximately 200 individuals) (TNC
2007; Oppenheimer 2009e, in litt,;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
HBMP 2010). On east Maui, there are an
unknown number of individuals at
Pauwalu Point; 20 individuals in
scattered patches at Mokuhuki islet;
many individuals at Keawaiki Bay; and
an unknown number of individuals at
Kalahu Point, and at Waiohonu Stream
and Muolea Point, all in the coastal
ecosystem. These occurrences may total
several thousands of individuals,
depending on rainfall (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in
litt.); however, exact numbers of
individuals are difficult to determine
because of its growth habit. Overall, the
numbers of individuals have decreased
from the more than 5,000 reported in
2010 to possibly several thousand
individuals in 2015, with the highest
numbers occurring along the northeast
coast of Maui (Service 2010, in litt.).
Current threats to this species are
significant and include grazing by feral
ungulates and deer, competition with
nonnative plants, drought, hurricanes,
and human use of coastal areas.
Potential effects of climate change
include sea level rise. In addition, the
recently established nonnative plant,
Polypogon interruptus (ditch
polypogon), occupies the same coastal
habitat as I. byrone on Molokai and
Maui and is observed to displace I.
byrone (Warshauer et al. 2009, in litt.).
Fortini et al. (2013, p. 78) conducted a
landscape-based assessment of climate
change vulnerability for I. byrone and
concluded that this species is highly
vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change. Furthermore, this study
identified this species as one that will
have no overlapping area between its
current and future climate envelope
(areas that contain the full range of
climate conditions under which the
species is known to occur) by 2100. To
be considered for delisting, threats to
this species must be managed or
controlled (e.g., by fencing) and the
species must be represented in an ex
situ (at other than the plant’s natural
location, such as a nursery or
arboretum) collection. In addition, a
minimum of 8 to 10 self-sustaining
populations (over a period of at least 5
years), consisting of all size classes,
should be documented on the islands of
Maui, Molokai, and if possible, at least
one other island where it now occurs or
occurred historically. The delisting
goals for this species have not been met,
and no separate occurrences total more
than 300 mature individuals. In
addition, all threats are not being
sufficiently managed throughout all of
the occurrences. Therefore, designation
of unoccupied habitat (in addition to
occupied habitat) is essential to the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conservation of I. byrone as it remains
in danger of extinction throughout its
range, and the species will require the
expansion or reestablishment of
populations in areas presently
unoccupied by the species to withstand
ongoing and future threats and to meet
recovery goals.
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho
kula), a short-lived perennial shrub in
the violet family (Violaceae), is known
from Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999aa,
p. 1,331). At the time we designated
critical habitat on Molokai, and Maui in
2003, and on Oahu in 2012, I.
pyrifolium was known from a single
occurrence on the island of Hawaii (68
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624,
July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). Currently, there are no extant
occurrences on Lanai, Molokai, or Maui.
Historically, I. pyrifolium was found on
Molokai in the lowland mesic
ecosystem, and on west Maui in the
lowland wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff
ecosystems. We have no habitat
information for the historical
occurrences on Lanai (TNC 2007; PEPP
2008, p. 103; HBMP 2010).
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi (formerly
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi)
(kopa), is a short-lived perennial
subshrub in the coffee family
(Rubiaceae), and is known from Lanai
(Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 1,150–1,152).
In 2003, this subspecies was known
from eight individuals; however, no
critical habitat was designated for this
subspecies on Lanai (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003). Currently, two wild
and three out-planted individuals are
reported from Kaiholena–Hulopoe ridge,
in the lowland wet ecosystem.
Historically, this species also occurred
in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC
2007; PEPP 2009, pp. 5, 82; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010cc, in litt.).
Kadua coriacea (kioele) is a shortlived perennial shrub in the coffee
family (Rubiaceae), and is known from
Oahu, Maui, and the island of Hawaii
(Wagner et al. 1999a, p. 1,141). At the
time we designated critical habitat on
Maui in 2003 and on Oahu in 2012, this
species was known from one individual
in the lowland dry ecosystem at Lihau,
on west Maui, and four occurrences on
the island of Hawaii (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). However, no critical habitat was
designated for this species on Hawaii in
2003 (68 FR 39264, July 2, 2003). In
2008, the only known individual on
Maui was burned during a wildfire and
died (PEPP 2008, p. 67).
Kadua laxiflora (formerly Hedyotis
mannii) (pilo) is a short-lived perennial
subshrub in the coffee family
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(Rubiaceae), and is known from
Molokai, Lanai, and west Maui (Wagner
et al. 1999a, p. 1,148). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Maui in
2003, this species was known from a
total of five occurrences on Lanai (two
occurrences), Molokai (one occurrence),
and west Maui (two occurrences) (68 FR
1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). However, no critical habitat was
designated for this species on Lanai or
Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9,
2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, on Lanai, there are two
individuals at Hauola Gulch in the
montane wet ecosystem. There are
historical reports from the lowland
mesic, lowland wet, and wet cliff
ecosystems on this island. On west
Maui, there are four individuals at
Kauaula Valley, in the wet cliff
ecosystem. Historically, this species was
also reported from the lowland wet and
dry cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007;
Perlman 2008g, in litt.; Oppenheimer
2009f, in litt.; PEPP 2009, pp. 3, 14, 24,
82–83; HBMP 2010). There are no extant
individuals on Molokai, although there
are historical reports from the lowland
mesic and montane mesic ecosystems
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Kanaloa kahoolawensis (kohe malama
malama o kanaloa), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the pea family
(Fabaceae), occurs only on Kahoolawe
(Lorence and Wood 1994, p. 137). Soil
cores suggest K. kahoolawensis was
quite widespread in lowland dry areas
throughout the main Hawaiian Islands
during the early Pleistocene (Burney et
al. 2001, p. 632; Athens 2002 et al., p.
74). At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003, K. kahoolawensis was
known from two individuals on the
Aleale sea stack on the south central
coast of Kahoolawe (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003). Currently, K. kahoolawensis
is known from the same location with
one surviving individual, in the coastal
ecosystem (TNC 2007; NTBG 2008;
HBMP 2010).
Kokia cookei (Cooke’s kokio), a shortlived perennial small tree in the mallow
family (Malvaceae), is known from
Molokai, historically in the lowland dry
ecosystem (Bates 1999, p. 890; TNC
2007; HBMP 2010). At the time K.
cookei was listed in 1979, there were no
individuals remaining in the wild, and
one individual in an arboretum on
Oahu; no critical habitat was designated
for this species on Molokai (44 FR
62470, October 30, 1979; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003). Currently, one
individual is in cultivation at Waimea
Arboretum, and there are propagules at
the Volcano Rare Plant Facility, Lyon
Arboretum, Amy Greenwell
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Ethnobotanical Garden, Leeward
Community College, Hoolawa Farms,
and Maui Nui Botanical Garden (Orr
2007, in litt.; Seidman 2007, in litt.).
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis
(kamakahala), a short-lived perennial
shrub or small tree in the logania family
(Loganiaceae), is known from Lanai
(Wagner et al. 1999z, pp. 861–862). In
2003, this variety was known from one
occurrence totaling three to eight
individuals along the summit of
Lanaihale; however, no critical habitat
was designated for this species on Lanai
(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
Currently, L. tinifolia var. lanaiensis is
found in one occurrence of at least five
individuals in Awehi Gulch in the wet
cliff ecosystem. This variety was
historically also found in the lowland
mesic, lowland wet, and montane wet
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010d, in litt.).
Labordia triflora (kamakahala), a
short-lived perennial shrub or small tree
in the logania family (Loganiaceae), is
known from east Molokai (Wagner et al.
1999z, p. 423). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, this
species was known from 10 individuals
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, 4 occurrences totaling 20
individuals are reported from Kua,
Wawaia, Kumueli, and Manawai Gulch,
in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC
2007; PEPP 2007, p. 48; PEPP 2008, p.
85; HBMP 2010).
Lysimachia lydgatei (NCN), a shortlived perennial shrub in the primrose
family (Primulaceae), is known from
west Maui (Wagner et al. 1999bb, p.
1,082). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, there were four
occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Currently, there are 2 occurrences
totaling approximately 30 individuals.
Both occurrences are found at
Puehuehunui, in the montane mesic and
wet cliff ecosystems (Perlman 1997, in
litt.; TNC 2007; Wood 2009l, in litt.;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010dd, in
litt.). This species is also historically
known from the lowland dry ecosystem
on west Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Lysimachia maxima (NCN), a shortlived perennial shrub in the primrose
family (Primulaceae), is known from
Molokai (Wagner et al. 1999bb, p.
1,083). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this species was
known from one occurrence (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, L.
maxima is known from 2 occurrences
totaling 28 individuals on east Molokai.
There are 20 individuals near Ohialele,
and 8 individuals in 2 distinct patches
in east Kawela Gulch, in the lowland
wet and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17805
2007, p. 48; TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, p.
85; HBMP 2010).
Marsilea villosa (ihi ihi), a short-lived
perennial fern in the marsilea family
(Marsileaceae), is known from Niihau,
Oahu, and Molokai (Palmer 2003, pp.
180–182). At the time we designated
critical habitat on Molokai in 2003 and
on Oahu in 2012, this species was found
in four occurrences on Molokai, and in
five to six occurrences on Oahu (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). No critical habitat
was designated for this species on
Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 12982, March
18, 2003). Currently, M. villosa is known
from eight occurrences on Molokai,
totaling possibly thousands of
individuals in areas that flood
periodically, such as small depressions
and flood plains with clay soils. There
is one small occurrence at Kamakaipo,
and seven occurrences between Kaa and
Ilio Point, covering areas from 20 square
(sq) ft (6 sq m) to over 2 ac (0.8 ha), all
in the coastal ecosystem (Perlman
2006b, in litt.; TNC 2007; Bakutis 2009b,
in litt.; Wood 2009m, in litt.; Chau 2010,
in litt.; Garnett 2010b in litt.; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Melanthera kamolensis (formerly
Lipochaeta kamolensis) (nehe) is a
short-lived perennial herb in the
sunflower family (Asteraceae), and is
known from east Maui (Wagner et al.
1990a, p. 337). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, this
species was known from one occurrence
(68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently,
a single occurrence of M. kamolensis is
found in Kamole Gulch, totaling
between 30 and 40 individuals, in the
lowland dry ecosystem. A second
occurrence just west of Kamole appears
to be a hybrid swarm (hybrids between
parent species, and subsequently
formed progeny from crosses among
hybrids and crosses of hybrids to
parental species) of M. kamolensis and
M. rockii, with approximately 100
individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Medeiros 2010, in litt.).
Melicope adscendens (alani), a shortlived perennial sprawling shrub in the
rue family (Rutaceae), is known from
Maui (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1,183). At the
time we designated critical habitat in
2003, there were 16 occurrences (68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, M.
adscendens is known from 2
occurrences totaling 33 individuals at
Auwahi, in the lowland dry and
montane mesic ecosystems on east Maui
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 85; Buckman
2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010). Historically,
this species has not been observed
below 3,200 ft (975 m) (Wagner et al.
1999, p. 1,183).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17806
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Melicope balloui (alani), a short-lived
perennial tree or shrub in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from east Maui
(Stone et al. 1999, pp. 1,183–1,184). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, there were 3 occurrences
totaling 50 individuals (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Currently, there are
approximately 50 individuals near
Palikea Stream, in the lowland wet
ecosystem, and a few individuals at
Puuokakae in the montane wet
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Wood 2009n, in
litt.; HBMP 2010). The status and
taxonomic certainty of the occurrence
within Haleakala National Park is in
question (NPS 2012, in litt.).
Melicope knudsenii (alani), a longlived perennial tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from Kauai and
Maui (Stone et al. 1999, pp. 1,192–
1,193). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, there were 10
occurrences on Kauai and 4 occurrences
on Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Currently, on east Maui, there are two
individuals at Auwahi, in the montane
dry ecosystem (TNC 20007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.).
Melicope mucronulata (alani), a longlived perennial tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from Molokai and
east Maui (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1,196).
At the time we designated critical
habitat on Molokai and Maui in 2003,
there were two occurrences on Molokai
and two occurrences on east Maui (68
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Currently, there are two
occurrences on Molokai, one individual
at Kupaia Gulch, and three individuals
at Onini Gulch, in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, p. 69;
PEPP 2009, p. 86; HBMP 2010;). This
species was historically also found in
the montane mesic ecosystem on
Molokai (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The
occurrence status of M. mucronulata in
the lowland dry and montane dry
ecosystems on east Maui is unknown.
Melicope munroi (alani), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from Lanai and
Molokai (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1,196). In
2003, there were two occurrences on
Lanai; however, no critical habitat was
designated for this species on Lanai or
Molokai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003;
68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, on Lanai, M. munroi is
known from at least 2 occurrences of
fewer than 40 individuals on the
Lanaihale summit and the ridge of
Waialala Gulch, in the montane wet and
wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.). This
species has not been seen on Molokai
since 1910, where it was last observed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
in the lowland mesic ecosystem (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003).
Melicope ovalis (alani), a long-lived
perennial tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from east Maui
(Stone et al. 1999, p. 1,198). At the time
we designated critical habitat in 2003,
there were two occurrences (68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, there
are approximately 50 individuals in 4
occurrences in the lowland wet
ecosystem in Keanae Valley, and in the
montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems at
Kipahulu Valley and Palikea Stream
(TNC 2007; Bily et al. 2008 p. 45; Wood
2009o, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; Welton
2010a, in litt.). Forty-five individuals
were outplanted in nine locations
within Haleakala National Park (NPS
2012, in litt.).
Melicope reflexa (alani), a short-lived
perennial sprawling shrub in the rue
family (Rutaceae), is endemic to east
Molokai (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1,203). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, there were three occurrences
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
Currently, there are two occurrences
totaling at least six individuals. There
are at least five individuals at Puuohelo
and one individual at Puniuohua in the
lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010ee, in
litt.). Historically, this species was also
found in the lowland mesic and
montane wet ecosystems (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in
litt.; Wood 2010b, in litt.).
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea (sea
bean), a short-lived perennial 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 shortlived perennial shrub in the myrsine
family (Myrsinaceae), is found on Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 946; HBMP
2010). This species was historically
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.).
Neraudia sericea (NCN), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the nettle family
(Urticaceae), is known from Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (Wagner et
al. 1999cc, p. 1,304). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, N.
sericea was known from Molokai and
Maui (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, this
species is found only on east Maui at
Kahikinui, where there are fewer than
five individuals in the montane mesic
ecosystem. This species has not been
observed in the lowland dry ecosystem
on east Maui since the early 1900s.
Historically, N. sericea was found in the
lowland dry and dry cliff ecosystems on
Lanai, the lowland mesic and montane
mesic ecosystems on Molokai, the
lowland dry and dry cliff ecosystems on
west Maui, and the lowland dry
ecosystem on Kahoolawe (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Medeiros 2010, in litt.).
Nototrichium humile (kului), a shortlived perennial trailing shrub in the
amaranth family (Amaranthaceae), is
known from Oahu and east Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999dd, pp. 193–194). At
the time we designated critical habitat
on Maui in 2003 and Oahu in 2012, N.
humile was only known from 12
occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). This species has not been seen on
Maui since 1976, when one individual
was reported from the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Peperomia subpetiolata (alaala wai
nui), a short-lived perennial herb in the
pepper family (Piperaceae), is found on
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 1035;
HBMP 2010). 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 2010). 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.).
Peucedanum sandwicense (makou), a
short-lived perennial herb in the parsley
family (Apiaceae), is known from Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Keopuka islet
off the coast of east Maui (Constance
and Affolter 1999, p. 208). At the time
we designated critical habitat in 2003, P.
sandwicense was known from 15
occurrences on Kauai, 5 occurrences on
Molokai, 3 occurrences on Maui; and, in
2012 from 2 occurrences on Oahu (68
FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). Currently, P. sandwicense is
known from 6 occurrences totaling over
45 individuals on Molokai and east
Maui. On Molokai, there are 3
occurrences totaling 32 to 37
individuals, at Mokapu islet (25
individuals), Lepau Point (2
individuals), and Kalaupapa Trail (5 to
10 individuals), all in the coastal
ecosystem. There is a report of an
individual found near the lowland wet
ecosystem, but this plant has not been
relocated since 1989 (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010; NTBG 2010a, in litt. ; NTBG
2010b, in litt.). On east Maui, P.
sandwicense occurs on Keopuku islet
(15 individuals), Pauwalu Point (an
unknown number of individuals), and
Honolulu Nui (an unknown number of
individuals), in the coastal ecosystem.
Historically, this species was found on
west Maui in the lowland wet
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
NTBG 2010a, in litt.; NTBG 2010b, in
litt.).
Phyllostegia bracteata (NCN), a shortlived 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 2010). This species
appears to be short-lived, ephemeral,
and disturbance-dependent, in the
lowland wet, montane mesic, montane
wet, subalpine, and wet cliff ecosystems
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(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
short-lived perennial 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 2010). 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 hispida (NCN), a shortlived perennial vine in the mint family
(Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai
(Wagner et. al. 1999h, pp. 817–818).
Until an individual was rediscovered in
1996, P. hispida was thought to be
extinct in the wild. This individual died
in 1998, and P. hispida was thought to
be extirpated, until another plant was
found in 2005. Propagules were taken
and propagated; however, the wild
individual died. This sequence of events
occurred again in 2006 and 2007 (74 FR
11319, March 17, 2009). At the time we
listed P. hispida in 2009, no critical
habitat was designated for this species
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17807
on Molokai (74 FR 11319, March 17,
2009). Currently P. hispida is known
from 4 occurrences totaling 25
individuals in the montane wet and wet
cliff ecosystems on Molokai (TNC 2007;
PEPP 2009, pp. 7, 15, 90–93).
Historically, this species also occurred
in the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010).
Phyllostegia mannii (NCN), a shortlived perennial vine in the mint family
(Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai
and Maui (Wagner et al. 1999h, pp. 820–
821). At the time we designated critical
habitat on Molokai and Maui in 2003,
this species was only known from one
individual on east Molokai. It had not
been observed on Maui for over 70 years
(68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently,
on Molokai, there are three individuals
in Hanalilolilo, in the montane wet
ecosystem. Historically, P. mannii
occurred in Molokai’s lowland mesic
and lowland wet ecosystems, and the
montane wet and montane mesic
ecosystems on east Maui (TNC 2007;
Perlman 2009k, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.; Wood
2010c, in litt.).
Phyllostegia pilosa (NCN), a shortlived perennial 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 2010). 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 2010).
Pittosporum halophilum (hoawa), a
short-lived perennial 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17808
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
individuals have been outplanted at 3
sites on the coastline of the nearby
Kalaupapa peninsula (Garnett 2010a, in
litt.).
Plantago princeps (laukahi kuahiwi),
a short-lived perennial shrub or herb in
the plantain family (Plantaginaceae), is
known from the islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et
al. 1999ee, pp. 1,054–1,055). Wagner et
al. recognize four varieties of P.
princeps: P. princeps var. anomala
(Kauai and Oahu), P. princeps var.
laxiflora (Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii),
P. princeps var. longibracteata (Kauai
and Oahu), and P. princeps var.
princeps (Oahu) (Wagner et al. 1999ee,
pp. 1,054–1,055). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Kauai,
Molokai, and Maui, in 2003, and on
Oahu in 2012, there was one known
occurrence of P. princeps var. laxiflora
on Molokai and eight occurrences on
Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). Currently, P. princeps var.
laxiflora is known from 6 occurrences
totaling approximately 70 individuals
on Maui (Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
On east Maui, there are 3 occurrences
totaling 41 to 46 individuals in the dry
cliff and wet cliff ecosystems, at Waikau
(1 individual), Kaupo Gap (about 30
individuals), and Palikea (10 to 15
individuals). On west Maui, there are 3
occurrences totaling 15 individuals in
the wet cliff ecosystem, in Kauaula
Valley, Nakalaloa Stream, and in Iao
Valley (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2009g,
in litt.; HBMP 2010). Almost 500
individuals have been outplanted at 43
sites within Haleakala National Park
(NPS 2012, in litt.). On Molokai, this
species was found in the lowland wet
and montane mesic ecosystems as
recently as 1987 (TNC 2007; HBMP
2008; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Platanthera holochila (NCN), a shortlived perennial herb in the orchid
family (Orchidaceae), is known from
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and Maui
(Wagner et al. 1999ff, p. 1,474). At the
time we designated critical habitat on
Kauai, Maui in 2003, and on Oahu in
2012, there were two known
occurrences on Kauai, one occurrence
on Molokai, and six occurrences on
Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). No critical habitat
was designated for this species on
Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 12982, March
18, 2003). Currently, there are 4 known
occurrences totaling 44 individuals on
Molokai and west Maui. On Molokai,
there is 1 occurrence at Hanalilolilo
totaling 24 individuals in the montane
wet ecosystem. There are 3 occurrences
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
on west Maui, at Waihee Valley in the
wet cliff ecosystem (12 individuals),
Waihee Valley in the wet cliff ecosystem
(6 individuals), and Pohakea Gulch in
the montane wet ecosystem (2
individuals). Historically, this species
was also found in the montane wet
ecosystem on east Maui (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in
litt.).
Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), a longlived perennial 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 Waiakeakua and
Puhielelu (St. John 1947, pp. 39–42
cited in St. John 1985, pp. 171, 177–179;
HBMP 2006; PEPP 2008, p. 75; HBMP
2010; 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.).
Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe), a shortlived perennial herb in the purslane
family (Portulacaceae), is known from a
single collection from Poopoo islet off
the south coast of Lanai, and from the
island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999gg,
p. 1,074). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, there was 1
known occurrence on Poopoo islet and
24 occurrences on Hawaii Island (68 FR
1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July
2, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, this
species is only known from an unknown
number of individuals in the coastal
ecosystem on Poopoo islet (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010).
Pteris lidgatei (NCN), a short-lived
perennial terrestrial fern in the
maidenhair fern family (Adiantaceae), is
known from Oahu, Molokai, and Maui
(Palmer 2003, p. 229). At the time we
designated critical habitat on Molokai
and Maui in 2003, and on Oahu in 2012,
this species was known from two
occurrences on Maui and five
occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18,
2012). Currently, P. lidgatei is known
from four occurrences totaling over nine
individuals on Molokai and Maui. On
Molokai, there are six to eight
individuals in Kumueli Gulch in the
montane wet ecosystem. Historically,
this species was also found in Molokai’s
wet cliff ecosystem. On west Maui, P.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lidgatei is known from a single
individual at Kauaula Valley in the wet
cliff ecosystem, an unknown number of
individuals in both the upper Kauaula
Valley in the lowland wet ecosystem
and upper Kahakuloa Stream in the wet
cliff ecosystem (PEPP 2007, pp. 54–55;
TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 103; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Remya mauiensis (Maui remya), a
short-lived perennial shrub in the
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known
from west Maui (Wagner et al. 1999m,
p. 353). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, there were 5
known occurrences totaling 21
individuals (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Currently, R. mauiensis is found
in 6 occurrences totaling approximately
500 individuals at Kauaula (lowland
mesic ecosystem), Puehuehunui
(lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems), Ukumehame (wet cliff
ecosystem), Papalaua (montane mesic
ecosystem), Pohakea (lowland dry
ecosystem), and Manawainui (lowland
dry ecosystem) (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010ff, in litt.).
Historically, this species also occurred
in Maui’s lowland wet ecosystem (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010).
Sanicula purpurea (NCN), a shortlived perennial herb in the parsley
family (Apiaceae), is known from bogs
and surrounding wet forest on Oahu and
west Maui (Constance and Affolter
1999, p. 210). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003 (Maui) and 2012
(Oahu), this species was known from
seven occurrences on west Maui and
five occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). Currently, on west Maui, as
many as 50 individuals are found in 4
known occurrences in bogs in the
montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
Perlman 2007d, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010gg, in litt.; Wood
2010d, in litt.).
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense
(iliahi, Lanai sandalwood) is a longlived perennial 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 2010; 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 singleindividual 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 2010; 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 2010; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp.
834–835).
Schenkia sebaeoides (formerly
Centaurium sebaeoides) (awiwi) is a
short-lived annual herb in the gentian
family (Gentianaceae) known from the
islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai,
and west Maui (Wagner et al. 1990b, p.
725; 68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). At
the time we designated critical habitat
on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui in 2003,
and on Oahu in 2012, the species was
reported from one occurrence on Lanai,
three occurrences on Kauai, two
occurrences on Molokai, three
occurrences on Maui, and two
occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February
27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003;
68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR
57648, September 18, 2012). No critical
habitat was designated for this species
on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January
9, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, Molokai,
and Maui, there are at least eight
occurrences, with the highest number of
individuals on Molokai. The annual
number of individuals on each island
varies widely depending upon rainfall
(;Oppenheimer 2009i, in litt.; HBMP
2010). On Lanai, there is 1 occurrence
totaling between 20 and 30 individuals,
in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC
2007; HBMP 2010). On Molokai, there
are 2 or more occurrences containing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
thousands of individuals in the coastal
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). On
west Maui, there are 5 occurrences,
totaling several thousand individuals,
along the north coast from Haewa Point
to Puu Kahulanapa, in the coastal
ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
Schiedea haleakalensis (NCN), a
short-lived perennial shrub in the pink
family (Caryophyllaceae), is known
from east Maui (Wagner et al. 1999j, pp.
512–514). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, this species was
known from two occurrences in
Haleakala National Park (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Currently, S.
haleakalensis is found in 2 occurrences
totaling fewer than 50 individuals, at
Leleiwi Pali and Kaupo Gap in the
subalpine and dry cliff ecosystems,
within Haleakala National Park (Welton
2010a, in litt.). One hundred forty-three
individuals have been outplanted at 11
sites within Haleakala National Park
(NPS 2012, in litt.).
Schiedea jacobii (NCN), a short-lived
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 NAR), 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 short-lived
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 lydgatei (NCN), a short-lived
perennial subshrub in the pink family
(Caryophyllaceae), is known from east
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17809
Molokai (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 516). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, this species was known from
four occurrences totaling more than
1,000 individuals (68 FR 12982, March
18, 2003). Currently, there are over 200
individuals between Kawela and
Makolelau gulches, in the lowland
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2009,
p. 109; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010u, in litt.).
Schiedea salicaria (NCN), a shortlived perennial 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 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.
Schiedea sarmentosa (NCN), a shortlived perennial herb in the pink family
(Caryophyllaceae), is endemic to
Molokai (Wagner et al. 2005b, pp. 116–
119). At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003, this species was known
from five occurrences with an estimated
total of over 1,000 individuals (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, S.
sarmentosa is known from three
occurrences from Onini Gulch to
Makolelau, with as many as several
thousand individuals, in the lowland
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; Perlman
2009l, in litt.; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010hh, in litt.; Perlman
2010, in litt.; Wood 2010e, in litt.).
Sesbania tomentosa (ohai) is a shortlived perennial shrub or small tree in
the pea family (Fabaceae) (Geesink et al.
1999, pp. 704–705). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, S.
tomentosa was known from 1
occurrence on Kauai, 9 occurrences on
Molokai, 7 occurrences on Maui, several
thousand individuals on Nihoa Island,
‘‘in great abundance’’ on Necker Island,
31 occurrences on Hawaii Island; and,
in 2012, from 3 occurrences on Oahu
(68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17810
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May 22,
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR
57648, September 18, 2012). Historically
widespread throughout the Hawaiian
Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands (NWHI), this species now occurs
in larger numbers only on Nihoa and
Necker (NWHI, approximately 5,500
individuals), with relatively few
occurrences persisting on the eight main
Hawaiian islands. Currently, on the
eight main Hawaiian Islands, S.
tomentosa is known from Kauai,
Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and
Hawaii (possibly totaling as many as
2,000 individuals). The number of
individuals at any one location varies
widely, depending on rainfall (TNC
2007; NTBG 2009k). On Molokai, there
is one occurrence on the northwest
shore from Moomomi to Nenehanaupo
(35 individuals), and about 1,000 or
more individuals on the south coast
scattered from Kamiloloa to the Kawela
plain, in the coastal and lowland dry
ecosystems. Historically, this species
also occurred in Molokai’s lowland
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; Cole 2008,
in litt.; NTBG 2009k). On west Maui,
there are 3 occurrences totaling 80
individuals from Nakalele Point to
Mokolea Point, in the coastal ecosystem.
Historically, this species also occurred
in the lowland dry ecosystem on west
Maui (TNC 2007; NTBG 2009k;
Oppenheimer 2009h, in litt.). On east
Maui, there is one occurrence of 10
individuals in the lowland dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Cole 2008, in
litt.; Oppenheimer 2009h, in litt.;
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). On
Kahoolawe, about 300 individuals occur
in the coastal ecosystem on Puu Koae
islet. Sesbania tomentosa has not been
seen in the coastal and lowland dry
ecosystems on Lanai for over 50 years
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). Current
threats to this species are significant and
include herbivory by feral ungulates,
deer, nonnative insects (borers and
scale), and slugs, seed predation by rats,
fire, drought, and low fruit set resulting
from lack of pollinators or selfincompatibility, and low seedling
recruitment. Herbivory by the nonnative
gray bird grasshopper, Schistocerca
nitens, is a threat to occurrences on
Nihoa (Latchininsky 2008, 15 pp.).
Fortini et al. (2013, p. 89) conducted a
landscape-based assessment of climate
change vulnerability for S. tomentosa,
and concluded that this species is
moderately vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. To be considered for
delisting, threats to S. tomentosa must
be managed or controlled, and there
must be a minimum of 8 to 10 self-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
sustaining populations consisting of all
size classes, over a period of 5 years,
that should be documented on 2 to 3 of
the eight main Hawaiian islands where
it now occurs or occurred historically.
These goals have not been met, as
currently no population on the main
Hawaiian Islands is considered
sufficiently large and self-sustaining; in
addition, all threats are not being
sufficiently managed throughout all of
the occurrences, even at the more
remote occurrences on the NWHI.
Designation of unoccupied habitat (in
addition to occupied habitat) is essential
to the conservation of S. tomentosa as
it remains in danger of extinction
throughout its range, therefore it
requires sufficient habitat to persist in
the face of ongoing and future threats,
and for the expansion or
reestablishment of multiple, selfsustaining populations in areas
presently not occupied by the species to
meet recovery goals.
Silene alexandri (NCN), a short-lived
perennial subshrub in the pink family
(Caryophyllaceae), is known from
Molokai (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 522). At
the time we designated critical habitat
in 2003, S. alexandri was extirpated in
the wild, but individuals remained in
cultivation (68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003). Currently, S. alexandri is known
from 1 occurrence of 25 individuals
near Kawela Gulch, in the lowland
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP
2008; PEPP 2009, p. 111; HBMP 2010;
Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
Silene lanceolata (NCN), a short-lived
perennial subshrub in the pink family
(Caryophyllaceae), is known from
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and the
island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999j, p.
523). At the time we designated critical
habitat on Molokai in 2003 and on Oahu
in 2012, S. lanceolata was known from
Molokai, Oahu, and the island of Hawaii
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). However, no
critical habitat was designated for this
species on Lanai, Kauai, or Hawaii in
2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68
FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, on
Molokai, there are 2 occurrences
totaling approximately 200 individuals
at Kapuaokoolau and along cliffs
between Kawela and Makolelau, in the
lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010u, in
litt.). This species has not been observed
in the lowland dry ecosystem on Lanai
since the 1930s (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010).
Solanum incompletum (popolo ku
mai), a short-lived perennial shrub in
the nightshade family (Solanaceae), is
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reported from Kauai, Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Symon
1999, pp. 1,270–1,271). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, this
species was only known from one
occurrence on the island of Hawaii (68
FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, there
are no known occurrences on Lanai,
Molokai, or Maui (HBMP 2008; PEPP
2009, p. 112; HBMP 2010). Historically,
this species occurred in the lowland
dry, lowland mesic, and dry cliff
ecosystems on Lanai, and in the
lowland dry and lowland mesic
ecosystems on east Maui. It is unclear
when and where this plant was
collected on Molokai (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010).
Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN), an
annual herb in the parsley family
(Apiaceae), is known from Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, and the island of
Hawaii (Constance and Affolter 1999, p.
212). At the time we designated critical
habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui in
2003, and on Oahu in 2012, S.
hawaiiensis was known from 3
occurrences on Lanai, 2 occurrences on
Kauai, 1 occurrence on Molokai, 5
occurrences on Maui, 30 occurrences on
Hawaii Island, and 4 occurrences on
Oahu (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68
FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September
18, 2012). No critical habitat was
designated for this species on Hawaii
Island in 2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2,
2003). Currently in Maui Nui there are
nine occurrences totaling possible a
several thousand individuals. On Lanai,
there are 3 occurrences at Makiki Ridge,
Kahewai Gulch to Puhialelu Ridge, and
Kapoho Gulch, totaling between 500
and 600 individuals in the lowland dry
and lowland mesic ecosystems. On
Molokai, there are thousands of
individuals at Makolelau and
Kapuaokoolau, in the lowland mesic
and montane mesic ecosystems
(Perlman 2007e, in litt.; TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in
litt.). On east Maui, there is one
occurrence at Kanaio, with possibly
1,000 individuals, in the lowland dry
ecosystem. On west Maui, there are at
least 3 occurrences that may total over
1,000 individuals at Puu Hipa, Olowalu,
and Ukumehame in the lowland dry
ecosystem. A recent (2010) fire at
Olowalu burned at least 50 individuals
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010b, in litt. 2010i, in litt.). Because of
this species’ annual growth habit
(grows, blooms, seeds, and dies within
1 year), larger numbers of individuals
(as compared to long-lived perennials)
are required to ensure long-term
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
persistence as reproduction is
dependent on the longevity of the
seedbank. Overall, the numbers of
individuals have declined from the
approximately 13,000 wild individuals
reported in 2010 to approximately 6,000
wild individuals reported in 2015
(Service 2010, in litt.; Service 2015, in
litt.). Current threats to this species are
herbivory by feral pigs, goats, sheep,
deer, and mouflon; competition with
nonnative plants; fire; erosion;
landslides; rockslides; and drought
(Service 1999, in litt; Service 2015, in
litt.). Fortini et al. (2013, p. 89)
conducted a landscape-based
assessment of climate change
vulnerability for S. hawaiiensis and
concluded that this species has
moderately low vulnerability to the
impacts of climate change. Since S.
hawaiiensis is an annual plant, to be
considered for delisting, a minimum of
5 to 7 naturally reproducing populations
of at least 500 individuals each must be
stable or increasing in numbers on
islands where it now occurs or occurred
historically. These goals have not been
met and threats are not being
sufficiently managed. Designation of
unoccupied habitat (in addition to
occupied habitat) is essential to the
conservation of S. hawaiiensis as it
remains in danger of extinction
throughout its range, therefore sufficient
habitat is required to allow the species
to persist in the face of ongoing and
future threats, and for the expansion or
reestablishment of multiple, selfsustaining populations in areas
presently not occupied by the species to
meet recovery goals.
Stenogyne bifida (NCN), a short-lived
climbing perennial herb in the mint
family (Lamiaceae), is known from
Molokai (Weller and Sakai 1999, p.
835). At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003, there were five known
occurrences (68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003). Currently, S. bifida is known
from one individual in Kawela Gulch, in
the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, p. 113;
Tangalin 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010). The
status of the plants in the montane
mesic ecosystem, farther west, is
unknown (Oppenheimer 2009i, in litt.).
Historically, this species was also found
in Molokai’s lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane mesic, and wet cliff
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Stenogyne kauaulaensis (NCN), a
short-lived perennial 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–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.).
Tetramolopium capillare (pamakani),
a short-lived perennial sprawling shrub
in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is
known from west Maui (Lowrey 1999, p.
363). At the time we designated critical
habitat in 2003, this species was known
from five occurrences (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Although
Tetramolopium capillare was last
observed in the wet cliff (Kauaula) and
dry cliff (Ukumehame) ecosystems in
2001, and in the lowland dry ecosystem
(Ukumehame) in 1995, these plants are
no longer extant (TNC 2007; HBMP
2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
Currently, there are no known
occurrences on west Maui (PEPP 2009,
p. 113).
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum (NCN), a short-lived
perennial shrub in the sunflower family
(Asteraceae), is known from Oahu and
Lanai (Lowrey 1999, p. 376). At the time
we designated critical habitat in 2012,
this subspecies was only known from
three occurrences on Oahu (77 FR
57648, September 18, 2012). Currently,
T. lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is only
found on Oahu. This subspecies was
last observed in the lowland dry
ecosystem on Lanai in the early 1900s
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, pp.
113–114; HBMP 2010).
Tetramolopium remyi (NCN), a shortlived perennial shrub in the sunflower
family (Asteraceae), is known from
Lanai and west Maui (Lowrey 1999, pp.
367–368). At the time we designated
critical habitat in 2003, there was one
occurrence on Lanai totaling
approximately 150 individuals, and
there were an unknown number of
individuals in the Kuia area on west
Maui (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently,
there is one known individual on Lanai
at Awehi, in the lowland dry ecosystem
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer
2010ii, in litt.; Perlman 2008h, in litt.).
There are an unknown number of
individuals in the Kuia area on west
Maui in the lowland dry ecosystem
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Tetramolopium rockii (NCN), a shortlived perennial shrub in the sunflower
family (Asteraceae), is endemic to the
island of Molokai (Lowrey 1999, p. 368).
There are two varieties: T. rockii var.
calcisabulorum and T. rockii var. rockii
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17811
(Lowrey 1999, p. 368). At the time we
designated critical habitat in 2003, T.
rockii was known from four occurrences
totaling thousands of individuals (68 FR
12982, March 18, 2003). Tetramolopium
rockii var. calcisabulorum was reported
from Kaiehu Point to Kapalauoa,
intergrading with var. rockii.
Tetramolopium rockii var. rockii
occurred from Kalawao to
Kahinaakalani, Kaiehu point to
Kapalauoa, and Moomomi to
Kahinaakalani. Currently, numbers
fluctuate considerably from year to year
but remain in the thousands, and
occurrences are found along the
northwest shore of Molokai, from Kaa
Gulch to Kahinaakalani, and on
Kalaupapa peninsula from Alau to
Makalii, in the coastal ecosystem
(Canfield 1990, p. 20; Perlman 2006c, in
litt.; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; NTBG
2009l; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010f, in
litt.).
Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN), a twining,
short-lived perennial herb in the pea
family (Fabaceae), is known from all of
the main Hawaiian Islands except Kauai
(Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 720–721). At
the time we designated critical habitat
on Maui and Hawaii in 2003 and Oahu
in 2012, V. o-wahuensis was known
from 6 occurrences totaling
approximately 30 individuals on Lanai,
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, and the
island of Hawaii (68 FR 1220, January
9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003;
68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648,
September 18, 2012). However, no
critical habitat was designated for this
species on Lanai or Molokai in 2003 (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003). Currently, there are 22
individuals in 3 occurrences on
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe. On
Molokai, 2 occurrences totaling 12
individuals are known from
Makakupaia and Makolelau, in the
lowland mesic ecosystem. On east Maui,
there are approximately 10 individuals
at Kanaio Beach in the coastal
ecosystem. On Kahoolawe, there is one
individual in the lowland dry
ecosystem. Historically, V. o-wahuensis
was found in the lowland dry and
lowland mesic ecosystems on Lanai,
and in the coastal ecosystem on
Kahoolawe (Perlman 2005, in litt.; TNC
2007; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010g, in litt.).
Viola lanaiensis (NCN), a short-lived
perennial subshrub in the violet family
(Violaceae), is known from Lanai
(Wagner et al. 1999aa, pp. 1,334–1,336).
In 2003, there were 2 known
occurrences totaling fewer than 80
individuals; however, no critical habitat
was designated for this species on Lanai
(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17812
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Currently, 6 individuals are found in
Awehi Gulch, in the wet cliff ecosystem
on Lanai. Historically, this species was
also reported in the montane wet and
dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai (TNC
2007; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2008, p. 84;
PEPP 2009, p. 117; HBMP 2010). A new
population of over 140 individuals of V.
lanaiensis was recently discovered on
Helu Peak, west Maui, in the montane
mesic ecosystem (Havran et al. 2012.
This information extends the known
range for V. lanaiensis to the island of
Maui. However, we will reevaluate the
listing status of this species in a future
proposed rulemaking.
Wikstroemia villosa (akia), a shortlived perennial 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 2010). 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.).
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae), a longlived perennial tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), is known from Kauai,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of
Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, pp. 1,214–
1,215). At the time we designated
critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and
Maui in 2003, Z. hawaiiense was known
from 3 occurrences on Kauai, 5
individuals on Molokai, 9 occurrences
on Maui, and 186 occurrences on the
island of Hawaii (68 FR 9116, February
27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003;
68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003). No critical habitat
was designated for this species on
Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2,
2003). Currently, on Molokai and Maui,
this species is known from 5 or 6
occurrences totaling 14 individuals. On
Molokai, there are two mature
individuals in the lowland wet
ecosystem, one individual above
Kamalo in the montane wet ecosystem,
and one individual in Makolelau Gulch
in the lowland mesic ecosystem. On
west Maui, there are seven individuals
at Puehuehunui in the montane mesic
and lowland mesic ecosystems. On east
Maui, at Auwahi, there are three
individuals in the montane dry and
lowland dry ecosystems. Historically,
this species also occurred in Maui’s
subalpine and montane mesic
ecosystems (Perlman 2001, in litt.;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Evans et al. 2003, pp. 41, 47; NTBG
2005; TNC 2007; Wood 2007, in litt.;
HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, pp. 22, 27, 119;
HBMP 2010). Zanthoxylum hawaiiense
was last seen on Lanai in the lowland
wet ecosystem in 1947 (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010).
Animals
Birds
Kiwikiu
The Maui parrotbill, or kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), is a small
Hawaiian honeycreeper found only on
the island of Maui, currently in the midto upper-elevation montane mesic and
montane wet ecosystems (USFWS 2006,
p. 2–79; TNC 2007). The Hawaiian
honeycreepers are in the subfamily
Drepanidinae of the finch family,
Fringillidae (AOU 1998, p. 673). The
kiwikiu is most common in wet forests
dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha
trees and a few mesic areas dominated
by M. polymorpha and Acacia koa trees
with an intact, dense, diverse native
understory and subcanopy of ferns,
sedges, epiphytes, shrubs and small to
medium trees (USFWS 2006, p. 2–79).
In 1980, the number of kiwikiu was
estimated by the Hawaii Forest Bird
Survey (HFBS) at 500 ±230 (95 percent
confidence interval) birds with an
average density of 10 birds per 0.39 sq
mi (1 sq km) (Scott et al. 1986, p. 115).
Currently, the kiwikiu is found only on
Haleakala on east Maui, in an area of
12,355 ac (50 sq km) at elevations
between 4,500 and 6,500 ft (1,360 to
1,970 m) (NPS 2012, in litt.). The
kiwikiu is insectivorous and often feeds
in a deliberate manner, using its
massive hooked bill to dig, tear, crack,
crush, and chisel the bark and softer
woods on a variety of understory native
shrubs and small- to medium-sized
subcanopy trees, especially Rubus
hawaiensis (akala), Broussaisia arguta
(kanawao), and M. polymorpha (USFWS
2006, p. 2–77; NPS 2012, in litt.).
Kiwikiu also pluck and bite open fruits,
especially B. arguta fruits, in search of
insects, but do not eat the fruit itself
(USFWS 2006, pp. 2–77–2–78). The
open cup nest, composed mainly of
lichens (Usnea sp.) and Leptecophylla
tameiameiae (pukiawe) twigs, is built by
the female an average of 40 ft (12 m)
above the ground in a forked branch just
under the outer canopy foliage (USFWS
2006, p. 2–78). Based on collections of
subfossil bones, the current geographic
range is much restricted compared to
the known prehistorical range, which
included mesic leeward forests and low
elevations between 660 and 1,000 ft
(200 to 300 m) on east Maui as well as
Molokai (James and Olson 1991, p. 80;
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Olson and James 1991, pp. 14–15; TNC
2007). Surveys from 1995 to 1997 at
Hanawi, a study site located in the core
of the species’ range, showed that the
kiwikiu occurred there at approximately
the same density (40 birds per 0.39 sq
mi (1 sq km)) as in 1980 (Simon et al.
2002, p. 477). However, subsequent
surveys across the species’ range have
not conclusively shown that its
densities are stable (Camp et al. 2009, p.
39).
Akohekohe
The crested honeycreeper, or
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei), is a small
forest bird found only on the island of
Maui, currently in the mid- to upperelevation montane mesic and montane
wet ecosystems (USFWS 2006, p. 2–139;
TNC 2007). Like the kiwikiu, the
akohekohe is also a Hawaiian
honeycreeper in the subfamily
Drepanidinae of the finch family,
Fringillidae (AOU 1998, p. 678). The
akohekohe is most common in the wet
forest habitat described above for the
kiwikiu, except that the lower limit of
the akohekohe’s elevational range is
higher (roughly 5,000 ft (1,525 m)) than
the lower limit of the kiwikiu’s
elevational range (USFWS 2006, p. 2–
139; NPS 2012, in litt.). In 1980, the
number of akohekohe was estimated by
the HFBS at 3,800 ±700 (95 percent
confidence interval) individuals (Scott
et al. 1986, p. 168). Currently the
akohekohe is found only on Haleakala,
east Maui, in 14,080 ac (58 sq km) at
elevations between 5,000 and 6,500 ft
(1,500 to 1,970 m) at Manawainui,
Kipahulu Valley, and the upper Hana
rainforest (USFWS 2006, p. 2–140; NPS
2012, in litt.). The akohekohe is
primarily nectarivorous, but also feeds
on caterpillars, spiders, and dipterans
(flies) (USFWS 2006, p. 2–138). Nectar
is primarily sought from flowers of
Metrosideros polymorpha trees but also
from several subcanopy tree and shrub
species when M. polymorpha trees are
not in bloom (USFWS 2006, p. 2–139;
NPS 2012, in litt.). The open cup nest
is built by the female an average 46 ft
(14 m) above the ground in the terminal
ends of branches below the canopy
foliage of M. polymorpha trees (USFWS
2006, p. 2–139). Based on collections of
subfossil bones, the current geographic
range is much restricted compared to
the known prehistorical range, which
included dry leeward areas of east and
west Maui, and Molokai (Berlin and
VanGelder 1999, p. 3). The HFBS and
subsequent surveys of the akohekohe
range yielded densities of 81 ±10 birds
per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) in 1980, 98 ±11
birds per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) from 1992
to 1996, and 116 ±14 birds per 0.39 sq
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
mi (1 sq km) between 1997 and 2001
(Camp et al. 2009, p. 81; Gorresen et al.
2009, pp. 123–124). Densities in the
core of the species’ range within the
Hanawi Natural Area Reserve were 183
±59 birds per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) in
1988, and 290 ±10 birds per 0.39 sq mi
(1 sq km) from 1995 to 1997 (Berlin and
VanGelder 1999, p. 11). These results
indicate that the species’ rangewide and
core densities have both increased and
the current population may be larger
than previously estimated (Gorresen et
al. 2009, p. 124).
Tree Snails
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). The exact life span and
fecundity of the Newcomb’s tree snail 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 native host
plant, the tree Metrosideros polymorpha
(Pilsbry and Cooke 1912–1914, p. 103).
Historically, Newcomb’s tree snail was
distributed 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). Eightysix 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).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
once 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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17813
ecosystems in central Lanai (Hadfield
2005, pp. 3–5; TNC 2007).
An Ecosystem-Based Approach To
Determining Primary Constituent
Elements of Critical Habitat
Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are
required to designate critical habitat to
the maximum extent prudent and
determinable concurrently with the
publication of a final determination that
a species is endangered or threatened. In
this final rule, we are designating
critical habitat for 125 endangered or
threatened species (122 plants, 1 tree
snail, and 2 forest birds) on the islands
of Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe. As
described in our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464), we
proposed critical habitat for the first
time for 50 plant and animal species (37
newly listed and 2 species for which we
reaffirmed listed status, as well as 11
previously listed plant and animal
species that did not have designated
critical habitat (May 28, 2013; 78 FR
32014)), and proposed to revise critical
habitat for 85 listed plant species, for a
total of 135 species. As noted above, as
a result of exclusions under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, no critical habitat is
designated for 10 of those species,
therefore we are finalizing critical
habitat for 125 of those 135 species.
In this final rule, we are designating
critical habitat for 125 species in 165
unique critical habitat units. Although
critical habitat is identified for each
species individually, we have found
that the conservation of each depends,
at least in part, on the successful
functioning of the physical or biological
features of their commonly shared
ecosystem. Each critical habitat unit
identified in this final rule contains the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of those individual
species that occupy that particular unit,
or areas essential for the conservation of
those species identified that do not
presently occupy that particular unit.
Where the unit is not occupied by a
particular species, we conclude it is still
essential for the conservation of that
species because the designation allows
for the expansion of its range and
reintroduction of individuals into areas
where it occurred historically, and
provides area for recovery in the case of
stochastic events that otherwise hold
the potential to eliminate the species
from the one or more locations where it
may presently be found. Under current
conditions, many of these species are so
rare in the wild that they are at high risk
of extirpation or even extinction from
various stochastic events, such as
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17814
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
hurricanes or landslides. Therefore,
building up resilience and redundancy
in these species through the
establishment of multiple, robust
populations is a key component of
recovery.
Each of the areas designated
represents critical habitat for multiple
species, based upon their shared habitat
requirements (i.e., physical or biological
features) essential for their conservation.
This designation of critical habitat also
takes into account any species-specific
conservation needs. For example, the
presence of a seasonally wet area within
the coastal ecosystem is essential for the
conservation of the plant Marsilea
villosa, but is not a requirement shared
by all of the other species within that
same ecosystem; this is an example of
a species-specific requirement.
However, a broader, functioning
ecosystem is also essential to M. villosa
because it provides the ‘‘ecosystemlevel’’ physical or biological features
required to support its specific lifehistory requirements.
In the interest of reducing the length
of this document, we have provided
detailed background information
regarding the islands of Maui Nui, as
well as descriptions of the relevant
Maui Nui ecosystems that provide
habitat for these species, in our
supporting document ‘‘Supplemental
Information for the Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
for 135 Species,’’ available at https://
www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES).
IV. 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 on 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
newspapers, at the beginning of the
comment period. We received three
requests for public hearings. On January
31, 2013, we published a document (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
document (January 31, 2013; 78 FR
6785) we announced a public
information meeting and hearing, which
we held in Kihei, Maui, on February 21,
2013. On June 10, 2015, we again
reopened the comment period on the
proposed critical habitat for an
additional 15 days (80 FR 32922); this
comment period closed on June 25,
2015.
In addition, on February 25, 2013,
during a meeting of the Maui County
Council’s Policy and Intergovernmental
Affairs (PIA) Committee in Wailuku,
Maui, the council received public
testimony on the Service’s June 11, 2012
(77 FR 34464), proposed rule. Fourteen
individuals present at the meeting
provided oral testimony, and 4
individuals provided only written
testimony, on the proposed designation
of critical habitat for 135 species.
During the comment periods, we
received a total of 150 unique comment
letters on the proposed listing of 38
species, reevaluation of listing for 2
species, and proposed designation of
critical habitat. In addition, we received
5,107 copies of an electronic form letter
in support of critical habitat designation
from a Web site available to a
worldwide audience. No additional
scientific information was provided in
these form letters. We also received a
petition entitled ‘‘Maui Hunters Oppose
Maui Nui Critical Habitat Designation,’’
signed by 93 individuals. Of the 150
commenters, 11 were State of Hawaii or
Maui County elected officials, three
were Federal agencies (Pacific West
Region of the National Park Service,
Haleakala National Park, and Kalaupapa
National Historical Park), four were
State of Hawaii agencies (Hawaii
Department of Health (although they did
not provide any comments specific to
critical habitat), Hawaii Department of
Agriculture, Hawaii Division of Forestry
and Wildlife, Hawaii Department of
Hawaiian Homelands), three were
affiliated with Maui County (Maui
County Police Department, Maui County
Planning Department, and Maui County
Council Committee on Policy and
Intergovernmental Affairs), and 129
were nongovernmental organizations or
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
individuals; and, counted separately,
the 5,107 electronic form letters (as
described above). During the February
21, 2013, public hearing, 25 individuals
or organizations made comments on the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for 135 species and the DEA. Due to the
nature of the proposed rule, we received
combined comments from the public
and peer reviewers on both the listing
action and the critical habitat
designation. Comments relevant to the
proposed listing of the 38 species and
reevaluation of 2 species were
addressed in the final listing rule
published May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014).
In this final rule, we address only those
comments relevant to the designation of
critical habitat.
All substantive information provided
during the comment periods related to
the critical habitat designation has
either been incorporated directly into
this final rule as appropriate or is
addressed below. Comments we
received are grouped into comments
specifically relating to the proposed
critical habitat designation, the Lanai
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
or the DEA. For readers’ convenience,
we have combined similar comments
into single comments and responses.
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 these
individuals. Of these four peer
reviewers, three provided comments on
the proposed critical habitat designation
(the other reviewer commented only on
the proposed listings). These peer
reviewers generally supported our
methodology and conclusions. We
reviewed all comments we received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the proposed designation of critical
habitat for 135 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
our supporting documentation used was
provided in the proposed rule under the
sections Public Comments and
References Cited (77 FR 34464; June 11,
2012). In addition, the 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 Nos.
FWS–R1–ES–2011–0098 and FWS–R1–
ES–2015–0071, respectively, in the
‘‘Supporting Documents’’ section, 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—online
Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii), 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. 2006, p. 40)
(see The Islands of Maui Nui in our
supporting document ‘‘Supplemental
Information for the Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
for 135 Species,’’ available at https://
www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES)).
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical
Habitat for Plants
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer
pointed out that, based on personal
observations and information from
Wagner et al. (2005, pp. 3 and 135),
Schiedea lydgatei, a listed endangered
plant for which we proposed revised
critical habitat in the lowland mesic
ecosystem on Molokai, occurs in
lowland dry shrublands. In addition,
this same reviewer noted that the
endangered Schiedea sarmentosa, for
which we proposed revised critical
habitat in lowland mesic ecosystem on
Molokai, occurs in lowland dry forest
and shrubland on steep slopes and
cliffs.
Our Response: We believe that both
Schiedea lydgatei and S. sarmentosa are
appropriately characterized as
occupants of the lowland mesic
ecosystem. According to the Hawaii
State geodatabase dataset for annual
rainfall in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al.
1986, digitized in ArcMap), Schiedea
lydgatei and S. sarmentosa occur within
the area defined as mesic, with rainfall
between 50 to 75 inches (in) (127 to 190
centimeters (cm)) per year. In addition,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
this area is within mesic habitat defined
by The Nature Conservancy’s GIS
database for ‘‘An Ecoregional
Assessment of Biodiversity
Conservation for the Hawaiian High
Islands’’ (https://
www.hawaiiecoregionplan.info/).
Portions of this area are affected by
erosion resulting from browsing and
trampling by feral ungulates and may be
locally drier from lack of ground cover
and exposure to wind, making it appear
that this area should be characterized as
‘‘lowland dry.’’ However, for the reasons
cited above, we believe it is
characterized correctly within the mesic
ecosystem.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer
suggested that it may be appropriate to
exclude certain State lands pursuant to
the criteria under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act from designated critical habitat for
plants. These State lands include State
Natural Area Reserves (NARs) that are
fenced, ungulate-free, and staffed, and
that are Priority I watershed areas
according to the State’s ‘Rain Follows
the Forest’ plan (Hawaii Department of
Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR)
2011, entire), or State lands covered by
the HDLNR and Watershed
Partnerships’ Watershed Protection and
Restoration Plan and that have
permanent management teams of
watershed partnership staff. The
reviewer identified the following
specific areas to consider excluding
from critical habitat: Fenced, ungulatefree NARs of the west Maui mountains,
ungulate-free portions of Hanawi NAR,
and Puu Alii and Olokui NARs on
Molokai.
Our Response: We commend the State
of Hawaii for its dedication of staff and
resources toward protection and
management of species and their
habitats through the ‘Rain Follows the
Forest’ plan, management plans for
individual State NARs, and watershed
partnerships programs throughout the
State. These initiatives, plans, and
programs serve to focus conservation
efforts and educate the public on the
importance of these areas. The DLNR–
DOFAW expressed support for the
management goals of the critical habitat
designation for west Maui, but were
concerned that designation of critical
habitat on lands actively managed for
watershed and species protection on
west Maui could have undesirable
impacts on those private landowners
who are conservation partners and
members of the West Maui Mountains
Watershed Partnership. We have taken
those conservation efforts by these
partners under consideration, and as a
result of this evaluation, we have
excluded all such private landowners
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17815
from the designation of critical habitat
in this final rule, based on the
demonstrated beneficial conservation
efforts of those landowners (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors).
We support and value the
conservation efforts by the State and
recognize the necessity of actions taken
on State lands for conservation of
species and their habitats. We also agree
that, if fenced, and maintained as
ungulate-free, these areas on State lands
would provide benefits to the species
and their habitats. However, we note
that the West Maui NAR-Kahakuloa
section is within a public hunting area
(pigs, goats, and birds) with daily bag
limits, Hanawi NAR is within a public
hunting area (goats and pigs) with daily
bag limits, and Puu Alii NAR and
Olokui NAR on Molokai are also within
public hunting areas (goats and pigs)
with daily bag limits, implying these
areas are not yet entirely ungulate-free.
Therefore, any beneficial management
actions to address the threats from
nonnative species in the NARs (e.g.,
fencing, weed control) may be negated
by the presence of ungulates. In
addition, we considered the State’s
comments that ‘‘the Department [of
Land and Natural Resources] does not
have concerns or objections to the
designation of CH [critical habitat] as
proposed for Department lands within
the West Maui mountains,’’ nor did the
State express concerns or object to
critical habitat designation with regard
to any of the NARs suggested by the
peer reviewer. Although the State did
not specifically request exclusion of any
State lands under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, they did request that some areas be
removed from the designation based on
a conflict between the State’s intended
use of those areas (e.g., recreational
hunting) and critical habitat, or
suggested that some of these areas were
not necessary for the recovery of the
species, and that recovery could be
achieved elsewhere. We concluded that
the suggested areas meet the definition
of critical habitat. Further, the State
offered no explanation as to why the
benefit of exclusion of any State lands
may outweigh the benefit of inclusion in
critical habitat. Consequently, the
Secretary has chosen not to exercise her
discretionary authority to exclude any
State lands from this final designation of
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species.
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical
Habitat for Akohekohe and Kiwikiu
(5) Comment: Two peer reviewers
stated that we did not adequately
discuss the basis for proposing
extensive areas of unoccupied habitat
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17816
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
for the two honeycreepers on west Maui
and on Molokai. It was suggested that
we include additional discussion on the
significance of risk to isolated
populations and their susceptibility to
stochastic events. Additionally it was
recommended that we elaborate upon
the need for establishing secondary
populations of the honeycreepers and to
explain the feasibility of captive
breeding to support these planned
introduced populations.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer
reviewers’ comments. In this final rule
we have included additional
information to explain the need to
designate unoccupied habitat for the
two honeycreepers on west Maui and on
Molokai (see ‘‘Recovery Strategy for
Two Forest Birds,’’ below). These forest
birds now occur in low numbers and
have experienced significant range
restrictions. They face threats from
natural processes such as inbreeding
depression and natural and manmade
stochastic events such as hurricanes,
wildfires, and changes in habitat
vegetation such as periodic dieback
events (Revised Recovery Plan for
Hawaiian Forest Birds (Recovery Plan),
Service 2006, pp. ix–x). For both of
these birds, long-term recovery cannot
be achieved based solely upon the
protection of existing populations.
Population growth and expansion is
essential to the conservation of these
species, which will require sufficient
areas of suitable unoccupied habitat
within their historical range. In
proposing areas of unoccupied habitat,
we used the recovery areas identified for
the akohekohe and kiwikiu in the
Recovery Plan, the known locations of
the species, The Nature Conservancy’s
Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian
High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps
(TNC 2007), published and unpublished
reports, and GIS layers (see Methods,
below). According to the Recovery Plan,
the recovery areas are areas that will
allow for the long-term survival and
recovery of these two Hawaiian forest
birds.
In this final rule we have also
outlined the recovery criteria, as
identified in the Recovery Plan, to
ensure the conservation of the
akohekohe and kiwikiu within their
existing occupied habitat and those
unoccupied habitats identified as
essential for their conservation (see
‘‘Recovery Strategy for Two Forest
Birds,’’ below).
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer
prioritized proposed critical habitat in
order of importance to the akohekohe
and kiwikiu. The reviewer suggested the
following: First priority critical habitat
units should include units with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
populations of one or both of the
honeycreepers and units adjacent to
these areas within the same ecosystem
designations; second priority critical
habitat units should include adjacent
habitat areas with the potential of
linking isolated populations and/or
providing contiguous habitat around
Haleakala; third priority critical habitat
units should include mesic Acacia koa
(koa) woodlands above the current
distribution of the two birds. Regarding
these third priority areas, the reviewer
emphasized that they are essential
habitat because koa woodlands may
represent a more optimal foraging
habitat for the honeycreepers, and
higher elevation habitat may provide a
cooler refuge from encroaching disease
(avian malaria, transmitted by
mosquitoes) as local mean temperatures
continue to rise. The reviewer went on
to suggest that even heavily grazed and
logged areas in the mesic koa
woodlands should not be exempt from
critical habitat, as areas with active or
planned koa reforestation projects may
have the greatest potential for sustaining
higher densities of honeycreepers
through their capacity to support the
birds’ arthropod prey.
Our Response: We appreciate the
thorough consideration given by this
peer reviewer to our proposed critical
habitat for the akohekohe and kiwikiu.
However, under the Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, critical
habitat areas are not prioritized or
ranked in any way at the time they are
designated. However, the information
provided by the peer reviewer may be
germane to the prioritization of recovery
actions for the akohekohe and kiwikiu,
therefore we have provided it to the
Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team so
that it may be incorporated into future
planning efforts, as appropriate,
possibly including revision of the 2006
Recovery Plan. As explained above, we
used the recovery areas identified for
the akohekohe and kiwikiu in the
Recovery Plan, and other information
(see also Methods, below) to identify
critical habitat boundaries. According to
the Recovery Plan, the recovery areas
are areas that will provide for the longterm survival and recovery of these two
Hawaiian forest birds. Recovery areas
encompass existing endangered forest
bird populations, as well as habitat
areas from which these species have
disappeared in the recent past, but
which still provide or could provide the
conditions and resources essential to
support populations of endangered
forest bird species. The recovery plan
recognizes that to ensure the potential
for population increase, additional
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
unoccupied but potentially suitable
habitat will require restoration. These
areas include koa forest and grazed
areas that have potential for
reforestation upslope from current
populations, as suggested by the peer
reviewer (see, for example, Service
2006, pp. 2–84—2–85, regarding habitat
restoration needs for the kiwikiu, with
particular attention to koa forests). In
addition, the recovery area identified
includes high-elevation forest habitat
(up to the maximum elevation available
on west Maui, excluding only the
highest slopes of Haleakala on east Maui
above treeline), thereby capturing as
much potentially disease- and vectorfree habitat as possible. We incorporated
these areas as they are described in the
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Forest Birds (Service 2006, pp. 2–80)
into the forest bird critical habitat
designation; we believe the areas we
have designated are in agreement with
the conservation principles suggested
for the akohekohe and kiwikiu by the
peer reviewer.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer
stated that actively managing for annual
disease mortality may be essential for
population expansion of the
honeycreepers within the mesic and wet
lowland areas proposed for critical
habitat in order to ultimately restore the
birds to their original altitudinal
distribution.
Our Response: We agree that active
management for disease mortality is
likely essential for expansion of the
honeycreeper into lowland mesic and
wet areas where they no longer occur.
In this final rule, we have provided
additional background information on
disease management within the lowland
units proposed as critical habitat for the
two honeycreepers (see ‘‘Disease and
Disease Vectors’’ in the section Special
Management Considerations or
Protections, below). In addition, the
importance of mosquito control due to
the threat to Hawaiian forest birds,
including the akohekohe and kiwikiu,
from mosquito-borne diseases at lower
elevations is discussed in the Recovery
Plan (Service 2006, pp. 2–85, 2–143,
and pp. 4–62—4–82), Ahumada et al. in
Pratt et al. (2010, pp. 331–355), and
LaPointe et al. in Pratt et al. (2010, pp.
405–424).
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer
noted that our proposed designation of
critical habitat for the honeycreepers
within unoccupied lowland to montane
mesic forest habitat on west Maui and
Molokai would help to restore these
species to their historic and prehistoric
ranges and, more importantly, would
provide habitat for secondary
populations to insure against the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
impacts resulting from disease or
stochastic events including hurricanes
or fires. However, the reviewer
suggested that despite the benefit of
being more distant from the current
honeycreeper populations on east Maui,
proposed units on Molokai were more
likely to require management for avian
malaria due to the lower elevation
compared to proposed units on west
Maui. The reviewer suggested that
proposed higher elevation units on west
Maui would be more suitable for
translocations of the honeycreepers.
Our Response: In the proposed rule,
we proposed critical habitat in
unoccupied areas on east and west Maui
and Molokai to support the recovery
strategy of expanding the range of the
two species of honeycreepers beyond
the currently limited habitat
surrounding the summit of east Maui
(Service 2006, pp. 2–83, 2–143).
According to the Recovery Plan,
reestablishment of the akohekohe and
kiwikiu on west Maui or Molokai is an
important component of the recovery
strategies for these two species in order
to reduce the threat from catastrophic
events such as hurricanes and
epizootics of disease (in this case,
epizootics refers to contributing factors
of a disease that is temporarily prevalent
in an animal population). We agree that
critical habitat units on Molokai are
more likely to require management for
avian malaria due to their lower
elevation compared to critical habitat
units on west Maui. Selection of sites
for translocation of these species will be
determined by the Hawaiian Forest Bird
Recovery Team.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer
emphasized that the successful
conservation of the two honeycreepers
within designated lands will require
control of feral pigs in order to provide
the healthy and diverse understory
necessary as foraging substrate and
alternative nectar and arthropod food
resources for the two birds.
Additionally, the reviewer stated that
feral pig control will also reduce the
available larval mosquito habitat and,
dependent on the surface hydrology,
may go a long way toward eliminating
disease transmission in the designated
units. Lastly, the reviewer asserted that
both cattle ranching and the
management of feral pigs as game
animals within State and privately
owned designated lands would continue
to increase the detrimental impacts to
the honeycreepers’ habitat.
Our Response: We agree that a healthy
and diverse understory is necessary for
the successful conservation of native
forest birds on the Maui Nui islands.
The Recovery Plan provides details
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
regarding the recovery strategies for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu. These strategies
include the protection, restoration, and
management of native high-elevation
forests on east Maui, research to
understand threats from disease and
predation, and captive propagation to
produce birds and translocation of birds
for reestablishment of wild populations
on west Maui or Molokai (Service 2006,
p. 2–83 and p. 2–143). Habitat
management and restoration will
include fencing and removal of feral
ungulates (in particular feral pigs) that
degrade and destroy native forest bird
habitat. In addition, fencing and
removal of feral ungulates may
contribute to the control of avian
disease in these two birds by reducing
or eliminating larval mosquito habitat in
wet forests created by the feeding and
wallowing habits of feral pigs (LaPointe
et al. in Pratt et al. 2010, pp. 405–424).
Game mammal hunting is a
recreational and cultural activity in
Hawaii that is regulated by the HDLNR
on State and private lands (HDLNR
2002, entire). Critical habitat does not
give the Federal government authority
to control or otherwise manage feral
animals on non-Federal land. These
land management options continue to
be landowner decisions and, absent
Federal involvement, are not affected by
the designation of critical habitat. It is
well-known that game mammals affect
listed plant and animal species in
Hawaii. We believe it is important to
develop and implement management
programs that provide for the recovery
of listed species, but also acknowledge
the importance of continued ungulate
hunting in game management areas. We
welcome opportunities to work closely
with the State and other partners to
ensure that game management programs
are implemented in a manner consistent
with both of these needs.
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer
suggested the final rule be shortened
and made more accessible to the general
public by including a more simple
listing or graphic depiction of the
relevant facts including both former and
current species’ ranges, current
population sizes, current densities,
territory sizes, minimal viable
population sizes, and ranges of limiting
factors.
Our Response: We appreciate the
suggestions offered by this peer
reviewer and agree that the status
information on the akohekohe and
kiwikiu (77 FR 34464, June 11, 2012,
pp. 34525–34526) in the proposed rule
may not be as accessible to the public
as desired, although it is provided in the
same format as the status information on
the other listed species. The akohekohe
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17817
and kiwikiu were listed as endangered
species in 1967 (32 FR 4001; March 11,
1967) and at that time critical habitat
was not designated for these two species
because it was not provided for by the
statute at that time. Since 1967, detailed
information on ranges, densities,
territory sizes, and recovery actions
needed for native Hawaiian forest birds,
including the akohekohe and kiwikiu,
can be found in several published and
unpublished documents (e.g., Service
2006 and Pratt et al. 2010, entire) and
is not repeated in this final rule. The
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Forest Birds, for example, contains an
excellent short description of each
species and their status (Service 2006;
kiwikiu, pp. 2–77—2–85, akohekohe,
pp. 2–138—2–143). In this final rule we
are not reevaluating the listing as
endangered of these two forest birds, we
are only designating critical habitat for
them.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer
suggested that recovery areas identified
in the 2006 Recovery Plan be renamed
and addressed in our rule as ‘‘Maui Nui
critical habitat areas and needed
recovery actions for critical habitat
parcels.’’ Additionally, the reviewer
recommended that the recovery actions
listed in the Recovery Plan are
appropriate actions to promote, fund,
and implement in designated critical
habitat for the Hawaiian honeycreepers.
Our Response: In our description of
the information we used to identify the
areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential for the
conservation of the akohekohe and
kiwikiu, we state that we developed this
information by considering the
‘‘recovery area as determined in the
revised Recovery Plan’’ (see Methods),
in addition to other published and
unpublished data sources. The areas
designated as critical habitat in this
final rule are not equivalent to, or the
same as, the recovery areas in the
Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan is a
planning document, to aid in the
conservation and recovery of the
species, and has no regulatory authority.
Critical habitat, on the other hand, is a
term defined and used in the Act, and
imposes regulatory authority over
Federal activities. Critical habitat is a
specific geographic area(s) that contains
features essential for the conservation of
an endangered or threatened species
and that may require special
management and protection, and areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. Under the
Act, Federal agencies are required to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17818
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service on actions they carry out, fund,
or authorize to ensure that their actions
will not destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. In this way, a critical
habitat designation protects areas that
are necessary for the conservation of the
species. We agree with the reviewer that
the recovery actions listed in the
Recovery Plan are appropriate actions to
promote, fund, and implement, as
appropriate, in designated critical
habitat areas.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical
Habitat for Lanai Tree Snails
(12) Comment: One peer reviewer
provided us with maps created in the
early 1900s by renowned ornithologist
and botanist, George Munro, showing
the distribution of the Lanai tree snails
within the Lanaihale Mountains. The
peer reviewer recommended that the
boundaries of the final critical habitat
designation for these species be adjusted
accordingly, in conjunction with careful
review of the remaining available
habitat in the Lanaihale Mountains.
Our Response: The Service
appreciates this additional information
concerning the historical range of the
snails. We have examined the maps
provided and analyzed the best
available information regarding the
snails’ habitat requirements based upon
the physical and biological features
essential to their conservation and
which may require special management
considerations or protection,
unoccupied habitat essential to the
conservation of the snails, and the
current status of habitat within the
Lanaihale mountains. For the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors), critical
habitat is not designated on the island
of Lanai in this final rule, as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, it is
important to understand that any
exclusion does not reflect a
determination that the area in question
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat or is not important for the
conservation of the species; an
exclusion only reflects the Secretary’s
determination that the benefits of
excluding that area from critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of including it in
the designation.
Comments From Federal Agencies
We received comments from the
National Park Service (Pacific West
Region), Haleakala National Park (on
Maui), and Kalaupapa National
Historical Park (on Molokai). Haleakala
National Park provided information on
one or more of the plant and forest bird
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
species addressed in this final rule that
occur in the Park, and this information
was incorporated, as appropriate, into
the final rule listing 38 species on
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as
endangered, which published on May
28, 2013 (78 FR 32014), or into this final
rule and its supporting documentation.
(13) Comment: The National Park
Service (NPS) supported the intent
concerning exclusions of ‘‘developed
areas such as buildings, paved areas,
and other structures that lack the
physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the species.’’
However, the NPS suggested that all
such areas within Haleakala National
Park be excluded from critical habitat
designation and that the exclusion
include a buffer area.
Our Response: In our proposed rule
published on June 11, 2012 (77 FR
34464), and in this final rule, we state
that existing manmade features and
structures such as buildings, and
developed or paved areas, including
trails, are not designated as critical
habitat. Federal actions involving these
areas would not trigger section 7
consultation unless the specific action
would also affect adjacent critical
habitat or its primary constituent
elements. This would include existing
manmade features and structures in
Haleakala National Park. There are,
however, no predefined ‘‘buffer areas’’
that are included in the textual
exclusion of existing manmade features
and structures. Mapping every structure,
building, developed area, paved area, or
trail, and the surrounding physical or
biological features, may prove confusing
and indecipherable to the general
public, and in any case, is not a realistic
possibility at the scale of mapping
provided in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Therefore, in this final rule,
as with all critical habitat rules, we
made every effort to avoid including
manmade features and structures that
may be contained within critical habitat,
but the scale of the maps we prepared
under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed areas. Any such structures
and the lands under them that are inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps in this final rule are excluded by
text in this final rule and are not
designated as critical habitat (see below,
Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat).
(14) Comment: The NPS urged us to
only designate occupied critical habitat
for the two forest birds (akohekohe and
kiwikiu) and not currently unoccupied
areas. According to their letter,
including areas for critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
designation where akohekohe and
kiwikiu do not currently exist is based
on assumptions that: (1) Unoccupied
areas will produce all the elements
necessary for the survival of the species;
(2) unoccupied areas will not contain
elements that are detrimental to the
species (e.g., invasive, nonnative species
and mosquitoes); and (3) reintroduction
of the species into unoccupied areas
will be successful (e.g., the species will
persist in the area). Data from Haleakala
National Park show that some invasive
plants are difficult, if not impossible, to
control after feral ungulates are
removed. In addition, there is no
effective way to remove mosquitoes
from an area.
Our Response: We appreciate the
NPS’ comments but disagree with its
rationale for removing all unoccupied
areas from critical habitat; we consider
all unoccupied areas designated as
critical habitat for the two forest birds
to be essential to the conservation of the
species, because the areas presently
occupied by these forest birds are not
adequate to ensure their conservation,
for the reasons detailed here. Each of
these bird species has been reduced to
a single population, resulting in
significant vulnerability of each species
to extinction. The conservation of these
species will require a significant
increase in numbers of individuals and
populations; in addition, there is
evidence that these species are presently
restricted to suboptimal habitats. The
akohekohe is currently found in one
population on east Maui within
approximately 14,080 ac (58 sq km) at
elevations between 5,000 and 6,900 ft
(1,500 to 2,100 m). This species has
been reduced to an estimated 5 percent
of its former historical range on Maui,
and has been extirpated from the island
of Molokai. The kiwikiu is now found
in only one population on Haleakala
Volcano on Maui, and is restricted to an
area of 12,400 ac (50 sq km) of wet
montane forests at high elevation (4,000
to 7,700 ft (1,200 to 2,350 m). This
species formerly occupied dry leeward
forests and low elevation areas on east
Maui as well, and has also been
extirpated from Molokai.
The Revised Recovery Plan for
Hawaiian Forest Birds recognizes that
the long-term recovery strategy for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu are similar
because they inhabit similar geographic
areas and face similar threats (Service
2006, p. 2–141). Historically, kiwikiu
favored koa forests for foraging, but such
forests have been largely lost to past
logging and ranching, such that kiwikiu
are now restricted to wet montane
forests with low numbers of koa that are
likely marginal habitat for the species
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(Service 2006, pp. 2–81, 2–84). The
specialized foraging behavior of the
kiwikiu requires the birds to defend
large territories year-round, resulting in
relatively low densities of birds (Service
2006, p. 2–78); this additionally
translates into relatively large areas of
habitat required to support populations
of kiwikiu. Likewise the akohekohe was
initially observed in koa forests on
Maui, but is now absent due to the
widespread destruction of these forest
types (Service 2006, p. 2–140).
Akohekohe also use relatively large
areas of habitat, as, being nectarivorous,
they migrate altitudinally for foraging in
response to the timing of flowering of
various trees and shrubs. Akohekohe are
now restricted to high elevation forests
due to the presence of mosquito-borne
diseases at lower elevations, but are
additionally restricted at upper
elevations in some areas by destruction
of forest habitat.
Areas currently unoccupied by the
two bird species are essential to their
conservation for multiple reasons.
Primary amongst these is the high risk
of extinction faced by any species that
occurs in only a single population; this
risk may be from a predictable threat
such as disease, or a stochastic threat,
such as a hurricane. For both the
akohekohe and kiwikiu, the
reestablishment of additional
populations is needed to reduce this
elevated risk of extinction (Service
2006, pp. 2–83, 2–143); this risk could
be reduced from the establishment of
additional populations on Maui, and
possibly by reestablishing the species on
Molokai as well. The risk of extinction
for these species is such that one of the
recovery criteria for listed Hawaiian
forest birds is the requirement that the
species occurs in two or more viable
populations or a viable metapopulation
(Service 2006, pp. 2–83—2–84, 2–143,
3–5—3–6). The establishment of
additional populations in currently
unoccupied areas reduces the likelihood
of significant impacts to the species as
a whole from risks associated with
disease, as well as catastrophes such as
hurricanes and fires, and increases the
ecological breadth of the species to help
buffer against climatic fluctuations.
Additional or larger populations will
additionally promote natural
demographic and evolutionary
processes to increase the long-term
viability of the species. Unoccupied
areas can help facilitate the dispersal of
birds, including seasonal movements,
which can increase gene flow between
isolated populations and increase the
viability of established and newer
populations. For all of these reasons, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
have concluded that a critical habitat
designation limited to the areas
presently occupied by the akohekohe
and kiwikiu is inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species, and we
have therefore designated as critical
habitat certain areas outside of the
present range of the akohekohe and
kiwikiu that we have determined are
essential to the conservation of these
species.
(15) Comment: Kalaupapa National
Historical Park (KNHP) agreed with our
ecosystem-based approach for grouping
plants and defining their habitat
consistently. According to KNHP, this
approach will aid in the management of
endangered and threatened plants as
part of the collection of native
communities across the landscape.
According to their letter, much of the
proposed critical habitat falls on areas
with intact native plant communities or
areas already under protection by decree
or due to their remote locations, and
added that proposing critical habitat in
intact native plant communities or
protected conservation areas or areas
with difficult access will favor public
acceptance of the proposed critical
habitat.
Our Response: We appreciate KNHP’s
comments regarding the proposal to
designate critical habitat for 135 species
on the islands of Maui, Molokai, Lanai,
and Kahoolawe. We agree that using an
ecosystem-based approach to organize
this rule and designate critical habitat
will help provide for more focused
conservation efforts and concerted
management efforts to address the
common threats that occur across these
ecosystems.
Comments From State of Hawaii Elected
Officials
(16) Comment: Maui Senator Rosalyn
Baker commented that the Service did
not discuss the proposal or its potential
impacts with most of the owners of the
affected lands. Senator Baker also stated
that many landowners have not been
offered the opportunity to work
collaboratively with the Service to
determine if their lands are currently
occupied by the species or if their lands
are essential to the species.
Our Response: We appreciate the
Senator’s comments and suggestions to
work collaboratively with Maui
landowners regarding critical habitat.
We also appreciate the Senator’s
suggestions to increase our outreach
efforts to the Maui community,
particularly to individual landowners,
and we plan to adopt these suggestions
as we move forward with conservation
in Maui Nui. We used the best available
scientific information to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17819
habitat essential to the species (see
Methods, below), and incorporated new
information received since publication
of the proposed rule on June 11, 2012
(77 FR 34464), and release of our draft
economic analysis (DEA) on January 31,
2013 (78 FR 6785), to further refine the
critical habitat boundaries. Our
notification process followed Service
policies; our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c); and the Act, as amended, at
section 4(b)(5) in paragraphs (A), (C),
(D), and (E). 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, Molokai Dispatch, and
Maui News newspapers, at the
beginning of the comment period. The
proposed rule also directed reviewers to
contact the Service for further
clarification on any part of the proposed
rule, and provided contact information
(77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). During the
initial comment period on our proposed
rule we became aware that there were
errors in the landownership information
in the geospatial data sets associated
with parcel data from Maui County
(2008), which were used to identify
affected landowners. We recognize that
some landowners whose properties
overlapped with the proposed critical
habitat did not receive notification
letters due to errors in landownership
information we received from the State,
or missing landowner information in the
State’s geospatial data sets. However, we
subsequently received updated
landownership information for the
parcel data for the County of Maui
(2010). Shortly after publishing our
January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785),
document announcing the DEA,
reopening the comment period on the
DEA and the proposed rule, and
announcing the public information
meeting and public hearing, we sent
letters to all of the affected landowners
that we were able to identify. In that
letter we provided information on the
proposed rule, the DEA, and the public
information meeting and hearing held
on February 21, 2013, in Kihei, Maui. In
addition, we again contacted all
appropriate State and Federal agencies,
county governments, elected officials,
scientific organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment. We met with the State
Division of Forestry and Wildlife,
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,
Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council (including a
representative of the Hawaii Farm
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17820
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Bureau Federation), Maui Land and
Pineapple Co., Inc., Ulupalakua Ranch,
Haleakala Ranch, Alexander and
Baldwin (including East Maui Irrigation
Co., Inc.), West Maui Mountains
Watershed Partnership, Leeward
Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Partnership, East Maui Watershed
Partnership, and Castle and Cooke
Resorts. We also provided maps of
parcel-specificity to every landowner
who contacted us and requested them
following publication of the 2012
proposed rule and the 2013 notice. In
order to reach as many interested
individuals as possible on Maui Nui we
believe we used the best approach
afforded by our staff levels and
resources and fully complied with our
statutory and regulatory requirements
for public notice.
(17) Comment: Senator Baker
commented that proposed critical
habitat on State, county, and private
lands will have a direct and negative
impact on Maui County, and is
essentially a ‘‘taking’’ without
compensation. The Senator added that
the designation will also affect property
values, trigger rezoning of lands to
conservation status, and place the
landowner at risk of third-party lawsuits
that may prohibit future land use
activities.
Our Response: We appreciate the
Senator’s comments and have addressed
the issues she raised below (see our
responses to Comments (22), (50), and
(59) (regarding rezoning), (55) (regarding
‘‘Federal nexus’’), (56) (regarding
‘‘taking’’), and (59) (regarding property
values)). Our final economic analysis
(FEA) dated September 23, 2015,
acknowledges the potential for critical
habitat designation to increase the
possibility of legal challenges that may
affect private entities (IEc 2015, pp. 3–
3—3–4, 5–17, 5–20). Due to significant
uncertainties regarding the extent to
which the designation will increase the
probability of legal challenges (over and
above the presence of the listed species
or other designated critical habitat (e.g.,
Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca
blackburni) critical habitat)), the direct
costs of legal fees and time spent on
lawsuits, and the potential outcome of
lawsuits, the DEA (and subsequent FEA)
does not estimate a monetary cost from
potential third-party lawsuits. The FEA
does, however, recognize the possibility
of lawsuits as a consequence of the
designation, and presents a qualitative
assessment of this and other potential
indirect effects that are subject to
significant uncertainty in Section 5.3.2
(IEc 2015, pp. 5–16—5–23); our final
designation of critical habitat takes all of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
these potential effects into
consideration.
(18) Comment: The chair of the Maui
County Council (Council), Ms. Gladys
Baisa, and the chair of the Council’s
Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
Committee, Mr. G. Riki Hokama,
commented that the Service failed to
consult with individuals in the
community, native Hawaiian groups,
private landowners, ranchers and
farmers, and others who, in their view,
may suffer devastating economic and
cultural impacts from the designation of
critical habitat.
Our Response: We thank the chairs for
their comments. We discussed with key
stakeholders the likelihood of potential
indirect impacts of the critical habitat
designation, based on the consequences
of previous designations on Maui (IEc
2015, p. 5–16). As noted in our response
to Comment (16), above, there is
significant uncertainty surrounding the
likelihood, timing, and magnitude of
any of these potential indirect impacts,
therefore we were unable to monetize
such impacts; we do, however, evaluate
them qualitatively (IEc 2015, pp. 5–16—
5–23), and this final designation of
critical habitat reflects our thorough
consideration of these indirect impacts.
In terms of quantified impacts, our FEA
projects a total of approximately
$120,000 in incremental impacts over
20 years from critical habitat
designation (IEc 2015, p. 1–7).
(19) Comment: The Council’s chair
commented that Maui County farmers
and ranchers who fund their operations
with Federal funds or may seek Federal
funding in the future will be
(negatively) affected by the proposed
critical habitat.
Our Response: See our response to
Comment (59), below.
(20) Comment: The Council’s chair
suggested that the designation of critical
habitat should include all policymaking entities, including the Hawaii
State legislature, State and County
departments, and the Maui County
Council.
Our Response: We appreciate the
suggestions to work collaboratively with
Hawaii State and Maui County policy
makers. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act
provides the Secretary with the
authority to designate critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species. The
Act defines ‘‘Secretary’’ as the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce. For the species at issue here,
it is the Secretary of the Interior who is
vested with this authority. However, the
Service and the Secretary are committed
to working with our conservation
partners in State agencies and County
and local jurisdictions, and specifically
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
invite the comments of such agencies on
our proposed rulemakings. We give full
and careful consideration to such
comments in the development of our
final rulemakings.
(21) Comment: The Council’s chair
expressed concerns with the economic
analysis and suggested that a more
detailed approach that recognizes the
differences in the opportunity cost of
the land is needed. In addition, she
stated that potential price increases due
to costs associated with critical habitat
rules and regulations could jeopardize
Hawaii’s efforts towards food
sustainability.
Our Response: We appreciate the
Council chair’s comments. See also our
response to Comments (37) and (60),
below.
(22) Comment: The Council’s chair
commented that designation of critical
habitat within areas currently zoned for
agriculture may cause the State to
reclassify them to conservation.
Rezoning to conservation will subject
the landowner to additional permitting
requirements and restrictions on the use
of the land.
Our Response: The relevant State
endangered and threatened species
statute contains no reference to
designated critical habitat. Also, unlike
the automatic conferral of State law
protection for all federally listed
species, State law does not require
initiation of the amendment process for
federally designated critical habitat.
(Compare HRS section 195D–5.1 with
HRS section 195D–4(a)). Although the
State of Hawaii has a relatively long
history of critical habitat designation,
there is no record of such rezoning ever
having occurred in response to critical
habitat. See also our response to
Comments (50) and (55), below.
(23) Comment: The Maui County
Council’s Policy and Intergovernmental
Affairs Committee (PIA Committee)
commented that native Hawaiian groups
had not been consulted regarding
proposed critical habitat in Maui
County, per section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which
‘‘requires open, good faith consultation
with interested parties.’’
Our Response: The intent of the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is to
preserve historical and archaeological
sites in the United States. Under the
NHPA, Federal undertakings with a
potential to cause effects to historic
properties must complete the process
set out in NHPA’s section 106 and its
implementing regulations. However, the
designation of critical habitat does not
cause effects to historic properties or
direct future agency actions that may
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
affect historic properties. The
designation of critical habitat simply
requires a Federal agency proposing an
activity to consult with us pursuant to
section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that
the activity does not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. If the
Federal agency activity itself may result
in effects to historic properties, it is the
responsibility of the Federal agency
proposing the activity to ensure that the
activity complies with the NHPA.
Therefore, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat has no
potential to cause effects to historic
properties pursuant to 36 CFR
800.3(a)(1) (Initiation of the section 106
process [NHPA]).
(24) Comment: The Maui County
Council’s PIA Committee commented
that it is unacceptable that the Maui Nui
proposed rule will be finalized without
holding public hearings on the islands
of Lanai and Molokai, and that many
residents are probably unaware of the
proposed rule.
Our Response: Under the Act at
section 4(b)(5)(E) and our regulations at
50 CFR 424.16(c)(3), we are directed to
hold at least one public hearing on a
proposed rule (i.e., proposed listing
and/or critical habitat designation), if
requested. We received three requests
for public hearings, all from Maui
residents. We regret that we were not
able to hold public hearings on the
islands of Lanai and Molokai due to our
limited resources, but in accordance
with the requirements of the Act, we
held a public hearing on the island of
Maui, where the County government
and most of the County population are
located. See our response to Comment
(16), above, regarding our notification
process to all interested parties,
including residents of Lanai and
Molokai.
(25) Comment: The Maui County
Council’s PIA Committee commented
that many parties who provided public
testimony during the Committee’s
meeting on February 25, 2013, already
engage in significant voluntary
conservation efforts and that finalizing
critical habitat as proposed may result
in fewer voluntary actions. The
Committee suggested that by working
collaboratively with affected parties the
Service will encourage ongoing
conservation efforts.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments and suggestion, and
acknowledge and fully support the
current and ongoing voluntary
conservation actions undertaken by the
State watershed partnerships, other
State and Federal agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and individual
landowners. Service staff made
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
themselves available at the February 25,
2013, meeting of the Maui County
Council’s PIA Committee, to provide
information on the proposed critical
habitat, and answered numerous
questions on the proposed rule for the
members of the committee and others
present. We appreciate the concerns of
potentially affected parties, and we
intend to continue working
collaboratively with these partnerships,
agencies, organizations, and
landowners; we will also seek to
include others as we conduct
conservation in the Hawaiian Islands.
Comments from State of Hawaii
Agencies
(26) Comment: The Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR) commented that they
support the proposal to designate
critical habitat for 135 species on the
islands of Maui Nui and that they also
support the proposed exclusions. They,
and the landowner, asked that the
Service reevaluate the exclusion of
8,746 ac of land owned by Haleakala
Ranch on east Maui and reflect that
amount to be 9,796 ac.
Our Response: The original amount of
acreage of proposed critical habitat only
overlapped 8,746 ac (3,539 ha) of
Haleakala Ranch lands. The statement
‘‘Designation of critical habitat on the
9,796 ac of Haleakala Ranch Company
Lands’’ was an estimate of the total area
under consideration, but not proposed,
at the time of the proposed rule. In this
rule, we are excluding 8,716 ac (3,527
ha) of proposed critical habitat on
Haleakala Ranch lands. The 30-ac
difference from the proposed 8,746 ac
results from the sale of 30 ac (12 ha) of
Haleakala Ranch lands within proposed
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 2 to another
landowner between the time of
publication of the proposed and final
critical habitat rules.
The Hawaii DLNR’s Division of
Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)
provided extensive comments on the
proposed rule. Those comments are
organized by island and by region, and
we address them accordingly, below.
West Maui
(27) Comment: DOFAW supported the
goals of critical habitat designation
proposed for west Maui, and stated that
they have no concerns or objections to
the designation of CH [critical habitat]
as proposed for Department lands
within the West Maui mountains. They
did express concern, however, that the
designation may have undesirable
impacts on the activities of some of its
conservation partners. DOFAW fears
that designation of those lands as
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17821
critical habitat will not appreciably
enhance conservation efforts for listed
species but may impose regulatory and
administrative burdens on landowners
that have, for years, been committed to
conservation efforts on their lands.
DOFAW urged the Service to evaluate
exclusion from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for landowners
in this partnership (West Maui
Mountains Watershed Partnership), and
to meet and discuss the option with
interested landowners. DOFAW believes
that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying the
area as critical habitat, but defers to the
comments and desires of the private
landowners on the matter.
Our Response: We appreciate
DOFAW’s comments and agree that
many landowners in the West Maui
Mountains Watershed Partnership
(WMMWP) are committed to
conservation efforts on their lands and
are active participants in the WMMWP,
which provides or accepts funds and
enters into agreements with State or
Federal agencies to implement effective
conservation actions that benefit listed
species and their habitat. Under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider other
relevant impacts, in addition to
economic impacts and impacts to
national security, in identifying areas to
exclude from critical habitat. We
received several requests for exclusion
from parties to the WMMWP, and in
each case we carefully considered
whether the benefits of exclusion would
outweigh the benefits of including the
areas in question in critical habitat. In
the majority of cases, this consideration
resulted in the exclusion of landowners
who are active members of the
WMMWP and have demonstrated the
positive conservation benefits of their
participation, and as a consequence,
critical habitat is not designated on any
private lands within WMMWP
boundaries in this final rule (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors, below).
East Maui
Kipahulu Forest Reserve to Koolau
Forest Reserve
(28) Comment: DOFAW suggested
that the lower boundary of critical
habitat in this area follow both current
and the State’s recently proposed
management fenceline boundaries in
these forest reserves (FRs). According to
DOFAW, listed species at lower
elevations can be protected and
recovered within the RFF (‘‘Rain
Follows the Forest’’ plan) priority
watershed areas.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17822
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Our Response: DOFAW’s
recommendation would entail removing
or excluding lands proposed for
designation so that the designation
would be co-extensive with RFF priority
watershed areas. We agree with and
support the goals and intent of the RFF
but are concerned about the scope of the
RFF goals and the timeline to
accomplish these goals. Currently, only
10 percent of the State’s priority
watershed protection areas are fenced
from hooved animals, although we
recognize the State’s goal is to double
the area protected in the next 10 years.
The State asserts that the first goals of
the RFF are to remove all hooved
animals from Priority I and II areas; that
fencing 840,000 acres of these areas will
be incremental and will depend upon
landowner approval; and that ‘‘decades
of work will be required.’’
Approximately 35 percent of the
Priority I areas are on State lands;
however, only 4 percent of these lands
are currently fenced. In addition,
Priority I and II areas do not include
lowland dry and mesic ecosystems on
Maui, the most critically imperiled
ecosystems throughout the State. Under
the RFF, beneficial management actions
to address the threats from nonnative
species to these ecosystems may not be
undertaken for decades, and perhaps
not at all. In addition, the designation of
critical habitat serves to educate the
public about the importance of these
areas for conservation of the Maui Nui
species. For all of these reasons, we
consider there to be benefits to the
inclusion of these areas in critical
habitat for the Maui Nui species, thus
we are not aligning the lower boundary
of critical habitat with the current and
recently proposed management
fenceline boundaries proposed by the
State. Although there are some potential
benefits to exclusion in terms of
maintaining our partnership with the
State, at the present time, because the
effectiveness and timing of the
described management actions under
the RFF plan are unknown and do not
address threats on many of the areas we
proposed as critical habitat, and because
of the great importance of these lowland
dry and mesic habitats to the Maui Nui
species, we are unable to conclude that
the benefits of excluding these areas
outweigh the benefits of including them
in the final critical habitat designation.
Makawao and Kula Forest Reserves
(29) Comment: DOFAW stated that it
is seeking to have much of the lands in
the Makawao and Kula FRs available for
customary practice and recreation, and
that they will conduct management for
listed species recovery on other State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
lands. DOFAW also stated that it will
protect any known listed species within
the Makawao and Kula FRs by
constructing protective fencing around
listed species to prevent access by feral
ungulates and suggested that these two
FRs be removed from critical habitat.
Our Response: We have considered
DOFAW’s request to remove Makawao
and Kula FRs from critical habitat. We
understand DOFAW’s mandate to
provide multipurpose public use on
some of their lands, including
customary practice and recreation.
Within the Kula and Makawao FRs,
DOFAW plans to provide public
recreational use, which may include
public hunting opportunities. We
support DOFAW’s commitment to
provide in-situ protection to listed
species that currently occur within
Makawao and Kula FRs. Protective
fencing around listed plant occurrences
will protect them from immediate
disturbance and predation by feral
ungulates. However, while such
localized efforts may contribute to the
protection of individuals of the species,
they will not provide for the expansion
and growth of populations that is
essential to the conservation of the
species. We further note that while the
State proposes to conduct management
for listed species recovery on other
Department lands, no specific plans or
details are provided that would lead us
to conclude that the benefits of
excluding the Makawao and Kula FRs
would outweigh the benefits of
including these areas in critical habitat.
Portions of three proposed critical
habitat units (plant critical habitat units
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1 (1,777
ac, 719 ha), Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1
(3,060 ac, 1,238 ha), and Maui—
Alpine—Unit 1 (13 ac, 5 ha); and the
corresponding forest bird critical habitat
units Unit 18—Montane Mesic and Unit
24—Subalpine) overlapped a total of
4,899 ac (1,984 ha) in Kula FR. In this
final rule, we are designating the same
areas within Kula FR as critical habitat
for 29 species (27 plants and 2 forest
birds) in these units. Each of these five
critical habitat units provides the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and
requires special management
considerations or protections (e.g., feral
ungulate control) (occupied habitat) or
habitat that is essential to the
conservation and recovery of the species
(unoccupied habitat). For example, the
Kula FR contains the only known
occurrences of the endangered plant
Geranium arboreum (totaling fewer than
40 individuals). Fencing these
individuals will provide immediate
direct protection from feral ungulates;
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
however, fencing these individuals will
not provide for recovery of the species.
Due to the small numbers of individuals
and low population size of this species,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery. The recovery guidelines
(i.e., the steps needed to reach recovery
and delist a species) for a long-lived
perennial plant species such as G.
arboreum call for 8 to 10 populations of
100 individuals per population,
sustained over a minimum of 5 years
(Service 1997, pp. 91–93). Therefore, in
addition to the habitat containing the
currently known individuals, areas of
suitable habitat within the historical
range of G. arboreum (northern and
southern Haleakala, and slopes of
western Haleakala) are needed for
recovery of this species. Due to their
small numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for the recovery of all
of these 29 plant and 2 bird species.
In Makawao FR, portions of three
proposed critical habitat units (plant
critical habitat units Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 1, Maui—Montane Wet—
Unit 1, and Maui—Montane Mesic—
Unit 1; and the corresponding forest
bird critical habitat Unit 2—Lowland
Wet, Unit 10—Montane Wet, and Unit
18—Montane Mesic) overlapped a total
of 1,912 ac (774 ha) in Makawao FR.
These units are critical habitat for 45
species (43 plants and 2 forest birds).
Each of these six critical habitat units
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the 45 species, is within the historical
range of these plant and bird species,
and requires special management
(occupied habitat) or these units provide
the primary constituent elements (PCEs)
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range and are essential to the
conservation of the species (unoccupied
habitat). Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for the recovery of the 45 plant and bird
species. We revised the unit boundaries
for Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 1 and
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1 that
overlapped with Makawao FR, which
resulted in acreage reductions in these
units as follows: Maui—Lowland Wet—
Unit 1: reduced by 138 ac (56 ha) and
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1: reduced
by 470 ac (191 ha), with 282 ac (114 ha)
redefined as part of Maui—Montane
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Wet—Unit 1. These revisions were
based on comments from DOFAW, as
well as other interested parties
indicating that: (a) Changes in land use
had occurred within the proposed
critical habitat units that would
preclude certain areas from supporting
the physical and biological features; or
(b) the areas in question were not
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Although DOFAW requested that we
remove all portions of Kula FR and
Makawao FR from critical habitat, we
did not entirely remove these forest
reserves from critical habitat
designation in this final rule. The
portions of the five plant critical habitat
units (Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 1,
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 1, Maui—
Montane Mesic—Unit 1, Maui—
Subalpine—Unit 1, and Maui—Alpine—
Unit 1) and the corresponding forest
bird critical habitat units (Unit 2—
Lowland Wet, Unit 10—Montane Wet,
Unit 18—Montane Mesic, and Unit 24—
Subalpine) that overlap with the Kula
and Makawao FRs are located on the
west side of Haleakala, and none of this
area is within the State’s Priority I
watershed protection area (RFF).
Therefore, beneficial management
actions to address the threats from
nonnative species to these ecosystems
may not be undertaken for decades, and
perhaps not at all. As described above,
in response to information received
from DOFAW and other parties, we
removed an area of approximately 608
ac (247 ha) that overlapped with the
Makawao FR upon a determination that
this area does not meet the definition of
critical habitat. All remaining areas,
however, do meet the definition of
critical habitat for the reasons described
in detail above. DOFAW has proposed
some management actions in these
areas, but it is unclear whether these
actions will be implemented, and in any
case, the actions proposed are not likely
to make a meaningful contribution to
the conservation of the species (e.g.,
fencing off individuals plants to protect
them from ungulates, while a
potentially useful defensive mechanism,
does not actively promote the recovery
of the species). Based on these
considerations, we could not conclude
that the benefit of excluding these areas
outweigh the benefit of including them
in the final designation.
Kaupo to Kahikinui and Na Kula
Natural Area Reserve
(30) Comment: According to its letter,
DOFAW is working with the Leeward
Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Partnership (LHWRP) to restore and
protect mauka (mountain) lands from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Kaupo to the western boundary of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL) lands of Kahikinui moku
(section of land), and recognizes the
need to protect coastal lands from Nuu
Makai to Keonioio. DOFAW suggested
that the critical habitat boundary from
Kaupo to Kahikinui follow the LHWRP
fenceline. DOFAW stated that the areas
proposed at mid-elevation are larger
than needed for recovery of certain
species. In addition, DOFAW is
concerned that the designation may
have undesirable impacts on the
activities of some of its conservation
partners and will not appreciably
enhance conservation efforts for listed
species but may impose regulatory and
administrative burdens on landowners.
DOFAW urged the Service to evaluate a
section 4(b)(2) exclusion from critical
habitat for the private landowners in the
LHWRP, and believes that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying the area as critical habitat,
but defers to the comments and desires
of the private landowners.
Our Response: We appreciate
DOFAW’s comments and support the
goals and intent of the LHWRP and
believe that management actions such as
those conducted by LHWRP provide
some conservation benefits to listed
species and their habitat. We did not
realign the critical habitat boundary to
follow the LHWRP fenceline as the
fence traverses two different habitat
types for multiple species, and
removing areas in elevations above the
fenceline would fragment adjoining
habitat in subalpine and dry cliff
habitats. In addition, for the reasons
described in this document, we have
determined that all areas identified here
as critical habitat are essential for the
conservation of the species. However,
for the reasons described below (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors, below), critical habitat is not
designated on private lands in the
LHWRP in this final rule, where
landowners provided us with
information demonstrating their
participation in conservation efforts that
benefit the species. Approximately 7 mi
(11 km) of fenceline from Kaupo to
Kahikinui is above 7,000 ft (2,134 m)
elevation, and is on private lands or is
within Haleakala National Park
boundaries. The forest bird recovery
area (Service 2006, map data) and
critical habitat for the two forest birds
is below this elevation in the fenceline
area for about half of the fence distance.
See also our responses to Comments
(66) and (67), below.
In addition, we revised the unit
boundary we proposed for Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1, and this revision
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17823
resulted in a reduction in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 by 1,607 ac (650
ha). This revision was based on
comments from DOFAW, as well as
other interested parties and recent site
visits indicating that: (1) Changes in
land use had occurred within the
proposed critical habitat unit that would
preclude certain areas from supporting
the physical and biological features; or
(2) the area in question was not essential
to the conservation of the species. Based
upon this information we concluded
that the areas in question do not meet
the definition of critical habitat,
therefore they were removed from the
final designation.
Honuaula and Kanaio
(31) Comment: DOFAW did not object
to the designation of critical habitat for
most of the areas proposed within the
moku (section of land) of Honuaula and
the ahupuaa (tract of land from summit
to ocean) of Kanaio. However, included
in the proposed critical habitat within
Kanaio is an area that is proposed for
use for recreational hunting. DOFAW
asked that this area be removed from
critical habitat, and suggested that the
species can be recovered in protected
areas nearby, such as the Kanaio NAR
and private lands held by partners
committed to protection of those
resources.
Our Response: We appreciate
DOFAW’s comments regarding
Honuaula and Kanaio. We understand
DOFAW’s mandate to provide
multipurpose public use on some of
their lands, including public
recreational use such as public hunting
opportunities within the ahupuaa of
Kanaio. However, at this time we have
not removed Kanaio NAR or the area
west of the NAR from critical habitat
unit Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1; this
area is essential for 19 endangered plant
species due to the small numbers and
low population sizes of these 19 species,
as the area provides suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction,
which are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for recovery
of these species. As we have determined
that this area is essential for the
conservation of these species, and the
area in question is planned for
recreational hunting (therefore
ungulates would be present), we could
find no benefit to exclusion of this area
that would outweigh the benefit of
including it in critical habitat, therefore
it was not excluded from the final
designation. We did, however, reevaluate and remove an area from
critical habitat designation on State
lands surrounding Puu Pimoe (146 ac
(59 ha)) after site visits determined that
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17824
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
changes in land use had occurred
within the area that would preclude it
from supporting the physical and
biological features (see Comment (30),
above). As the area in question therefore
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat, it was removed from the final
designation.
In addition, although DOFAW
suggests that these species can be
recovered in nearby protected areas
such as Kanaio NAR and private lands,
the southern portion of the NAR and
private lands are not yet protected from
feral ungulates, a major threat to listed
species in this area. Kanaio NAR
extends from 1,000 to 3,000 ft (305 to
900 m) elevation, an area that is not
suitable for recovery of coastal or
lowland dry species, or species that
occur at higher elevations. Conservation
management actions such as ungulate
eradication from these areas have not
yet been funded or implemented. Based
on our consideration of all of these
factors, we could not conclude that the
benefits of excluding this area outweigh
the benefits of including it in the final
designation of critical habitat.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Lanai
(32) Comment: DOFAW did not object
to the designation of critical habitat for
most of the areas proposed for Lanai but
was concerned that the proposed critical
habitat would establish boundaries on
the landscape that would be difficult to
identify in the field. In particular,
DOFAW was concerned that unfenced
critical habitat may be inadvertently
accessed from the public hunting areas,
and requested that we remove two areas
from proposed critical habitat: (1) The
area near Honopu Road, because it
believes no listed species occur there
and other areas can provide recovery
habitat; and (2) the apparent ‘‘buffer’’
that extends around the lands of
Kanepuu Preserve.
Our Response: We appreciate
DOFAW’s request. For the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors, below),
critical habitat is not designated on the
island of Lanai in this final rule, as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Molokai
(33) Comment: DOFAW suggested
that certain lands be removed from the
western section of proposed critical
habitat as they are not needed for
recovery and the affected species can be
better managed and recovered elsewhere
on Molokai, including Kahanui,
Kapuna, and Pukaawa sections of the
Molokai FR. DOFAW clarified that the
western section of proposed critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
habitat referred to the western portion of
critical habitat Molokai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1, during a meeting with
Service staff on August 14, 2012.
Our Response: We have considered
DOFAW’s request to remove the western
section of Molokai—Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1 from critical habitat. Maps
provided by DOFAW for their ‘‘Priority
Watershed Areas’’ of Molokai indicate
the westernmost section of Molokai—
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 is within the
State’s ‘‘Priority II’’ area, and, therefore,
is of lower priority to DOFAW in terms
of future on-the-ground management
and protection, although these
conservation management actions have
not yet been funded or implemented.
Our analysis indicates that DOFAW is
requesting we remove approximately
3,224 ac (1,305 ha) or approximately
one-third of critical habitat in the
lowland mesic ecosystem on Molokai.
This unit is critical habitat for 37 plant
species and the two forest birds; 17 of
the plant species currently occur in this
unit (see below, Descriptions of Critical
Habitat Units). This unit provides the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and
requires special management
considerations or protections (e.g.,
nonnative species control) (occupied
habitat) or habitat that is essential to the
conservation and recovery of the species
(unoccupied habitat). For example, the
only known occurrence, totaling 10
individuals, of the endangered plant
Cyanea dunbariae (a Molokai endemic)
and 5 of the 11 occurrences, totaling
approximately 150 of the 200 known
individuals, of the endangered C.
mannii (a Molokai endemic), are on
State lands within Molokai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1. Due to the small
numbers of individuals and low
population sizes of these species,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery. The recovery guidelines for
short-lived perennial plant species such
as Cyanea dunbariae and C. mannii are
8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals
per population, sustained over a
minimum of 5 years (Service 1996, p.
iv). Therefore, areas of suitable habitat
within the historical ranges of C.
dunbariae and C. mannii (including
lowland wet, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems), in addition to
the lowland mesic ecosystem containing
the currently known individuals, are
needed for recovery of these two
species. For C. dunbariae, this area is
only found in the lowland mesic
ecosystem (Molokai—Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1), the only known location of this
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
species, and the lowland wet and
montane mesic ecosystems, within its
historical range but where the species
no longer occurs. For C. mannii, areas
of suitable habitat within its historical
range are only found in the lowland
mesic ecosystem (Molokai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1), and montane wet and
montane mesic ecosystems, where only
11 occurrences and 200 total
individuals of this species are found.
Molokai—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 is the
only unit within its lowland habitat
determined to be essential for its
recovery and in need of special
management or protections. Therefore,
we disagree with DOFAW’s statement
that the western section of Molokai—
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 is not needed
for recovery. Molokai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1 is essential for the
conservation of C. dunbariae and C.
mannii and the other 35 endangered
plant species and the two endangered
forest birds due to the small numbers
and low population sizes of these 39
species because this unit provides
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction, which are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery of these species. Therefore,
the western section of Molokai—
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 is included in
this final critical habitat designation.
(34) Comment: The Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)
requested that all of its lands within
proposed critical habitat be excluded
from final designation. The DHHL
supported the Service’s new approach
of multi- versus single-species
protection, and sees economic benefits
to taking a comprehensive planning and
management approach. However, the
DHHL feels that its current land use and
management practices are sufficient to
protect the species and their habitat.
The DHHL also recommended that the
Service consult with the Hawaiian
Homes Commission, the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of
Native Hawaiian Relations, and their
beneficiaries to include native
intelligence and knowledge of species,
habitat, and place-based management
and protection prior to designation of
critical habitat. The DHHL stated that
they rely on Federal funding, and
section 7 consultations could lead to
direct negative economic impacts to
them.
Our Response: We support the
DHHL’s ongoing management on Maui
at Auwahi for seabird protection,
Kahikihnui for koa (Acacia koa) forest
ecosystem protection, Puu o Kali for
wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis)
dryland forest protection, and, on
Molokai at Moomomi Park for shoreline
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and associated resource protection and
Kapaakea Mauka for community pasture
lands and stewardship, including the
development of fire breaks.
Prior to publishing our proposed rule
(77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), we met
with representatives of the DHHL on
July 22, 2011, and August 30, 2011. At
those meetings we provided information
regarding our compilation of available
information on species and habitat areas
on Maui, and requested updated
information from the DHHL. The DHHL
provided information on its currently
developed lands and their lands slated
for future homesteads and other
development. The DHHL did not
express concern regarding critical
habitat on lands on which they are
conducting conservation actions, such
as at Puu o Kali, on Maui. At the time
we published our proposed rule (77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012), we notified
elected officials, the Maui County
Planning Department, and several
Hawaiian organizations including
Kamehameha Schools, the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs (offices for Honolulu,
Maui, Molokai, and Lanai), the DHHL,
the State Historic Preservation Division,
the Kahoolawe Island Reserve
Commission, and Kahea-The HawaiianEnvironmental Alliance. Following
publication of our proposed rule, we
again met with DHHL representatives
(October 11, 2012). At that meeting,
DHHL staff stated that they need to be
able to use their lands to ‘‘their fullest
ability’’ and that they may develop wind
and geothermal energy projects on the
islands of Maui and Molokai in the
future. The DHHL provided information
on future development and current
grazing leases on its lands in proposed
critical habitat. In addition, the DHHL
expressed interest in developing
conservation partnership projects with
the Service in the future.
Based on information provided by the
DHHL in its March 1, 2013, and June 23,
2015, letters, and at the October 11,
2012, meeting, we reviewed and
incorporated new information, and
made changes to 4 of the 9 critical
habitat units on Maui and all 4 critical
habitat units on Molokai that
overlapped DHHL’s lands. These
revisions were based on comments
indicating that: (a) Changes in land use
had occurred within the proposed
critical habitat units that would
preclude certain unoccupied areas from
supporting the primary constituent
elements; and (b) the areas in question
were not essential to the conservation of
the species. Following our review of the
information provided, we removed
those unoccupied areas that we
determined did not meet the definition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
of critical habitat. For the remaining
areas, while we appreciate any
management efforts implemented by
DHHL, the fact that management is
already taking place does not mean that
the area in question does not meet the
definition of critical habitat. The Courts
have been clear that the statutory
standard does not specify that
‘‘additional’’ special management
considerations or protections may be
required, and the very fact that areas are
being actively managed or protected
serves as evidence that special
management considerations or
protections may be required, in
accordance with the statutory definition
of critical habitat.
Although the DHHL stated that
section 7 consultation (due to a nexus
created by Federal funding provided to
the DHHL) on designated critical habitat
on its lands could lead to direct negative
economic impacts, they did not indicate
how, specifically, they foresee a
consultation resulting in such impacts.
Our FEA specifically considered the
potential effects of critical habitat
designation on DHHL lands (IEC 2015,
p. 3–6). In communications with DHHL,
it was established that most lands
proposed as critical habitat are within
DHHL’s own conservation land use
district, so existing management is
consistent with the needs of critical
habitat. For the proposed critical habitat
that overlaps with DHHL’s special use
district, which may potentially be
subject to future energy development,
there were no specific plans for any
projects, and DHHL stated that they are
trying to avoid any development in
critical habitat (IEC 2015, p. 3–6). We
therefore do not have information to
suggest any likely direct negative
economic impacts of the designation on
DHHL.
(35) Comment: The DHHL requested
that the Secretaries (of the Department
of Interior and the Department of
Commerce) consider the effects of
designation of critical habitat on
Hawaiian Home Lands in a manner
similar to the effects it has on tribal
lands, including the impact on tribal
sovereignty. DHHL states that the
United States maintained authority over
consents to the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act (HHCA) amendments
and exchanges involving Hawaiian
home lands. It further states that the
United States has the responsibility to
ensure that the State of Hawaii is
carrying out its trust duties under the
HHCA and may sue for breach of trust.
Our Response: In accordance with the
President’s memorandum of April 29,
1994 (Government-to-Government
Relations With Native American Tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17825
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to incorporate
native intelligence and knowledge of
species, habitat, and place-based
management and protection, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not
subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to
Indian culture, and to make information
available to tribes. In addition, a 2004
consolidated appropriations bill (Pub. L.
118 Statute 444, Section 148)
established the Office of Native
Hawaiian Relations within the
Secretary’s Office and its duties include
effectuating and implementing the
special legal relationship between the
Native Hawaiian people and the United
States; and fully integrating the
principle and practice of meaningful,
regular, and appropriate consultation
with the Native Hawaiian people by
assuring timely notification of and prior
consultation with the Native Hawaiian
people before any Federal agency takes
any actions that may have the potential
to significantly affect Native Hawaiian
resources, rights, or lands. A 2011
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
signed by the Department of the Interior
states that ‘‘Federal agencies are
required to consult with Native
Hawaiian organizations before taking
any action that may have the potential
to significantly affect Native Hawaiian
resources, rights, or lands.’’ Although
native Hawaiians are not technically a
‘‘recognized Federal tribe’’ as referenced
in the above Executive and Secretarial
Orders, we endeavor to fully engage and
work directly with native Hawaiians as
much as possible. At the time we
published our proposed rule (77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012), we notified
several Hawaiian organizations
including the DHHL, Kamehameha
Schools, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(offices for Honolulu, Maui, Molokai,
and Lanai), the State Historic
Preservation Division, the Kahoolawe
Island Reserve Commission (KIRC), and
Kahea-The Hawaiian-Environmental
Alliance. We attended meetings with
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17826
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
staff from DHHL (July and August, 2011,
and October, 2012), Kamehameha
Schools (July 2011), and KIRC (July
2012), to discuss the proposal and
address any concerns regarding the
proposed listings and proposed critical
habitat, and have considered all
comments provided by these
organizations in this final rule.
(36) Comment: The University of
Hawaii, Institute for Astronomy (IfA)
was concerned regarding proposed
critical habitat on Map 23, Maui—
Alpine—Unit 1 and Maui—Subalpine—
Unit 1, as it appears to include
buildings, roads, and other paved areas,
owned and managed by the University
of Hawaii, as part of the Haleakala High
Altitude Observatory Site (HO). In 1961,
State of Hawaii Executive Order No.
1987 set aside approximately 18 ac (7.3
ha) of land for the HO to be used for
observatory site purposes only. The IfA
requested that the HO be excluded from
critical habitat designation.
Our Response: We carefully reviewed
the areas proposed as critical habitat
that overlap lands owned by the State
and the University of Hawaii. Maui—
Alpine—Unit 1, at the summit of
Haleakala, encompasses a total of 2,107
ac (853 ha). The parcel referred to
above, Tax Map Key (TMK) (2) 2–2–
007:008 (18 ac; 7 ha) represents a small
portion of the unit. The other larger
parcels (TMK (2) 2–0–007:006 (138 ac;
56 ha) and TMK (2) 2–2–007:005 (161
ac; 65 ha) overlap both Maui—Alpine—
Unit 1 and Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1.
As a result of this examination, we have
determined that these unoccupied
parcels, and other small areas within
these parcels that include astronomical
facilities, are too degraded or modified
by buildings and roads to support the
species, that changes in land use have
occurred within the proposed critical
habitat units that would preclude
certain areas from supporting the
species, and therefore these areas are
not essential for the conservation of the
species for which they were proposed as
critical habitat. We have therefore
removed 295 acres (120 ha) of Maui—
Alpine—Unit 1 and 44 acres (18 ha) of
Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1, areas
surrounding the HO, from designation
as critical habitat (see below, Summary
of Changes from Proposed Rule).
(37) Comment: The Hawaii State
Department of Agriculture (HDOA)
stated that exclusion of agricultural
lands from critical habitat designation is
important for Hawaii’s food
sustainability. The HDOA indicated that
compensation will help landowners to
efficiently increase food production or
purchase additional lands for
agricultural production should critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
habitat be designated on agricultural
lands.
Our Response: Following publication
of our proposed rule we received
additional information from the public
and concerned landowners regarding
lands within proposed critical habitat
that are in active crop production or
actively managed for cattle ranching.
We appreciate this new information,
and, based on the information we
received, we have removed areas from
the final designation that are too
degraded or modified to support the
species (i.e., where the essential
physical or biological features are
lacking in occupied habitat), where
changes in land use have occurred
within the proposed critical habitat
units that would preclude certain areas
from supporting the primary constituent
elements, and, in the case of
unoccupied areas, upon a determination
that these areas are not essential for the
conservation of the species for which
they were proposed as critical habitat.
In addition, we have excluded
approximately 62,490 ac (25,289 ha) of
privately owned lands under
agricultural production for cattle
ranching from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors, below)
See our response to Comment (58, 59,
and 60) regarding economically viable
use of property and the effects of critical
habitat designation. We have no
information to suggest that critical
habitat will have any impact on food
sustainability in the State of Hawaii.
(38) Comment: The HDOA stated that
the section 7 consultation process is
slow and cumbersome, and lacks a clear
administrative appeal process. Formal
consultations can take up to 90 days
plus an additional 45 days to prepare a
biological opinion. The consultation
process can result in modifications to
the project, up to and including
stopping the project from proceeding
altogether. The HDOA believes the
timeframe for formal consultations
should be limited to 60 days in order to
reduce uncertainty and risk for
agricultural landowners. According to
HDOA, if it is determined that a project
will jeopardize a listed species or
adversely modify designated critical
habitat, a private landowner should
have the ability to appeal the
consultation finding without expending
significant amounts of resources.
Our Response: We appreciate the
HDOA’s concerns. Both the Act and the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
direct the process and timing of how the
Service conducts consultation (see
sections 7(a)(4), 7(b)(1)(A), and
7(b)(1)(B) of the Act, and 50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
402.14(e), (f), and (g)). Included is the
process whereby a private landowner
requiring a permit or license from a
Federal agency may become an
applicant to the process. Applicant
status includes specific privileges with
regard to timing and application for
exemption from section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Comments From Maui County
(39) Comment: The Maui County
Police Department requested that their
communications facilities be excluded
from critical habitat for public safety
reasons. Their specific concerns are
Lanai—Montane Wet—Unit 3 and
Lanai—Wet Cliff—Unit 5, and Maui—
Montane Mesic—Unit 1 and Maui—
Subalpine—Units 1 and 2.
Our Response: As developed areas or
manmade structures such as the
communications facilities referenced
here (towers, roads, etc.) do not provide
the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the
Maui Nui species, they are not
considered critical habitat; any such
areas are not included in this
designation. We make every effort to
avoid including developed areas such as
buildings, pavement, and other
structures within the boundaries of
critical habitat; however, the scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands that have been inadvertently
left inside critical habitat boundaries
shown on the maps of this final rule,
including the communications facilities
in the five critical habitat units
referenced by the Maui County Police
Department, have been excluded by text
in the rule and are not designated as
critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal
action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the action may affect the adjacent
critical habitat. Maintenance of
communications towers that result in
minimal ground disturbance are
unlikely to pose a threat to Maui Nui
critical habitat. In most cases, the
Service’s concern with respect to these
projects relates to the potential for
effects to bird species resulting from
collisions.
(40) Comment: The Maui County
Planning Department requested that we
remove county lands from critical
habitat within Lanai—Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1, Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3,
and Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1. All
of the county lands described in their
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
letter contain buildings, structures (e.g.,
water tanks, reservoirs), or roads.
Our Response: We appreciate the
information provided by the county and
carefully reviewed these county lands in
proposed critical habitat. As explained
in our response to Comment (39), above,
developed areas or manmade structures
lacking the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Maui Nui species are excluded by
text in the rule and are not designated
as critical habitat. Such is the case here
for the county lands in Lanai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1, which appeared to be
within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat due only to the scale of
mapping; these developed areas are not
included in the final designation. In
addition, we removed county lands
proposed for critical habitat in Maui—
Montane Mesic—Unit 1 because these
lands are too degraded or modified to
support the species or because changes
in land use had occurred within the
proposed critical habitat units that
would preclude certain areas from
supporting the primary constituent
elements (occupied areas), or because
these areas are not essential for the
conservation and recovery of the species
for which they were proposed as critical
habitat (unoccupied areas). These areas
therefore do not meet the definition of
critical habitat. The county facility
within proposed Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 is not included within the unit;
however, this may not have been
apparent due to the resolution of the
map printed in the June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464).
(41) Comment: The Maui County
Planning Department requested that we
provide a mechanism in our proposed
rule to exclude lands in the future from
critical habitat based on the
development of management plans that
meet the criteria described in Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors (see 77
FR 34464; June 11, 2012).
Our Response: In considering whether
to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we must identify the
benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation,
determine whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, and conclude that the
exclusion under consideration will not
result in the extinction of the species. A
revision to the critical habitat regulation
requires a new rulemaking published in
the Federal Register (see section 4(a)(3)
of the Act and 50 CFR 424.12), with
notification of all interested parties. In
our June 11, 2012, proposed rule and in
this final rule we state that we consider
a number of factors in evaluating an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
exclusion under the ‘‘other relevant
factors’’ provision of the statute,
including whether the landowners have
developed any conservation plans or
other management plans for areas
determined to be essential to the
species, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat.
Currently, the County of Maui is a
participating member in the Hawaii
Association of Watershed Partnerships
and provides funding for various
fencing, survey, and invasive species
projects on Maui, Lanai, and Molokai.
Participating in a watershed partnership
is only one aspect of the many
landowner conservation activities we
examine when determining whether
exclusion from critical habitat
outweighs the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. We also consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification or destruction as a
result of actions with a Federal nexus,
the educational benefits of mapping
habitat essential for recovery of the
listed species, and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat. In evaluating a conservation
plan, we consider a variety of factors
including, but not limited to, whether
the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential
physical or biological features; whether
there is a reasonable expectation that
the conservation management strategies
and actions contained in the plan are
likely to be implemented into the future;
whether the plan’s strategies are likely
to be effective; and whether the plan
contains a monitoring program or
adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and
can be adapted in the future in response
to new information.
We must base our consideration of
potential exclusions on the evidence
available to us at the time of
rulemaking; there is no mechanism for
forecasting exclusions into the future
based on conservation plans that have
yet to be developed. However, after
going through a new rulemaking
process, we can revise a critical habitat
designation in the future if appropriate.
(42) Comment: The Maui County
Planning Department requested that we
consider excluding the Kanepuu
Preserve and the Lanaihale Forest
Conservation area, both on Lanai.
Our Response: The areas referenced
by the Maui County Planning
Department are covered by the Lanai
Memorandum of Understanding (see
below) and are excluded from the final
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17827
designation, as critical habitat is not
designated on the island of Lanai as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, for the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors).
(43) Comment: The Maui County
Planning Department commented on an
extensive trail system on the island of
Lanai, and stated that use of these trails
for hunting, recreation, and cultural
activities is part of Lanai’s economy.
The Planning Department requested
clarification for how these uses could be
compatible with critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: We have no
information to suggest that critical
habitat designation impacts trail usage.
Regardless, for the reasons described
below (see Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not
designated on the island of Lanai in this
final rule, as a consequence of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Public Comments
(44) Comment: Several commenters
noted that on Maui all individuals of the
endangered plant Canavalia pubescens
are found on recent lava flows, and
suggested that these flows be considered
critical habitat for this plant. In
addition, many lowland dry species
flourish on recent lava flows (less than
10,000 years old) as these areas exhibit
healthy recruitment of native plant
species such as C. pubescens, and
appear to offer protection from wildfires
and other threats. Another commenter
noted that the aa (basaltic lava having a
rough surface) substrate supports the
greatest remaining native lowland dry
forest biodiversity. One commenter
suggested three factors that may
contribute to the survival of native
species on this substrate: (a) The
sparseness of vegetation on aa prevents
the percolation of wildfires; (b) the
ruggedness of the terrain and its sparse
vegetation discourages ungulate
browsers; and (c) the sparseness of soil
prevents ecosystem domination by alien
grasses. The same commenter also
raised the possibility that the harshness
of the habitats with aa substrate and
shallow soils currently function as
ecological sinks (i.e., areas where
populations of species may be
extirpated without input from
population sources outside the area) for
endangered species in the lowland dry
ecosystem, as evidenced by the lack of
recruitment of certain native tree
species in these areas. The commenter
hypothesized that areas currently
devoid of native species and
characterized by older (over 500,000
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17828
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
years old), deeper soils previously
supported the highest densities of these
species and served as the source
populations for their colonization of aa
flows. Therefore, the commenter
supported designation of areas with
older, deeper soils in the lowland dry
ecosystem.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments provided and agree that
recent lava flows provide important
habitat for the endangered plant
Canavalia pubescens. Recent lava flows
may be characterized by little-weathered
lava substrate that is one of the physical
and biological features of the lowland
dry ecosystem in which C. pubescens is
known to occur. The occurrence of C.
pubescens and other native plant
species on recent lava flows indicates
the importance of these areas to their
conservation. The ruggedness of recent
lava flow substrates may function as a
deterrent to ingress of ungulates thereby
preventing herbivory of native plant
species. The limited accumulation of
soil due to the lack of weathering on
recent lava flow substrates may also
prevent ingress of nonnative grasses,
which typically prefer areas with greater
soil formation, thereby allowing native
vegetation that is adapted to these
conditions to flourish. In addition,
information in our files indicates that C.
pubescens occurs on substrates ranging
in age from 3,000 to 5,000 years old to
140,000 to 780,000 years old (Sherrod et
al. 2006, p. 2; HBMP 2010). In this final
rule, we designate four units on east
Maui (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1
through Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4)
totaling 16,841 ac (6,816 ha) for C.
pubescens, as well as 18 other plant
species in the lowland dry ecosystem.
The recovery guidelines for a short-lived
perennial plant species such as C.
pubescens are 8 to 10 populations of
300 individuals per population,
sustained over a minimum of 5 years
(Service 1999, p. iv). In addition, these
four critical habitat units provide varied
substrate types, including those
mentioned by the commenter (over
500,000 years old) in the lowland dry
ecosystem.
(45) Comment: Two commenters
faulted the Service for not providing
adequate notification of the proposed
rule to potentially impacted Maui
residents. In addition, one commenter
stated that the letters the Service sent
out were vague and not specific to the
lands that may be affected.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments and regret that some
landowners did not receive our
notification letters. Unfortunately, we
are not able to send personalized letters
and maps to all affected and interested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
parties. We did, however, provide maps
of parcel-specificity to every landowner
who contacted us and requested them
following publication of the June 11,
2012, proposed rule and the January 31,
2013, document reopening the comment
period on the proposed rule. Please see
our response to Comment (16), above,
for a detailed explanation of the
notification process we used to reach as
many potentially interested parties as
possible regarding this rulemaking.
(46) Comment: One commenter stated
that ‘‘the proposed rule expressly fails
to provide any detailed narrative
description of appropriate specificity to
allow fair comment’’ and cited 77 FR
34688 at (x)(B) ‘‘[Reserved for textual
description of Unit 3]’’. The commenter
also stated that the proposed rule
contains only generalized ‘‘maps,’’ such
as Map 10 on 77 FR 34689, to indicate
the areas proposed for designation.
Another commenter added that more
detailed mapping is required for
landowners to accurately assess the
impact of the proposed designation and
assist the Service in determining the
appropriateness of the designation.
Our Response: The commenter
misunderstands the bracketed
information cited above. The bracketed
information cited above does not infer a
‘‘word’’ description of the unit. A word
description of each critical habitat unit
is found in Descriptions of Proposed
Critical Habitat Units in the June 11,
2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule. The
description for Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 is found at 77 FR 34551 (77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012). The ‘‘textual
description’’ of Unit 3 (Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3) refers to the UTMs
(mapping vertices) for unit delineation
using GIS, which, until recently, were
identified and published in the Federal
Register in final rulemakings. However,
on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25611), the
Service published a final rule revising
the regulations for requirements to
publish textual descriptions of final
critical habitat boundaries in the
Federal Register. As a result, as of May
31, 2012 (the effective date of the May
1, 2012, rule), the Service no longer
publishes the UTM coordinates for
critical habitat boundaries in the
Federal Register. Because the
publication process for our proposed
rule had already begun on May 31,
2012, the text reading ‘‘reserved for
textual description’’ (which applied to
the old method of providing UTMs) had
not been removed before publication of
the proposed rule for the Maui Nui
species on June 11, 2012. Currently, the
coordinates on which each map is based
are available to the public at the Federal
eRulemaking portal (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov) using the docket
number for the rulemaking (in this case,
FWS–R1–ES–2015–0071), and at the
Web site of the field office responsible
for the critical habitat (https://
www.fws.gov/pacificislands) for the
final critical habitat for 125 Maui Nui
species. The proposed rule included
maps to identify the areas proposed for
critical habitat designation. The
proposed rule also directed reviewers to
contact the Service for further
clarification on any part of the proposed
rule, and provided contact information.
Although we did not include parcelspecific maps in the proposed rule, we
did provide maps of this specificity to
every landowner who contacted us and
requested them following publication of
the proposed rule and the January 31,
2013, document reopening the comment
period on the proposed rule.
(47) Comment: One commenter
questioned the Service’s determination
of the status of a species within a given
critical habitat unit as both ‘‘Species
occupied’’ and ‘‘Species unoccupied’’ at
the same time, and cited 77 FR 34710
at (xxix) ‘‘Table of Protected Species
Within Each Critical Habitat Unit.’’
Our Response: We appreciate the
comment and in this final rule have
modified the ‘‘Table of Protected
Species Within Each Critical Habitat
Unit,’’ first, by changing the title to
‘‘Occupancy of Species by Designated
Critical Habitat Units for [Island],’’ and
secondly, to accurately reflect whether a
unit was either occupied or unoccupied
by a species at the time of listing. In
addition, each unit description provides
a clear description of whether a unit is
occupied or unoccupied by each species
for which the unit is being designated
(see Descriptions of Critical Habitat
Units).
(48) Comment: One commenter stated
¨
that it is naıve to assume historical
distribution patterns can be a guide to
suitable locations for recovery efforts of
rare species.
Our Response: In this final rule, we
use information on the present and
historical distribution of each species,
based on the best available scientific
data, to determine the locations of past
and current occurrences and to
determine the physical or biological
features essential to support the species
in those locations. It is Service policy
that listed species will not be relocated
or transplanted by the Service outside
their historical range without specific
case-by-case approval from the Director
(65 FR 56916; September 20, 2000),
therefore we look first to areas within
the historical range to guide recovery
efforts for listed species. Furthermore,
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
424.12(b) state that, in determining what
areas are critical habitat, the Secretary
shall consider ‘‘habitats . . .
representative of the historic
geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.’’ We
recognize that not all areas within the
historical distribution of a species will
necessarily retain the physical or
biological features essential to support
the species under contemporary
conditions; in many cases, the formerly
occupied habitat has either been
eliminated or has become severely
degraded. In identifying areas for
designation as critical habitat, we used
information regarding the past and
current locations of species, the past
and current status of the habitat, and
whether or not the habitat, including
that in need of management, could
provide the essential physical and
biological features for the species for
which it is designated. We note that in
several cases, in response to public
comment, we have removed areas from
this final designation of critical habitat
upon the receipt of information
indicating that the areas in question are
no longer capable of supporting the
species.
(49) Comment: One commenter stated
that reliance on unpublished, nonpublic data that is not readily available
to the public is contrary to legal
requirements. Withholding this
information deprives the public of a full
and fair opportunity to comment on the
rule. The rule should therefore be
withdrawn.
Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2),
we are required to designate, and make
revisions to, critical habitat based on the
best scientific data available and after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, the impact on national security,
and any other relevant impact. In the
June 11, 2012, proposed rule and in this
final rule, we used the best scientific
information available, including but not
limited to, the State’s Hawaii
Biodiversity and Mapping Program
databases, the National Tropical
Botanical Garden’s plant databases,
TNC’s High Island Ecoregion Plan
(along with the accompanying GIS
ecosystem data), and our own rare plant
species database. These databases
include information from numerous
sources including, but not limited to,
expert field observations, museum
collections, and published and
unpublished literature, and are, in our
opinion, sources of the best scientific
data available. These data sources are
often the best available information for
the species. See also, Methods, below.
As stated in the proposed rule, the
supporting documentation we used in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
developing the proposed critical habitat
was available to the public through a
combination of online access through
https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment at the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office. We provided
direction as to how to obtain a list of the
supporting documentation used under
both the Public Comments and
References Cited sections of the
proposed rule. In addition, a list of
references cited in the proposed rule
and in this final rule is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
and upon request from the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
(50) Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about the potential
negative effects of critical habitat
designation on their lands because of
the interplay of Federal and Hawaii
State law. For example, they were
concerned that designation of critical
habitat could lead to reclassification of
land by the State into the conservation
district pursuant to Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) 195D–5.1 and HRS 205–
1(3). In addition, they stated that
although there are no prohibitions for
adverse modification of habitat on
private lands under the Endangered
Species Act, such prohibitions exist
under Hawaii endangered species law
(HRS Chapter 195–D) and
environmental impact statement law
(HRS Chapter 343), and these State
prohibitions may negatively impact
landowners with critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: These concerns are
addressed below, separated by topic.
Reclassification of Land Due to
Critical Habitat Designation—HRS
section 195D–5.1 states that the
Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR) ‘‘shall initiate
amendments to the conservation district
boundaries consistent with section 205–
4 in order to include high quality native
forests and the habitat of rare native
species of flora and fauna within the
conservation district.’’ HRS section 205–
2(e) specifies that ‘‘conservation
districts shall include areas necessary
for * * * conserving indigenous or
endemic plants, fish and wildlife,
including those which are threatened or
endangered * * *.’’ Unlike the
automatic conferral of State law
protection for all federally listed species
(see HRS 195D–4(a)), these provisions
do not explicitly reference federally
designated critical habitat, and DLNR
has no history of proposing
amendments to include designated
critical habitat in the conservation
district.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17829
As described in section 3.1 of the
FEA, the analysis integrates the best
available information regarding the
potential effects of critical habitat on
State and county land management
based on interviews with staff from the
Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR)’s Office of
Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL)
and the State Office of Planning, as well
as the County of Maui’s Department of
Planning. According to the State Office
of Planning, critical habitat is taken into
consideration during the redistricting
process, but does not itself generate a
redistricting of lands to the
Conservation District. According to the
County Department of Planning, the
presence of critical habitat is one of
many factors under consideration
during the rezoning process.
Representatives from OCCL, the State,
and the county were unable to identify
an instance in which the presence of
critical habitat specifically drove
decisions related to redistricting or
rezoning. As such, it has not been the
State’s practice thus far to redistrict
critical habitat areas as conservation
district lands. The FEA does, however,
describe uncertainty with regard to
future State and county management of
these lands in section 3.4. In addition,
section 5.3.2 of the FEA describes the
potential indirect effects of critical
habitat designation, including concern
that the designation may result in costly
lawsuits. Uncertainty exists regarding
the potential for, as well as the number,
timing, and outcome of, such lawsuits,
thus associated impacts are not
monetized in the economic analysis.
Prohibitions Under Hawaii
Endangered Species Law and
Environmental Impact Statement Law
With Critical Habitat Designation—HRS
195D covers conservation of aquatic life,
wildlife, and land plants in the State of
Hawaii. Only two sections of HRS 195D
are relevant to this discussion, HRS
section 195D–4 and 195D–5.1. HRS
section 195D–4 recognizes the Federal
status (endangered or threatened) of
flora and fauna in Hawaii as determined
by the Department of the Interior. This
section also outlines State regulations
for possession, trade, or other uses of
these species. HRS section 195D–5.1
‘‘Protection of Hawaii’s unique flora and
fauna’’ states that the DLNR shall
initiate amendments to the conservation
district boundaries consistent with
section 205–4 in order to include highquality native forests and the habitat for
rare native species of flora and fauna
within the conservation district. Neither
of these sections of HRS 195D includes
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17830
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
automatic prohibitions against adversely
modifying habitat on private lands.
HRS 343 provides a comprehensive
review of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) process, and describes
the applicability and requirements for
environmental assessments (EA),
regardless of the underlying land
classification. It states that an
environmental impact statement is
required for any proposed land
reclassifications under 343–5(2) and
343–5(7) and ‘‘any use within any land
classified as a conservation district by
the State land use commission under
Chapter 205.’’ HRS 343, therefore,
provides guidelines for the EIS process
and EA process regarding: (a) Land
reclassification, and (b) proposed
actions or proposed land use changes on
lands that are classified as conservation.
HRS 343 does not trigger land
reclassification as a result of critical
habitat designation nor does it prohibit
any actions or proposed land use
changes in areas designated as critical
habitat, whether or not these areas are
in the conservation district.
(51) Comment: One commenter stated
that an area that is not inhabited by the
species is not essential to the
conservation of the species. However,
another commenter supported the
inclusion of areas no longer occupied by
the endangered species, but which are
critical for their recovery.
Our Response: By definition in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act, critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened
species includes: (i) The specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by a species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination that
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
In this final rule, the critical habitat
designation is a combination of areas
occupied by the species, as well as areas
that are unoccupied (see below,
‘‘Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian
Plants,’’ ‘‘Recovery Strategy for Two
Forest Birds,’’ and ‘‘Recovery Strategy
for Three Tree Snails’’). For areas
considered occupied, the best available
scientific information suggests that
these species occupied these areas at the
time of listing. However, due to the
small population sizes, few numbers of
individuals, and reduced geographic
range of each of the 125 species for
which we are designating critical habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
in this rule, we have determined that a
designation limited to the known
present range of each species would be
inadequate to achieve the conservation
of those species. The areas that may
have been unoccupied at the time of
listing have been determined to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of the species because they
provide the physical or biological
features necessary for the expansion of
existing wild populations and
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical range of the
species.
(52) Comment: Two commenters
disputed the use of an ecosystem-based
approach in our determination of
primary constituent elements (PCEs) for
each species and cited the regulations
for determining critical habitat at 50
CFR 424.12 (b). In addition, one
commenter cited Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206
F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. N.M. 2000) and
argued that the proposed ecosystem
critical habitat designations are overly
generalized and, therefore, lack the
necessary analysis and explanation
required by the Act for each species.
Our Response: Under the Act and its
implementing regulations, we are
required to identify the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the 135 species for
which we proposed critical habitat. We
identified the physical and biological
features that support the successful
functioning of the ecosystem(s) upon
which each species individually
depends, and that may require special
management considerations or
protection. Table 5 (see below)
identifies the physical or biological
features of a functioning ecosystem for
each of the ecosystem types identified
as essential to the conservation of the
125 species for which we are
designating critical habitat in this final
rule (critical habitat is not designated
for 10 species due to exclusions). These
features provide the environmental
conditions essential to meeting the
fundamental requirements of each
species. In many cases, due to our
limited knowledge of specific lifehistory requirements for the species that
are little-studied and occur in remote
and inaccessible areas, the more general
description of the physical and
biological features that provide for the
successful functioning of the ecosystem
represents the best (and, in many cases,
the only) scientific information
available. Accordingly, the physical and
biological features of a properly
functioning ecosystem are, at least in
part, the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the 125
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
species. In this final rule the PCEs for
each species are defined based on those
physical or biological features essential
to support the life-history processes for
each species within the ecosystems in
which they occur, and reflects a
distribution that we conclude is
essential to the species’ conservation
needs within those ecosystems. The
ecosystems’ features include the
appropriate microclimatic conditions
for germination and growth of the plants
(e.g., light availability, soil nutrients,
hydrologic regime, and temperature)
and space within the appropriate
habitats for population growth and
expansion, as well as to maintain the
historical geographical and ecological
distribution of each species. The
features are defined by elevation, annual
levels of precipitation, substrate type
and slope, and the potential to maintain
characteristic native plant genera in the
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
levels of the vegetative community.
Where further information was available
indicating additional, specific, lifehistory requirements for some species,
the PCEs relating to these requirements
are described separately; for example,
we have identified bogs as a unique PCE
for several species. The physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of these species are
described in Table 5 of this final rule.
(53) Comment: One commenter stated
that proposed critical habitat
designations based on the presence of
one or few individuals of the native
canopy, subcanopy, or understory
species listed as physical or biological
features for each ecosystem (associated
native plant genera as identified in
Table 5) do not achieve the ecosystem
approach or satisfy the requirement of
having the physical and biological
features of that ecosystem.
Our Response: See our response to
Comment (52), above, regarding the
methods for identification of physical
and biological features for each of the
species for which occupied final critical
habitat is designated. For the species
that are the subject of this rule, the
essential physical and biological
features are described as the elevation,
precipitation, and substrate required by
the species, in combination with
presence of one or more of the
associated native plants that occur
within that elevation, precipitation, and
substrate range. We consider the
presence of one or more of the identified
native canopy, subcanopy, or
understory species as indicative of the
capability of that area to likewise
support the threatened or endangered
Maui Nui species that also depend on
that habitat type.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(54) Comment: One commenter stated
that the primary constituent elements
(PCEs) for a given species are nondeterminable in areas that are
unoccupied by the species.
Our Response: Although the presence
of the PCEs may make an area presently
unoccupied by the species particularly
desirable as a site for potential recovery,
the Act does not require that areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
contain the PCEs; instead, unoccupied
areas must be essential for the
conservation of the species. The
recovery guidelines published in our
recovery plans for the Maui Nui species
spell out the criteria (e.g., number of
populations and number of individuals)
necessary to recover or remove the
species from protection under the Act.
Due to the small numbers of individuals
and low population sizes of the 125
Maui Nui species for which we are
designating critical habitat in this final
rule, suitable habitat and space for
expansion of existing populations or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for the
conservation of these species. As
explained in detail in the Methods
section of this document (see
‘‘Unoccupied Areas’’), these areas are
essential to achieving these goals. We
carefully considered the historical
distribution of each species, its specific
habitat requirements, and its current
population status relative to the goals
set for recovery to determine those
unoccupied areas that are essential to
achieve the abundance and distribution
of self-sustaining populations needed to
attain the conservation of each species.
(55) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA,
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) analysis in the
proposed rule failed to take into account
the activities associated with the
Honuaula Partners, LLC (HP),
development, and disagreed with the
initial finding that the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the 135
species will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of entities. The
commenter further stated that the
construction and development activities
envisioned by HP will likely require the
services of numerous small businesses
ranging from contractors and
subcontractors to landscapers and
suppliers of materials, engineers,
architects, planners, and others. In
addition, the commenter stated that the
analysis is inaccurate because it relied
upon earlier economic analyses in 2003
and 2008, which did not take into
account the HP project.
Our Response: Under the RFA, we are
required to evaluate the potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
impacts of critical habitat on small
businesses, but this evaluation may be
limited to impacts to directly regulated
entities. The designation of critical
habitat only has direct regulatory impact
through section 7 of the Act, in which
a Federal action agency is required to
consult with us on any project that is
implemented, funded, permitted, or
otherwise authorized by that agency
(that is, a ‘‘Federal nexus’’ exists) and
that may affect designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat has no
regulatory effect under the Act on
actions that do not have a Federal
nexus. Since Federal action agencies are
the only directly regulated entities as a
result of the designation of critical
habitat, the designation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. For a
further discussion of this issue, please
see below (Required Determinations)
and our final economic analysis (IEc
2015, Appendix A).
(56) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the designation of critical
habitat is a taking of property without
just compensation.
Our Response: The designation of
critical habitat does not deny anyone
economically viable use of their
property. There are no automatic
restrictions or prohibitions on uses of
areas designated as critical habitat
under the Act. The regulatory effect of
the Act is the requirement under section
7(a)(2) that Federal agency actions avoid
the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat.
Furthermore, if in the course of a
consultation with a Federal agency, the
resulting biological opinion concludes
that a proposed action is likely to result
in destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat, we are required to
suggest reasonable and prudent
alternatives that can be implemented in
a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action, that can be
implemented consistent with the scope
of the Federal agency’s legal authority
and jurisdiction, and that are
economically and technologically
feasible.
(57) Comment: Two commenters
stated that the takings analysis is
inadequate and violates the letter and
intent of Executive Order 12630
(‘‘Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’). Because a
taking implications assessment (TIA)
has not been published with the
proposed rule, landowners are deprived
of the ability to rationally or reasonably
comment on the conclusion of the
Service that the ‘‘designation of critical
habitat for each of these species does
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17831
not pose significant takings implications
within or affected by the proposed
designation’’ at 77 FR 34464 (June 11,
2012).
Our Response: Executive Order 12630
only requires that a taking implications
assessment (TIA) be discussed in
proposed and final rulemakings and be
made available to the public if there are
significant takings implications. If there
are not significant takings implications,
there is no requirement that this issue
be addressed in a rulemaking. In our
proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11,
2012), we stated that we analyzed the
potential takings implications of critical
habitat designation for 135 species and
found that this designation of critical
habitat does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the proposed designation. We have
prepared a TIA for this final rulemaking
and found that the designation of
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species
does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
(58) Comment: One commenter stated
that the proposed rule does not take into
account the additional costs that will be
imposed on State and county
governments by the proposed critical
habitat designation. The commenter
suggested that the proposed designation
of critical habitat on the Makena
Property will delay the widening and
extension of Piilani Highway. The ATC
Makena Holdings (ATC), along with
three other private landowners, plans to
fund and construct the widening of
Piilani Highway. The ATC is also
considering plans to extend Piilani
Highway onto the Makena property in
order to provide an alternative access
route to serve the Makena Resort. The
proposed rule does not address the
significant economic impacts that could
be faced by the Hawaii Department of
Transportation or the County of Maui if
the planned roadway improvements are
not constructed by private developers.
The commenter suggested that in the
absence of private funding, Federal,
State, or county funds will be required.
Our Response: The final economic
analysis (FEA) incorporates additional
discussion regarding the potential
expansion of the Piilani Highway within
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. Although
the timing, nature, and location of the
project is currently uncertain, we
forecast costs associated with a formal
section 7 consultation on the project in
2015. The Service has determined that
the potential project area for the
highway expansion overlaps with the
probable range of the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth. Consultation on this
project would be required due to the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17832
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
presence of the Blackburn’s sphinx
moth regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for the Maui Nui
species. As discussed in section 2.3 of
the DEA, critical habitat designation for
the Maui Nui species is not likely to
generate additional conservation
recommendations beyond what would
be recommended due to the presence of
the moth. Accordingly, it is unlikely
that critical habitat for the Maui Nui
species will generate substantial
additional costs with respect to this
highway project. However, we note in
section 3.3 of the FEA that should the
Service recommend that the project
incorporate additional conservation
efforts specifically in order to avoid
adverse modification of critical habitat,
these would be considered incremental
impacts of the designation.
(59) Comment: One commenter stated
that most of Hawaii’s farmers and
ranchers are small entities and would be
unfairly disadvantaged by this proposal.
Critical habitat designation may
adversely impact farmers and ranchers
by placing potentially inappropriate
restrictions on future use, adversely
impacting the value and mortgageability
of the land, and encouraging other land
use regulators to further restrict these
lands in the future.
Our Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s concerns. We address
these concerns below.
Direct impacts to farmers and
ranchers—According to the FEA, the
direct impacts of critical habitat
designation on grazing and farming (i.e.,
impacts generated by section 7
consultation and associated
conservation recommendations) are
expected to be minor (Section 5.3). The
only section 7 consultations that occur
on farming and grazing activities are
associated with Federal assistance
programs, such as the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s (NRCS) EQIP
(Environmental Quality Incentives
Program) and WHIP (Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program) programs, which
generally support ecologically beneficial
projects. Outside of participation in
these programs, we have not consulted
on farming and grazing activities in
Maui Nui over the last 10 years since
critical habitat was first designated for
107 plant and animal species in the
Maui Nui islands. All of the
consultations with NRCS were informal,
were ecologically beneficial to listed
species or designated critical habitat,
and have not been time-intensive and
have not resulted in modifications to
projects or activities. According to the
FEA, it is unlikely that critical habitat
designation will result in modifications
to farming and grazing activities through
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
section 7 consultation. Therefore, the
direct effects of the designation are most
likely to be limited to additional
administrative effort (by the Federal
agencies involved in the consultation)
as part of future section 7 consultations
(IEC 2015, Section 5.3.1). We cannot
foresee any direct impacts to farmers
and ranchers as a consequence of
critical habitat designation. We note that
the analysis under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA)
in Appendix A of the FEA
acknowledges the possibility of some
indirect impacts on farmers and
ranchers, however, such effects are not
quantified due to the significant
uncertainty surrounding the likelihood
and potential magnitude of any such
potential effects (IEC 2015, p. A–7).
Impacts on the value and
mortgageability of the land—We
understand the commenter’s concern
that critical habitat designation may
adversely impact the value and
mortgageability of the land, and
encourage other land use regulators to
further restrict these lands in the future.
The FEA (IEC 2015, Section 5.3.2)
recognizes that these indirect effects of
the critical habitat designation are of
concern, but also found significant
uncertainty regarding the potential for
these economic impacts to occur.
According to the FEA, no studies have
evaluated the potential perceptional
effect of critical habitat on land values
in Hawaii (i.e., regardless of actual
regulatory effects, potential buyers,
lenders, and appraisers may perceive
that critical habitat designation restricts
land use and thus reduces the value of
the land). However, there are studies
that show that critical habitat has the
potential to change behavior of the
public outside of the regulatory changes
associated with the designation. A 2009
California study showed that critical
habitat designation within urban growth
areas [emphasis ours] resulted in
measurable reductions in land values.
The study did not identify statistically
significant effects of critical habitat
designation on land values outside of
urban growth areas [emphasis ours].
Approximately 0.10 percent (160 ac (65
ha)) of the total area designated as
critical habitat in Maui Nui in this final
rule is in the State’s urban district.
Therefore, while we acknowledge the
concern regarding the potential
perceptional effect of critical habitat on
land values in Hawaii, we are unable to
measure the cost of this indirect impact
to a landowner, or state with certainty
the probability of such an effect being
realized.
Future restrictions on these lands—
According to the State’s Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Conservation and Coastal Lands and the
State Office of Planning, critical habitat
designation does not automatically
generate a district reclassification,
although it is one factor taken into
consideration both during the 5-year
boundary reviews and review of
petitions for boundary amendments (IEC
2015, Section 5.3.2). See also our
response to Comment (50), above.
(60) Comment: One commenter stated
a concern regarding the ability of
farmers and ranchers to meet the food
supply needs of residents and visitors
with the proposed designation. The 1.3
million plus residents and over 7
million tourists per year are dependent
upon food and energy imports for nearly
all their needs.
Our Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern. Section 5.3 of the
FEA highlights the concern that critical
habitat has the potential to hinder the
State’s food sustainability goal (IEC
2015, p. 5–16). As described in section
5.3, the designation is not likely to
change how NRCS and the Service
manage and regulate farming and
grazing activities. Section 5.3.2
discusses the potential for critical
habitat to result in indirect effects that
hinder the State’s goal to work toward
food sustainability. As described in that
section, the extent to which the
designation will limit agricultural
production occurring within the critical
habitat area is uncertain. However, only
a small fraction of the total State
agricultural production overlaps the
proposed critical habitat area.
(61) Comment: One commenter stated
that some of the proposed critical
habitat areas are State-owned parcels
that may be leased to farmers and
ranchers. The commenter added that
some also include irrigation
infrastructure and are within irrigation
water lease areas, raising serious
concerns about diminished irrigation
water availability, especially important
to farmers and ranchers in this time of
severe drought. According to this
commenter, these areas should be
excluded from designation.
Our Response: When delineating
critical habitat units, we made an effort
to avoid developed areas such as towns,
agricultural lands, and other lands with
similar features that do not contain the
primary constituent elements. Most of
the area within critical habitat
designated in this final rule is within
the conservation district, with less than
10 percent of the critical habitat within
the agricultural district. However, some
species, such as Canavalia pubescens,
Melanthera kamolensis, and Sesbania
tomentosa, only occur in, and
historically occurred in, low-elevation
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
areas where agriculture is most
common. Habitat containing primary
constituent elements or otherwise
essential to the conservation of these
species is not available in areas outside
the agricultural district.
We made every attempt to avoid
including irrigation systems and their
related developed structures to support
irrigation within the critical habitat
areas, as these systems and structures
normally do not contain, and are not
likely to develop, primary constituent
elements and are not otherwise essential
to the conservation of these species.
Even if we have not been able to
exclude every such development from
these mapped units, they are not
included in critical habitat pursuant to
the text of this final rule because they
are manmade features. Thus, unless the
operation and maintenance of irrigation
systems and related developed
structures would indirectly affect
critical habitat, these systems and
structures should not be affected by
section 7 of the Act. As for the areas
surrounding these structures, in the
absence of a Federal nexus (as described
above; see response to Comment (55)),
critical habitat will have no effect on the
delivery of water for agriculture. In
addition, none of the 125 species are
entirely aquatic, although a few require
bogs or seasonally wet habitats;
however, we have no information to
suggest that conservation activities for
these species would cause a reduction
in water diversion or irrigation water.
(62) Comment: Three commenters
provided information on a potential
wind energy project that may be sited in
or adjacent to proposed Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 2. One commenter
requested that the area proposed as
critical habitat be modified to increase
the distance of the critical habitat unit
from the potential impact of an
industrial-scale wind energy project.
Our Response: We appreciate the
information provided by the
commenters. Based on the information
provided and information in our FEA
(IEc 2015, pp. 4–7, 4–9—4–10, and A–
6—A–7), Molokai Renewables, LLC, a
joint venture between Pattern Energy
Group LP and Bio-Logical Capital, LLC,
plans to develop a wind energy farm on
Molokai Ranch lands, near proposed
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 1 and
Molokai—Lowland Dry—Unit 1. Energy
would be transmitted to Oahu via an
undersea transmission cable that may
potentially run through proposed
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 2. This
proposed project is in the initial
planning phase and information on the
timing, scale, location, and likelihood of
construction of an industrial scale wind
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
energy project is not available.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 2 totals 977 ac
(396 ha) on State and private land. This
unit provides the physical and
biological features for 12 endangered
plants and for the maintenance and
expansion of the existing wild
occurrences of one of these species that
occupies the unit, and provides the
habitat for reestablishment of
populations, within their historical
range, for the other 11 plant species.
Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery. Lacking information on the
location of the proposed wind farm, we
are unable to modify Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 2 to increase its distance
from the proposed wind farm.
(63) Comment: One commenter stated
that many farmers participate in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)–NRCS and other Federal
programs, and thus formal consultation
with the Service will be triggered in
order to determine whether the habitat
will be adversely impacted (regardless
of whether any endangered species are
actually present). This consultation can
result in costly delays and modifications
to the project up to and including
stopping the activity from proceeding
altogether.
Our Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s concerns. See our response
to Comment (59), above.
(64) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service should reevaluate the
ecosystem-based management units of
possible habitat for Maui Nui species by
focusing on only those areas that are
essential for the conservation of the
species and eliminating areas that do
not currently contain the PCEs,
especially grazing land. Courts have
consistently held that such a
generalization of critical habitat is
unacceptable. See Home Builders of No.
California, 616 F.3d 983, Cape Hatteras
Access Pres. Alliance, 344 F. Supp. 2d
108, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District v. Babbitt, 206 F. Supp.2d 1156
(D. N.M. 2000).
Our Response: On the islands of Maui
Nui (Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe), native species that occur in
the same habitat types (ecosystems)
depend on the same biological or
physical features because they are
dependent on the successful functioning
of the ecosystem they have in common
to survive. While we have used this
methodology because it, along with
species-specific habitat requirements,
represents the best available scientific
information, this approach may also
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17833
provide efficiencies in identifying
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. Upon receipt
of public comments from landowners
and biologists, we have re-evaluated
areas proposed as critical habitat, and
have further refined the critical habitat
units to remove areas where the land
use has changed or the land has been
otherwise modified so that it no longer
contains the PCEs and therefore does
not meet the definition of critical habitat
(for areas occupied by the listed
species). In all cases, we only designate
unoccupied areas as critical habitat
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. In cases where, based upon
public comments from landowners and
biologists, we found that some
unoccupied areas initially proposed as
critical habitat are not in fact essential
for the conservation of the species, we
have removed those areas from this final
designation.
(65) Comment: According to one
commenter, the overly broad critical
habitat designation effectively places
the cost and burden of disproving the
presence of critical habitat on the
private landowner. In addition, the
proposed rule does not analyze how
land uses will or will not affect the
protections that critical habitat is
supposed to offer.
Our Response: Critical habitat
protections are only triggered if there is
a Federal nexus (an action authorized,
funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency). In cases where there is such a
Federal nexus, it is not the duty of the
private landowner to disprove the
presence of critical habitat; rather, it is
the duty of the Federal agency to ensure
that it complies with section 7 of the
Act. If, through the section 7
consultation process, it is determined
that a Federal agency action may result
in ‘‘destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat’’ (as those terms are
used in section 7), we suggest those
reasonable and prudent alternatives that
can be taken by the Federal agency or
applicant in implementing the agency
action.
(66) Comment: Several commenters
stated that they, or others, are members
of State watershed partnerships and
participate in voluntary conservation
actions. The designation of critical
habitat on their lands will burden
landowners and alienate the very group
that can help the most with species and
habitat conservation.
Our Response: We fully support the
voluntary watershed partnerships in the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17834
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
State of Hawaii, including the four
partnerships in Maui Nui (West Maui
Mountains Watershed Partnership, East
Maui Watershed Partnership, East
Molokai Watershed Partnership, and
Leeward Haleakala Watershed
Restoration 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 (including rare
native) species on lands within the
partnership. Funding for the watershed
partnerships is provided through a
variety of State and Federal sources
(including funding provided by the
Service), public and private grants, and
in-kind services provided by the
partners or volunteers. Landowner
participation in the voluntary watershed
partnerships in the State of Hawaii,
resulting in many cases in significant
conservation benefits to native and
listed species, is an important
consideration in our weighing of the
benefits of exclusion versus inclusion in
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. The Secretary places great value
on such partnerships; participation in
the watershed partnerships of Maui,
Molokai, or Lanai was one of the
considerations in each of the exclusions
from critical habitat in this final rule. At
the same time, however, we are
judicious in our exclusions, and we
carefully considered whether we had
evidence that each landowner is
implementing conservation measures as
a member of a voluntary watershed
partnership that result in significant
benefits to the listed species in our
weighing of the benefits of exclusion
versus inclusion. We did not exclude
areas from critical habitat if the
landowner is a member of a watershed
partnership, but could not demonstrate
a history of implementing conservation
actions for the benefit of native or listed
species.
(67) Comment: Several commenters
stated that designation of critical habitat
would interfere with their ability to
obtain Federal funding and cause delays
associated with Act consultations over
effects on critical habitat and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
inflexible requirements that there be no
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Our Response: Both the Act and the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
direct the process and timing of how the
Service conducts consultation (see
sections 7(b)(1)and 7(2) of the Act, and
50 CFR 402.14(e)). Pursuant to section
7(a)(2) of the Act, Federal agencies must
consult with the Service to ensure that
any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency that may
affect critical habitat is not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. To avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, the Federal agency may,
during consultation, modify the
proposed action to minimize or avoid
adverse impacts to critical habitat. If we
issue a biological opinion concluding
that a project is likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, we also provide
‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
to the project, if any are identifiable.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are
defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative
actions identified during consultation
that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action, that are consistent with the
scope of the Federal agency’s legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically
feasible, and that the Director believes
would avoid the likelihood of the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. In our experience, it is
unusual for a project to proceed to this
point; usually we can agree upon project
modifications earlier in the process that
address any concerns, thereby allowing
the project to proceed. However, in
those rare cases in which we do find
that destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat is likely, we attempt
to provide alternatives to avoid that
outcome.
Our FEA considers the direct impacts
of critical habitat designation to stem
from the consideration of the potential
for destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat during section 7
consultations. The administrative costs
of conducting section 7 consultation is
a direct impact of a designation, as is
the implementation of any conservation
efforts that might be taken by the action
agency in conjunction with section 7
consultation to avoid potential
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The total quantified
incremental impacts of the critical
habitat designation are estimated to be
approximately $20,000 on an
annualized basis over 10 years (IEc
2015, p. ES–7). The potential for time
delays that may be associated with the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
need to reinitiate section 7 consultation
or compliance with other laws triggered
by the designation are considered
indirect impacts of the designation.
Although the FEA highlights which
projects or activities may be affected by
critical habitat designation, significant
uncertainty and data limitations largely
preclude the quantification of indirect
impacts (IEc 2015, p. ES–7).
(68) Comment: Several commenters
stated that designation of critical habitat
would cause the Federal Government to
dramatically reduce or cut off human
access to water, or prevent the
landowner from developing water
resources. Subsequently, the State Water
Commission would take steps to reduce
off-stream water usage where it
competes with water necessary to
sustain endangered plants. This could
affect ranches and entire communities.
Our Response: None of the Maui Nui
species addressed in this rule is entirely
aquatic, and although some species do
depend on bogs or seasonal wetland
type habitats, there is no information to
suggest that critical habitat for the Maui
Nui species would lead to a reduction
in water diversion or prevent the
development of water resources. Water
infrastructure is considered a manmade
feature, and, therefore, these features
and structures do not contain, and are
not likely to develop, any primary
constituent elements. There is no
expectation that ranches or
communities will in any way be affected
by a reduction in water supplies as a
consequence of critical habitat.
(69) Comment: Several commenters
stated that designation of critical habitat
would trigger rezoning procedures
under State law to more restrictive
zoning on private property. In addition,
the commenters believe that other
provisions of Hawaii State law would
then burden the use of their property.
For example, commenters believed that
new projects on lands designated as
critical habitat will require a
conservation district use permit, and an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
instead of a less comprehensive
environmental assessment (EA), and
that development in, or a change in use
of, coastal lands that are designated
critical habitat will make it more
difficult to obtain a special management
permit, pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.).
Our Response: Regarding potential
rezoning or restrictions on property use,
please see above, our responses to
Comments (50) and (59). Under the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
an applicant for a required Federal
license or permit to conduct an activity
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
that affects any land or water use or
natural resource of the coastal zone
must provide a certification that the
proposed activity complies with
policies of the State’s approved coastal
zone management program. Therefore,
regardless of the designation of critical
habitat, an applicant is required to
obtain certification from the State that a
proposed activity in the coastal zone
complies with the State’s coastal zone
management program. The 1990
implementation plan for the State of
Hawaii’s coastal zone management
program was last updated in 2006, and
evaluation findings for 2004–2008 were
completed in 2010 (NOAA 2010, 45 pp),
and there is no reference in these
documents to the treatment of critical
habitat for federally listed species
(Hawaii Coastal Zone Management
Program 1990, entire; Hawaii Ocean
Resources Management Plan 2013,
entire). The 2013 management plan
refers to the presence of, and concern
for, endangered species in the marine
environment and for endangered
waterbirds and states that such species
are of Statewide conservation concern
(Hawaii Ocean Resources Management
Plan 2013, p. 16). The plan also
discusses the importance of watershed
management as watersheds affect water
quantity and quality, ultimately
affecting ocean water quality and reef
systems (Hawaii Ocean Resources
Management Plan 2013, p. 27). In sum,
although the 2013 Hawaii Ocean
Resources Management Plan states that
balancing protection of endangered
species with other priorities of ocean
resource management is critical, the
plan does not mandate or prohibit any
actions with specific regard to critical
habitat.
(70) Comment: Some commenters
stated that their lands were not included
in studies or site inspections, or were
apparently done without the owners’
knowledge or consent. The commenters
believe that if their lands were
inspected, it would be determined that
there were no primary constituent
elements.
Our Response: As required by section
4(b) of the Act, we used the best
scientific data available in determining
those areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Maui Nui species by
identifying the occurrence data for each
species and determining the
characteristics of the habitat types upon
which they depend. The information we
used is described in detail in our June
11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464)
and in this final rule (see Methods); also
see our response to Comment (121) for
a description of the information we used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
to derive the primary constituent
elements.
Both before and following publication
of our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77
FR 34464), the Service contacted many
landowners. Some allowed site visits,
and some did not reply to our requests,
or did not state that they desired a site
visit by Service biologists. Much of our
identification of the physical or
biological features can be achieved
using remote sensing data; in no case
did Service staff enter private lands
without the express permission of the
landowner. Based on comments and
information provided during the public
comment periods indicating that
information in our proposed rule was in
error, or there had been changes in land
use that would preclude certain areas
from supporting the primary constituent
elements (occupied areas), or the areas
in question were not essential to the
conservation of the species (unoccupied
areas), we have removed such areas
from the final designation because they
do not meet the definition of critical
habitat. In addition, some areas were
excluded from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All of these
changes to areas proposed as critical
habitat are described in the Summary of
Changes from Proposed Rule, below.
(71) Comment: One commenter stated
that the regulatory flexibility analysis
provided in the proposed rule was
inadequate, as commercial activities are
not limited to only three proposed
critical habitat units. Commercial
activities (specifically cattle ranching)
also occur in proposed units Maui—
Montane Dry—Unit 1, Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 1, Maui—Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1, and Maui—Coastal—Unit 7. The
commenter has applied for Federal
funding previously, including NRCS
funding from the EQIP program, and
believes that, if critical habitat is
designated, any future use of Federal
funding would be subject to
consultation under the Act. The
commenter expressed concern over the
potential negative economic impacts as
a consequence of such consultation.
Our Response: This comment was
submitted prior to the release of the
DEA, which included a complete
regulatory flexibility analysis in
Appendix A. The regulatory flexibility
analysis in the economic analysis draws
from the findings of the report with
respect to the likelihood of projects or
activities with a Federal nexus
triggering section 7 consultation. The
economic analysis identifies the
commercial activities (agriculture and
grazing) occurring within the units
highlighted by the commenter. Section
5.3.1 of the economic analysis further
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17835
recognizes that grazing and farming
operations that have participated in
Federal assistance programs, such as
NRCS’ EQIP and WHIP, have been
subject to section 7 consultation
considering potential effects on listed
species and critical habitats. The NRCS
has stated that, regardless of critical
habitat designation, these programs only
support projects that are ecologically
beneficial. As a result, all previous
consultations on NRCS-funded projects
have been informal and have resulted in
a not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)
determination for listed species and
critical habitats. The NRCS stated that
these consultations have not been timeintensive and have not resulted in
modifications to projects or activities.
The NRCS and Service do not expect
that critical habitat will affect the ability
of projects funded through these
programs to be implemented, as
planned. In any case, for the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors), critical
habitat is not designated on the ranch
lands that were the focus of concern of
this commenter, as a consequence of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
(72) Comment: Two commenters
stated that the Service must prepare a
NEPA analysis on the proposed rule to
ensure that we make an informed
decision regarding the impact of critical
habitat designation on the environment.
Unlike the Act, NEPA sets forth
procedural requirements for all Federal
government agencies. It requires that
Federal agencies undertaking Federal
actions undertake an extensive
examination of all the environmental
impacts (including cultural impacts as
required under the National Historic
Preservation Act) of its actions. Given
the magnitude of the Service’s critical
habitat proposal, the large number of
industries that it will likely affect, and
its impact to the local and State
economy, a thorough examination and
disclosure of the proposal is needed
with substantial opportunities for public
input.
Our Response: It is the Service’s
position that, outside the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. This
position was upheld by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516
U.S. 1042 (1996)).
(73) Comment: Two commenters
expressed their support for our
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17836
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
proposed designation of critical habitat
in Maui County. Conservation is needed
for Hawaiian endangered plants and
animals and has been demonstrably
successful in places like Waikamoi
Preserve. One commenter was
especially appreciative of being able to
visit places that are being protected
from invasive, nonnative species and
evoke Hawaiian ecosystems that her
ancestors frequented.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments.
(74) Comment: One commenter
requested that the Service designate
critical habitat in 170 acres of land
above the Wailea Emerald Golf Course
because of the potential for
development in this area. According to
this commenter, this is the site of a
functioning ecosystem that includes
mature wiliwili (Erythrina
sandwicensis) and the endangered
awikiwiki (Canavalia pubescens).
Our Response: The area referred to by
this commenter was proposed as critical
habitat in our June 11, 2012, proposed
rule (77 FR 34464). In this final rule, we
excluded 901 ac (365 ha) under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors, below), and
designate 188 ac (76 ha) of Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 as critical habitat.
The area referred to by the commenter
was excluded as part of the Ulupalakua
Ranch property (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors). However,
we emphasize that exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act does not signal
that an area is not essential for the
conservation of the species, only that
the Secretary has determined that the
benefits of excluding that area outweigh
the benefits of including it in critical
habitat (and such exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the species).
(75) Comment: One commenter
suggested that the Service work
collaboratively with the community,
including landowners and homeowners,
to provide conservation measures for
plants and animals so that critical
habitat designation is not necessary.
This same commenter stated that
protecting habitat for native plants will
also protect the coastal reefs and the
ocean environment.
Our Response: We appreciate the
suggestions and fully support
collaborative conservation planning and
implementation with landowners and
other interested parties. Time and
resources permitting, we will continue
to seek avenues of collaborative
conservation efforts with private
landowners in Maui Nui. See also our
responses to Comments (25) and (66),
above.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(76) Comment: Several commenters
remarked that there is no evidence to
show that critical habitat designation
will protect endangered species and that
a more thorough job should be done
with available resources on lands
already dedicated to conservation.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments. In this final rule, we are
designating critical habitat for 125 listed
endangered or threatened species (122
plants, 1 tree snail, and 2 forest birds)
on the islands of Molokai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe using an ecosystem-based
approach in identifying the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species, and
unoccupied areas essential to their
conservation, that we believe will
ultimately provide for greater public
understanding of the conservation and
recovery needs for each of the species
addressed in this final rule. The
recovery criteria for these species
include both conservation of existing
populations of these species, as well as
reestablishment of populations in
suitable habitat within the species’
historical range. We further note, as
stated earlier, that the designation of
critical habitat for listed species is a
requirement under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act, and is not a discretionary action.
We agree that more could be done to
help ameliorate the threats to these 125
species and their habitats. Conservation
efforts are challenged 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 125 species occur now or occurred
historically. In addition, not all of the
habitat essential to the conservation and
recovery of these species is contained
within areas dedicated to conservation.
(77) Comment: One commenter stated
that he was denied the opportunity at
the public hearing to poll the audience
regarding their position on the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Per our guidelines
(USFWS Endangered Species Act Public
Hearings Handbook. N.D. 19 pp.), our
public hearing officer respectfully
informed the individual that he could
question the audience when the public
hearing was formally concluded but that
he would not be recorded unless he was
presenting testimony. The commenter
then declined to provide testimony.
(78) Comment: Several commenters
questioned the lack of information
regarding trespass and liability on
private lands that are designated as
critical habitat. They were concerned
that no guidelines are provided
regarding allowable activities on these
lands. They also stated their concern
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regarding lawsuits by environmental
organizations if critical habitat is
harmed. There also is no process for
third-party appeal.
Our Response: State law provisions
regarding trespass on privately owned
lands are effective regardless of the
designation of critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not
create a wilderness area, preserve, or
wildlife refuge, nor does it open a
privately owned area to human access
or use. It does not alter State law with
regard to trespass on privately owned
lands.
In response to the second concern, the
designation of critical habitat on private
lands would only affect current or
ongoing land management practices
when there is a Federal nexus. In our
June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR
34464) and in this final rule (see
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard, below), we
state that activities funded, carried out,
or authorized (e.g., issue a permit) by a
Federal agency that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat for the
Maui Nui species include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Federal actions that would
appreciably degrade or destroy the
physical or biological features for the
species including, but not limited to, the
following: Overgrazing; maintaining or
increasing feral ungulate levels; clearing
or cutting native live trees and shrubs
(e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing,
construction, road building, mining,
herbicide application); and taking
actions that pose a risk of fire.
(2) Federal actions that would alter
watershed characteristics in ways that
would appreciably reduce groundwater
recharge or alter natural, wetland,
aquatic, or vegetative communities.
Such actions include new water
diversion or impoundment, excess
groundwater pumping, and
manipulation of vegetation through
activities such as the ones mentioned in
(1), above.
(3) Recreational activities that may
appreciably degrade vegetation.
(4) Mining sand or other minerals.
(5) Introducing or encouraging the
spread of nonnative plant species.
(6) Importing nonnative species for
research, agriculture, and aquaculture,
and releasing biological control agents.
Our FEA acknowledges the potential
for critical habitat designation to
increase the vulnerability of private
landowners to legal challenges
regarding their operations (IEc 2015, pp.
5–20). Due to significant uncertainties
regarding the extent to which the
designation will increase the probability
of legal challenges (over and above the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
presence of the listed species or other
critical habitat designations (e.g.,
Blackburn’s sphinx moth critical
habitat)), the direct costs of legal fees
and time spent on lawsuits, and the
potential outcome of lawsuits, the FEA
does not estimate a monetary cost from
potential third-party lawsuits.
(79) Comment: Several commenters
stated the following: (a) The proposed
rule does not comply with legal
requirements (i.e., it does not use the
best scientific information available)
because no public input in the
collection and analysis of a broad range
of information was used; (b) broad brush
strokes were used, resulting in a farreaching designation on State, county,
and private lands that will have a direct
and negative impact on Maui County
and its economic well-being; (c) areas
proposed for critical habitat do not have
critical habitat; and (d) the Service has
not addressed the comments in a
manner that reflects or acknowledges
their concerns.
Our Response: See our responses to
Comments (16) and (120). In this final
rule, we address all comments we
received on the proposed critical habitat
designations described in the June 11,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and
the DEA. We are unable to address
statement (c) above in the absence of
additional details.
(80) Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat will reduce
subsistence hunting and gathering.
Our Response: Game mammal
hunting is a recreational and cultural
activity in Hawaii that is regulated by
the Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources on State and private
lands (Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources 2002). Critical habitat
does not give the Federal Government
authority to control or otherwise
manage feral animals on non-Federal
land. Absent Federal involvement, these
land management decisions are not
affected by the designation of critical
habitat. It is well-known that game
mammals affect listed plant and animal
species in Hawaii. We believe it is
important to develop and implement
management programs that provide for
the recovery of listed species and
acknowledge the importance of
continued ungulate hunting in game
management areas when it is compatible
with the recovery of endangered
species. In general, the establishment of
game management areas is not
compatible with recovery in areas
needed for recovery. We welcome
opportunities to work closely with the
State and other partners to ensure that
game management programs are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
implemented in a manner consistent
with both of these needs.
Critical habitat does not give the
Federal Government authority to control
or otherwise manage gathering of plants
on non-Federal land or in the absence
of some other Federal action. However,
the State of Hawaii regulates the
gathering of plants that are State listed
as endangered or threatened on both
private and State lands (HRS
(section195D–4(e), 4(f), and 4(g)).
Gathering of native plants that are not
State listed on private lands is not
regulated by the State of Hawaii.
Gathering of native plants that are not
State listed on State lands is regulated
by the State (Hawaii Administrative
Rules—Title 13).
(81) Comment: Several commenters
stated that this overly broad proposed
rule is inconsistent with the State’s New
Day Initiative because it has the
potential to remove farms and ranches
that produce local products, including
food, from production while providing
no certainty that these critical habitat
designations will result in benefit to the
species.
Our Response: Governor
Abercrombie’s 2010 New Day Initiative
proposes many important agricultural
goals for Hawaii, including, but not
limited to, preserving and growing more
food on Hawaii’s agricultural lands,
repairing old irrigation systems,
assisting community-based farming
entrepreneurial endeavors, raising the
demand for local food, and developing
educational programs to improve
community and cultural understanding
of growing food locally. Designation of
critical habitat would not affect the
ability of private landowners or lessees
of publicly owned agricultural lands to
conduct any of these or related
agricultural activities, absent a Federal
nexus. Even in the case of a Federal
nexus, critical habitat would not
prevent the use of agricultural lands, but
could result in the consideration of
potential project modifications or
alternatives to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
in the course of implementing the
intended purpose of the action. See also
our response to Comment (59), above.
(82) Comment: One commenter
requested that the area proposed as
critical habitat for Newcomb’s tree snail
(Newcombia cumingi) on Puu Kukui
Watershed Preserve be excluded
because the landowner can accomplish
the conservation goals for this tree snail
without critical habitat designation. The
request is based on the existence of a
long-term management plan for the
preserve; a history of self-funding
conservation actions on the preserve;
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17837
past and current cooperative agreements
with the Service, including a current
agreement to protect and enhance
habitat for this tree snail; and ongoing
implementation of actions that benefit
the conservation of endangered and
threatened species.
Our Response: We proposed critical
habitat for Newcomb’s tree snail on Puu
Kukui Watershed Preserve because
these lands support the only known
population of this tree snail and contain
the physical or biological features of its
lowland wet ecosystem habitat and
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery. As
described by the commenter, recently
the Service and the private landowner
entered into a cooperative agreement to
protect and enhance habitat for this tree
snail. For the reasons described below
(see ‘‘Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors’’), we are excluding
8,931 ac (3,614 ha) of land on Puu
Kukui Watershed Preserve from critical
habitat, including the portion proposed
for Newcomb’s tree snail critical habitat.
(83) Comment: Several commenters
stated that they conduct conservation
actions to control erosion and feral
ungulates, and that designation of
critical habitat may impede
conservation actions in the future.
Our Response: We appreciate the
commenters’ concerns, and recognize
that private landowners conduct
voluntary conservation efforts, such as
efforts to control erosion or soil loss,
and fencing to exclude nonnative pigs,
axis deer, and goats from private lands.
It is unclear to us if the second part of
the comment implies that the
designation of critical habitat will
impede the implementation of
conservations actions or that the private
landowners may not support voluntary
conservation actions on their private
lands in the future if those lands are
designated critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat will not
impede the implementation of
conservation actions described by these
commenters, and in all likelihood
provide additional support for these
habitat-enhancing actions that will also
benefit listed species. We are concerned
and deeply regret that some private
landowners may not support voluntary
conservation actions on their private
lands in the future should critical
habitat be designated on their lands.
The purpose of designating critical
habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome
of the designation, triggering regulatory
requirements for actions funded,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17838
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
authorized, or carried out by Federal
agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, can sometimes appear to be a
disincentive to conservation on nonFederal lands. Thus, the benefits of
excluding areas that are covered by
partnerships or voluntary conservation
efforts can, in specific circumstances, be
high. For the reasons described below
(see ‘‘Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors’’), we are excluding
84,891 ac (34,354 ha) of private lands on
Maui, Lanai, and Molokai from critical
habitat. Again we note that in the
absence of a Federal nexus, the
designation of critical habitat has no
direct regulatory impact on private
landowners.
(84) Comment: Several commenters
stated that public notice of the proposed
designation of private land as critical
habitat has been inadequate. These
commenters suggested conducting
information meetings using a ‘‘talkstory’’ approach. That is, conduct
informal meetings with the public,
including landowners with lands within
already designated critical habitat who
can address questions such as the
impact(s) of critical habitat on their
land, including the impact on land
values, and the benefits, if any, of
critical habitat on their land, including
getting grants for conservation projects
such as fences to exclude nonnative
animals.
Our Response: We appreciate the
concerns regarding our notification
process of the proposed rule. See also
our response, above, to Comment (16).
We also appreciate the suggestions
provided by these commenters
regarding public information meetings.
Although our ability to conduct oneone-one meetings with various interest
groups throughout Hawaii (e.g.,
community associations, nonprofit
interest groups, State and Federal
agencies, aha mokus) is currently
constrained by our resource limitations,
we will seriously consider adopting a
‘‘talk-story’’ approach as part of our
community outreach efforts as our
limited staff and resources allow.
(85) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the designation of critical
habitat would be devastating to an
already struggling industry (i.e.,
ranching) due to the effects of the recent
drought. In addition, a critical habitat
designation will burden a private
landowner with additional Federal,
State and local regulations. Critical
habitat designation could put an end to
their livelihood.
Our Response: See our responses to
Comments (50), (55), (56), and (59),
above. Absent a Federal nexus for a
proposed action on private property, a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
critical habitat designation does not
prevent or prohibit an activity such as
ranching on private or State property.
As described earlier, even in the case of
a potential Federal nexus, critical
habitat does not prevent a private
landowner from using their lands for
ranching or other activities, but requires
the Federal action agency to ensure that
their action does not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat,
through potential project modifications
or other measures to minimize and
mitigate the effects of the action.
(86) Comment: One commenter was
concerned regarding a portion of an
irrigation ditch system within Maui—
Lowland Wet—Unit 1 and requested
that the Service adjust the boundary of
the unit above the upper ditch system.
Our Response: We have carefully
examined the area of concern and have
determined that changes in land use had
occurred within the proposed critical
habitat unit that would preclude the
area identified by the commenter from
supporting the primary constituent
elements (for those species that occupy
this unit) and further, the area in
question is not essential to the
conservation of any of the species (for
those species for which this unit was
proposed as unoccupied critical
habitat). As a consequence, we have
concluded that this area does not meet
our definition of critical habitat and we
have removed it from the final
designation of Maui—Lowland Wet—
Unit 1. See also Summary of Changes
from Proposed Rule, below.
(87) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service must accord native
Hawaiians with the same special
considerations that are given to native
Americans, that native Hawaiians have
rights vested by law and are wards of
the State, and that it is our fiduciary
duty not to impose on those rights.
Our Response: See our response to
Comment (35), above.
Public Comments on Proposed Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3
Several commenters submitted
comments regarding the designation of
critical habitat in proposed Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3, and we grouped
similar comments together relating
specifically to this unit below.
(88) Comment: Four commenters
supported designation of the lowland
dry ecosystem and described Hawaiian
lowland dry forests as the most
critically endangered ecosystem in
Hawaii, with less than 3 percent
remaining Statewide and 5 percent
remaining on Maui. Several commenters
also strongly supported designation of
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. Another
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
commenter supported the revision
(reevaluation) of critical habitat for the
currently listed dry forest species using
the ecosystem approach.
Our Response: We appreciate these
comments. Habitat loss and degradation
of the lowland dry ecosystem is
demonstrated by the current and
ongoing threats of development and
urbanization, introduced ungulates,
nonnative plants, fire, and hurricanes to
species and their habitat in the lowland
dry ecosystem (see The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in
our final rule to list as endangered 38
species on the islands of Maui, Molokai,
and Lanai (78 FR 32014; May 28, 2013)).
In this final rule, we are designating
critical habitat in six units (Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 through Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 6) totaling 20,740 ac
(8,392 ha) for 30 species in the lowland
dry ecosystem on Maui. Twelve of the
plant species occur only on east Maui,
11 occur only on west Maui, and 7
occur on both east and west Maui.
These lowland dry units provide the
areas that contain the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the 30 species and
require special management
considerations or protections (e.g.,
nonnative species control) (occupied
habitat) or habitat that is essential to the
conservation and recovery of the species
(unoccupied habitat). Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 is particularly unique
because, even though close to developed
or otherwise badly degraded areas, it
contains a high concentration of native
plant species, many comprising the
PCEs for species that occur within the
lowland dry forest, including canopy
trees such as Erythrina sandwicensis
(wiliwili) and Myoporum sandwicense
(naio), and subcanopy and understory
plants such as Capparis sandwichiana
(maiapilo), Chamaesyce celastroides
(akoko), Dodonaea viscosa (aalii),
Ipomoea sp. (koaliawa and moon
flower), Plumbago zeylanica (iliee),
Sicyos sp. (anunu), Sida fallax (ilima),
and Waltheria indica (uhaloa). The very
rough lava substrate in the area is
apparently not preferred by feral
ungulates, resulting in less herbivory of
native plant species, thus threats are
reduced in this unit and native plant
species have a greater chance of
survival. Due to the currently limited
numbers of individuals and
populations, the expansion or
reestablishment of listed plant
populations in unoccupied areas are
essential to the conservation of the
species and to meet recovery goals.
Because of the uniqueness and rarity of
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
this area in the lowland dry ecosystem
on east Maui, we conclude this unit is
essential to the recovery of Canavalia
pubescens and 16 other lowland dry
plant species. See also our response to
Comment (109), below.
(89) 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. In addition, the large
loss of C. pubescens individuals at
Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve
(NAR) illustrates the need for multiple
viable habitats for this species and
increases the significance for protection
of other areas such as those found
within Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3.
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
herbivory and habitat modification by
deer and goats constitute threats to the
lowland dry ecosystem in which
Canavalia pubescens is known to occur
on Maui (see The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and
Disease or Predation in our final rule to
list as endangered 38 species on the
islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai (78
FR 32014; May 28, 2013)). We also agree
that recovery of this species will require
multiple viable sites and that
conservation efforts, such as fencing and
regular monitoring, are necessary to
address threats to C. pubescens and its
habitat from ungulates. In this final rule,
for the reasons described above (see our
response to Comment (44) and (88)), we
are designating critical habitat in a total
of 16,841 ac (6,816 ha) in critical habitat
units Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1
through Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4
for C. pubescens and 18 other lowland
dry plant species. These lowland dry
units provide the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and require special
management considerations or
protections (e.g., nonnative species
control) (occupied habitat) or habitat
that is essential to the conservation and
recovery of the species (unoccupied
habitat).
(90) Comment: Several commenters
recommended inclusion of additional
areas to Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3,
such as the 22-ac Palauea Cultural
Preserve, and portions of land owned by
Makena Holdings (Tax Map Key (2) 2–
1–008:90), based on the presence of lava
flows of similar geologic age and origin.
These commenters noted that the
presence of Canavalia pubescens in the
Palauea Cultural Preserve supports
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
designation of this area as critical
habitat. One commenter noted that a
native plant restoration plan was
created for the Palauea Cultural Preserve
and that the preserve is currently being
transferred to joint management by the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the
University of Hawaii.
Our Response: We appreciate the
information provided regarding the
Palauea Cultural Preserve and Tax Map
Key (2) 2–1–008:90. We carefully
reviewed the areas proposed as critical
habitat and the recovery needs (see
Comment (44), (88), and (89)) of
Canavalia pubescens on the island of
Maui. In this final rule, we are
designating critical habitat in four units
in the lowland dry ecosystem on east
Maui (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1
through Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4)
totaling 16,841 ac (6,816 ha) for 19
species in the lowland dry ecosystem. A
critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the
designated area (e.g., the Palauea
Cultural Preserve or portions of TMK (2)
2–1–008:90) is unimportant or may not
be needed for the recovery of the
species. However, we do note that the
Palauea Cultural Preserve is a cultivated
garden setting, and that individuals of
C. pubescens have been planted there.
Although such an area supports
individuals of this endangered species,
these individual plants in a garden
setting do not contribute to a selfsustaining occurrence in the wild. For
recovery to occur, populations must be
viable in the wild, where they have the
potential to contribute further to
population growth and expansion. To
achieve population growth and
expansion, there must be evidence that
the plants are reproducing on their own,
meaning that multiple generations are
successfully produced. Areas that are
important to the conservation of C.
pubescens, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. These protections and
management actions will continue to
contribute to the conservation of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17839
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome. We hope to work
collaboratively in the future with the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the
University of Hawaii regarding the
Palauea Cultural Preserve native plant
restoration plan.
(91) Comment: One commenter noted
that the accessibility of proposed
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 provides a
potential benefit to the species that
would allow regular monitoring, as well
as easy access for educational tours and
community-based restoration efforts.
The commenter also noted that the
proximity of Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit
3 to schools, churches, and visitor
populations is an ideal location to
promote ongoing community
involvement.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comments and agree that accessibility
may be an important component of the
management required for the recovery of
endangered species. In addition, critical
habitat designation increases public
awareness of the presence of listed
species and the importance of habitat
protection, and provides educational
benefits resulting from identification of
the features essential to the conservation
of the 17 species for which critical
habitat is designated in Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 and the delineation of areas
important for their recovery.
(92) Comment: One commenter stated
that critical habitat designation should
benefit property owners who wish to
develop ecotourism industries by
increasing their ability to draw tourists
to natural resource assets on their lands.
In addition, the commenter stated that
development projects adjacent to areas
designated as critical habitat can also
increase their property values by
marketing pedestrian access to nature
preserves. The commenter felt this was
particularly applicable for Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3.
Our Response: Section 6.3 of the DEA
(also Section 6.3 of the FEA) describes
the potential incremental benefits of
conservation efforts for the Maui Nui
species, including the potential for
property value benefits that may result
from open space or decreased density of
development and increased potential for
recreation or tourism. We thank the
commenter for the statements, as the
benefits of critical habitat are frequently
not acknowledged. We are aware that
not all property owners share the same
views regarding beneficial impacts of
critical habitat designation on their
lands.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17840
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(93) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service failed to provide
documentation for the occurrence of the
listed plant, Hibiscus brackenridgei, in
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. The
commenter provided the results of a
botanical survey (Guinther 2012, pp. 7–
8), which did not detect the presence of
H. brackenridgei on the parcel owned by
ATC Makena Holdings, LLC (TMK (2)
2–1–008: 108), located within Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3.
Our Response: The best available
information in our files indicates the
occurrence of Hibiscus brackenridgei
within Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 as
recently as 2011 (Oppenheimer 2010bb,
in litt.; PEPP 2011, p. 118).
Documentation for this record was cited
in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77
FR 34464) and in the references cited for
this final rule and available at https://
www.regulations.gov. The references
cited in our proposed rule and in this
final rule are available by contacting the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Although H. brackenridgei was not
detected during the survey cited above
on the parcel owned by ATC Makena
Holdings, LLC, this species is present
elsewhere in the proposed unit. In
addition, we have determined that
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3, including
the area in the ATC Makena Holdings,
LLC, parcel, is essential for the
conservation of H. brackenridgei and 16
other species for which it is designated
critical habitat in this unit of the
lowland dry ecosystem. Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 contains one or more of the
physical and biological features of the
lowland dry ecosystem (see also
responses to Comment (88), (89), and
(109), as well as Table 5). Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is essential to the
conservation of these species because it
is one of the few remaining areas of the
lowland dry ecosystem that provides
multiple essential physical or biological
features in the requisite combination of
appropriate substrate, rainfall, and
native plant components to potentially
successfully support viable populations
of these species. Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 additionally has the benefit of
being geographically separated from
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1, Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 2, and Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 4, thus providing
potential redundancy so that species
that occur in this unit or are
reestablished in this unit are more likely
to survive and provide for the
conservation of species dependent on
the lowland dry ecosystem in case of
catastrophic events such as drought and
fire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Once known from the islands of
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
Hawaii, and possibly Kahoolawe, H.
brackenridgei is now known only from
Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Lanai,
there are only two individuals of the
species remaining. On Maui, two
occurrences of the species are known,
one in east Maui (about 10 individuals)
and one in west Maui (a few
individuals), both in the lowland dry
ecosystem. The recovery guidelines for
short-lived perennial plant species such
as H. brackenridgei are 8 to 10
populations of 300 individuals per
population sustained over a minimum
of 5 years (Service 1999, pp. iv–v); this
translates to a minimum recovery goal
of approximately 2,400 to 3,000
individuals in total, in 8 to 10 selfsustaining populations. To meet such a
goal, areas of currently unoccupied but
suitable habitat within the historical
range of H. brackenridgei in the lowland
dry ecosystem on east Maui are essential
for the recovery of this species. With so
few individuals left, extensive
population growth and reestablishment
of additional populations will be
required in areas that are not currently
occupied by H. brackenridgei or other of
the Maui Nui species. Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 provides one of the best
remaining examples of the lowland dry
ecosystem type, with good potential to
support the population growth,
expansion, and reestablishment
essential to achieve the conservation of
H. brackenridgei and the 16 other
species native to the lowland dry
ecosystem on Maui for which critical
habitat is designated in this unit (see
also responses to Comment (88), (89),
and (109) regarding the characteristics
specific to Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
that we conclude are essential to the
conservation of the Maui Nui species).
(94) Comment: One commenter stated
that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 may
not be suitable habitat for Alectryon
macrococcus (mahoe) because this
species is a dryland forest tree found
above 1,200 ft elevation. The commenter
stated that Wagner et al. (1990)
attributed the decline of this species to
seed predation by boring insects and
rats. According to the commenter,
neither of these threats could be easily
controlled for this species within
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 at Makena,
so the proposed critical habitat unit is
not suitable. In addition, the commenter
implied that the few individuals known
from the lowland dry environment
likely occur in the exclosures at Auwahi
above 3,300 ft, based on the references
provided by the Service in the proposed
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Our Response: Wagner et al. (1999, p.
1,225) describes the elevational range of
Alectryon macrococcus as occurring
between 1,200 ft to 3,500 ft (360 to 1,070
m). Based on this information, and
historical and current occurrence data
in our files, Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit
3 may not be suitable for this species
because the elevation of this unit, 320
to 1,200 ft (100 to 360 m), is below the
elevational range described for A.
macrococcus by Wagner et al. (1999, p.
1,225). Despite the lack of more
comprehensive survey data and the
possibility for the discovery of new and
unknown populations of native plant
species, the best available scientific data
on current and historical occurrences
for this species does not support the
designation of critical habitat in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 for A.
macrococcus. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for A.
macrococcus (var. auwahiensis) in
critical habitat unit Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 at this time.
(95) Comment: One commenter stated
that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 may
not be suitable habitat for Bonamia
menziesii because only a few
individuals are known from the lowland
dry ecosystem (at Puu o Kali, Kaloi, and
Kanaio), and cited the information on
page 77 FR 34515 in our proposed rule
published on June 11, 2012. The
commenter added that this species is
possibly not an endemic species
(Wagner et al. 1990, p. 550).
Our Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s statement that Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is not suitable for
Bonamia menziesii for the following
reasons: The occurrence of only a few
individuals within a particular area
does not necessarily indicate that the
area is unsuitable. This species was
historically wide-ranging in the lowland
dry areas of east Maui, and has since
declined in numbers (HBMP 2010). The
locations cited by the commenter where
B. menziesii currently occurs (within
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1 and
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 2) contain
one or more of the physical and
biological features that are present
within Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3.
Also, since publication of our proposed
rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464) and
during the public comment periods, we
received information that additional
individuals of B. menziesii have been
found in the lowland dry ecosystem of
east Maui (on State lands in Maui—
Lowland Dry— Unit 1; Higashino 2013,
pers. comm.), adding to the number of
individuals of the species known from
the lowland dry ecosystem. The
recovery guidelines for short-lived
perennial plant species such as B.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
menziesii are 8 to 10 populations of 300
individuals per population, sustained
over a minimum of 5 years (Service
1999, pp. iv–v). Therefore, areas of
suitable habitat within the historical
range of B. menziesii in the lowland dry
ecosystem on east Maui are essential for
the conservation of this species, as
significant growth and reestablishment
of B. menziesii populations in areas not
currently occupied by the species will
be required to achieve these goals.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 contains
one or more of the physical and
biological features of the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 5), similar to those
at the locations cited by the commenter;
it also provides a site with particularly
good potential for supporting future
populations, due to the combination of
essential features that occur there (see
our responses to Comment (88), (89),
and (93), above, and (109), below).
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 provides
the physical or biological features
essential for the reestablishment of wild
populations of the species. Due to the
currently limited numbers of
individuals and populations, the
expansion or reestablishment of
populations in unoccupied areas are
essential to the conservation of the
species and to meet recovery goals.
We believe the commenter’s second
point regarding the endemism of B.
menziesii incorrectly interprets Austin’s
discussion in Wagner et al. (1999, p.
550). In the Manual of Flowering Plants
of Hawaii, Austin (1999, p. 550)
questioned the origin of the genus, not
the species. Austin concluded that
‘‘Bonamia menziesii apparently has
close affinities with taxa of
northwestern South and Central
America,’’ which we interpret as
suggesting a possible origin of the
Hawaiian species, and not a suggestion
that there is a lack of distinction
between the Hawaiian and potential
Central and South American members
of this genus at the species level.
(96) Comment: One commenter stated
that Colubrina oppositifolia is easy to
propagate in lowland dry to mesic areas
and easily incorporated into
landscaping in these ecosystems, which
suggests Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is
not critical to its recovery. The
commenter also appeared to question
the suitability of Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 due to the recent discovery
(1995) of C. oppositifolia in the lowland
mesic ecosystem on west Maui, and
unpublished reports of its historical
occurrence in the lowland dry
ecosystem on east Maui, citing
information at 77 FR 34516 in our June
11, 2012, proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Our Response: The historical
occurrence of Colubrina oppositifolia on
east Maui in the lowland dry ecosystem
(HBMP 2010) and its ‘‘recent discovery
on west Maui in 1995’’ in the lowland
mesic ecosystem indicates the need for
critical habitat on both east and west
Maui in those respective ecosystems. In
fact, the commenter’s statement that C.
oppositifolia is easy to propagate and
easily incorporated into landscaping in
the lowland dry and mesic ecosystems
also suggests that Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 contains suitable habitat for this
species. Remaining areas of suitable
habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem are
essential to the conservation of the
species, as evidenced by the wide gap
between the recovery goals for a species
such as C. oppositifolia and its current
status. The recovery guidelines for longlived perennial plant species such as C.
oppositifolia are 8 to 10 populations of
100 individuals per population,
sustained over a minimum of 5 years
(Service 1996, p. iv), or approximately
800 to 1,000 individuals in total in 8 to
10 self-sustaining populations.
Currently, in Maui Nui, this species is
known only from about five individuals
in two locations on west Maui, and from
one possible individual on east Maui
that has not been relocated in over 20
years. Therefore, areas of suitable
habitat within the historical range of C.
oppositifolia (including lowland dry
and lowland mesic ecosystems) on both
east and west Maui are essential to
achieve the increase in numbers of
individuals and occurrences of this
species to provide for its conservation
and recovery. Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 provides the physical or
biological features essential for the
reestablishment of wild populations of
the species, and is a site with
particularly good potential for
supporting future populations, due to
the combination of essential features
that occur there (see also our responses
to Comment (88), (89), and (93), above,
and (109), below).
(97) Comment: One commenter
questioned the suitability of Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 for Ctenitis
squamigera based on Palmer’s (2003)
description of the habitat of this species
as the mesic forest floor above 590 ft on
all the main Hawaiian Islands except
Hawaii Island and possibly Kauai. The
commenter also suggested that the
occurrence records for this species cited
at 77 FR 34516 in our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule lack specificity, but tend
to support the Palmer description.
Our Response: The information
provided by the commenter regarding
the geographic range and elevation at
which Ctenitis squamigera may occur is
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17841
accurate. Historically, this species was
found on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui,
Lanai, and Hawaii. Currently, there are
12 occurrences, totaling approximately
100 individuals, on the islands of Lanai,
Molokai, and Maui. Data in our files
indicate that C. squamigera is known
from the lowland dry ecosystem on east
Maui (HBMP 2010). Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by C. squamigera, but contains
one or more of the physical and
biological features of the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Comment (88), (89), (93),
(109), and Table 5), including the
appropriate native plant species,
rainfall, and substrate to support the
species, and also includes the elevation
cited by the commenter. The recovery
guidelines for short-lived perennial
plant species such as C. squamigera are
8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals
per population, sustained over a
minimum of 5 years (Service 1998, p.
iv), or an objective of a minimum of
approximately 2,400 to 3,000
individuals. Areas of suitable habitat in
the lowland dry ecosystem are limited
within the historical range of this
species. Because of the low number of
individuals at known locations of this
species (100 individuals across 12
scattered occurrences, and recalling that
an occurrence is not equivalent to a selfsustaining population), areas of
unoccupied suitable habitat including
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 are
essential for the reestablishment of
populations that will be required to
achieve the conservation and recovery
of C. squamigera. See also our response
to Comment (109), below.
(98) Comment: One commenter stated
that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 may
not be suitable habitat for Flueggea
neowawraea. The commenter
acknowledged that individuals of this
species are reported at 820 ft elevation
and above, in the lowland dry
ecosystem at Auwahi. However,
according to the commenter, the
environment in Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 is far too dry in contrast to the
Auwahi exclosures, where this species
is currently found, and which are
located above 3,100 elevation, receive
regular fog drip, and are able to support
kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum), a
widespread nonnative pasture grass and
dominant ground cover.
Our Response: The information
provided by the commenter regarding
the elevation and occurrence of
Flueggea neowawraea in the Auwahi
exclosures is accurate. Data in our files
indicate that F. neowawraea is known
from the lowland dry ecosystem on east
Maui (HBMP 2010). Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 contains one or more of the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17842
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
physical and biological features of the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5),
including the elevational range cited by
the commenter. The recovery guidelines
for long-lived perennial plant species
such as F. neowawraea are 8 to 10
populations of 100 individuals per
population, sustained over a minimum
of 5 years (Service 1999, pp. iv–v), for
an objective of roughly 800 to 1,000
individuals total in these multiple
populations. Historically, F.
neowawraea was known from Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii.
Currently, there are 5 occurrences on
Kauai (26 individuals), 1 occurrence on
Oahu (1 individual), 2 individuals on
Maui, 4 occurrences on Hawaii (8
individuals), and no known occurrences
on Molokai (PEPP 2009, p. 25; PEPP
2012). Although there are multiple
occurrences of F. neowawraea, most are
of only 1 or a few individuals, for a total
of fewer than 40 plants known. The
species is far from meeting the recovery
objective of 800 to 1,000 individuals in
8 to 10 self-sustaining populations of at
least 100 individuals each. Therefore,
areas of suitable habitat within the
historical range of F. neowawraea in the
lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui are
essential for the recovery of this species.
Although areas of suitable habitat in the
lowland dry ecosystem are now limited,
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 provides
one of the few remaining areas that
includes several of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the plant species that
depend upon this habitat type,
including appropriate elevation,
substrate, rainfall, and associated native
plant species (see Comment (88), (89),
and (93), above, and (109), below, for
additional information on the
characteristics specific to this unit that
we have determined are essential for the
conservation of the Maui Nui species).
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 also
provides unoccupied habitat separated
from Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1,
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 2, and
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4, so that, in
case of catastrophic events such as
drought and fire, one or more
occurrences of this species could persist
and provide for its conservation.
(99) Comment: One commenter stated
that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 may
not be suitable habitat for Melanthera
kamolensis. The reason provided by the
commenter was that this species is
‘‘extremely rare; known only from a
small population in Kamole Gulch,
southeastern Maui (Wagner et al. 1990,
p. 337).’’
Our Response: The information
provided by the commenter regarding
the known location of Melanthera
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
kamolensis is accurate. However, M.
kamolensis is known historically from
three collections in an area extending
approximately 1 mile (1,000 m) on east
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999, p. 337), and
currently known only from a single
occurrence with 30 to 40 individuals in
the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui
(HBMP 2010, Medeiros 2010, in litt.).
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 contains
one or more of the physical and
biological features of the lowland dry
ecosystem (Table 5), similar to those at
the location cited by the commenter.
The recovery guidelines for short-lived
perennial plant species such as M.
kamolensis are 8 to 10 populations of
300 individuals per population,
sustained over a minimum of 5 years
(Service 1997, pp. iv–v), for a total of
2,400 to 3,000 individuals in 8 to 10
self-sustaining populations. With a
single known occurrence of only 30 to
40 individuals at present, population
growth will be essential to the
conservation of the species, as will the
reestablishment of multiple new
populations in areas of currently
unoccupied lowland dry habitat.
Therefore, additional areas of suitable
habitat within the historical range of M.
kamolensis in the lowland dry
ecosystem on east Maui are essential for
the recovery of this species. Although
areas of suitable habitat in the lowland
dry ecosystem are now limited, Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 provides one of
the few remaining areas that includes
several of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the plant species that depend upon this
habitat type, including appropriate
elevation, substrate, rainfall, and
associated native plant species. Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 provides
unoccupied habitat separated from
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1, Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 2, and Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 4, so that, in case of
catastrophic events such as drought and
fire, an occurrence of this species could
persist. See also responses to Comment
(88), (89), (93), and (109) for additional
details of the characteristics specific to
this unit that we have determined are
essential to the conservation of the Maui
Nui species.
(100) Comment: One commenter
stated that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
may not be suitable habitat for Melicope
adscendens. The primary reason
provided by the commenter was that
this species is ‘‘known only from mesic
forest at Auwahi (Wagner et al. 1990, p.
1,183).’’ In addition, the commenter
argued that the environment in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is far too dry in
contrast to the Auwahi exclosures,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which are situated above 3,100 ft,
receive regular fog drip, and are able to
support kikuyu, the widespread
nonnative pasture grass, as the
dominant ground cover.
Our Response: The information
provided by the commenter from
Wagner et al. (1990, p. 1,183) regarding
the geographic range of Melicope
adscendens in mesic forest on east Maui
is accurate, although Wagner et al. do
not give an elevational range for this
species. The elevation of the Auwahi
exclosures range from 3,200 to 4,400 ft
(980 to 1,340 m) in the dry and mesic
forest ecosystems on east Maui (TNC
2007; LHWRP 2010, pp. 1–4). We have
determined, based on the best available
scientific data for this species, that
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 does not
provide the physical or biological
feature of elevation that is considered
essential for the conservation of M.
adscendens, and that this unoccupied
area is not essential to the conservation
of the species. Currently, there are areas
within the required elevational range of
the species within Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 1 that provide habitat for this
species’ conservation. Therefore, based
on the best scientific data available at
this time, Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
is not designated as critical habitat for
M. adscendens in this final rule as it
does not meet the definition of critical
habitat for this species (see Summary of
Changes from Proposed Rule, below).
(101) Comment: One commenter
stated that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
may not be suitable habitat for Melicope
mucronulata. The primary reason
provided by the commenter was a
statement cited in Wagner et al. (1990,
p. 1,196) that this species was ‘‘not seen
on Maui in recent time, but previously
collected from the south slope of east
Maui mountain.’’ The commenter also
cited our June 11, 2012, proposed rule
(77 FR 34464) that this species is ‘‘not
known to be an inhabitant of the
lowland dry ecosystem.’’
Our Response: The tree species
Melicope mucronulata currently occurs
only on the island of Molokai, where a
total of four individuals are known to
occur, three in one location, and one in
another. Its current status on Maui is not
known, although on east Maui, M.
mucronulata is known historically from
one occurrence in the lowland dry
ecosystem, and from one occurrence in
the montane dry ecosystem (TNC 2007;
HBMP 2010). The recovery guidelines
for long-lived perennial plant species
such as M. mucronulata are 8 to 10
populations of 100 individuals per
population, sustained over a minimum
of 5 years and within its historical range
(Service 1997, pp. iv–v). This translates
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to a total of at least 800 to 1,000
individuals in 8 to 10 populations
across its historical range. Significant
population growth and the
reestablishment of populations in
suitable habitat across its historical
range will be required to achieve the
conservation of this species. Areas of
suitable habitat within the historical
range of M. mucronulata include the
lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 contains one or
more of the physical and biological
features of the lowland dry ecosystem
(see Comment (88), (89), (93), (109), and
Table 5). This unit is considered
particularly important for the recovery
and conservation of M. mucronulata
because the last known location of an
individual of this species was located in
or near Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3.
We therefore consider Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 essential to the
conservation of this species, as the last
known occurrence of the species there
indicates this specific area has a high
likelihood of either supporting
unknown remaining representatives of
the species, or at least the potential to
support the species in response to
recovery efforts. We are unable to find
the statement cited by the commenter
that M. mucronulata is ‘‘not known to
be an inhabitant of the lowland dry
ecosystem.’’ Our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (see 77 FR 34521) states,
‘‘The occurrence status of M.
mucronulata in the lowland dry and
montane dry ecosystems on east Maui is
unknown.’’
(102) Comment: One commenter
stated that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
may not be suitable habitat for Neraudia
sericea. The primary reason provided by
the commenter was that this species is
‘‘found above 2,200 ft in mesic to dry
forest (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 1,304).’’
The commenter also cited information
in our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77
FR 34464) that ‘‘on east Maui, (this
species) is now known only from
Kahikinui, and not observed in lowland
dry ecosystem since 1900.’’
Our Response: On east Maui,
Neraudia sericea is known historically
from the lowland dry and montane dry
ecosystem, and currently from multiple
occurrences in the montane dry
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Historical information for N. sericea
indicates it was once wide-ranging on
east Maui and well within the lowland
dry ecosystem, and at elevations as low
as 900 ft (270 m) (HBMP 2010), and also
was known from Molokai, Lanai, and
Kahoolawe (Wagner et al. 1999cc, p.
1,304). The recovery guidelines for
short-lived perennial plant species such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
as N. sericea are 8 to 10 populations of
300 individuals per population,
sustained over a minimum of 5 years
and within its historical range (Service
1999, pp. iv–v). The conservation of this
species will therefore require attaining a
total of 2,400 to 3,000 individuals in 8
to 10 self-sustaining populations across
its historical range. Currently, this
species is known from a total of five
individuals at a single location, at
Kahikinui on east Maui (HBMP 2010;
Medeiros 2010, in litt.). Significant
population growth, expansion and
reestablishment in suitable habitat
across its historical range will be
essential to the conservation of this
species. Although areas of suitable
habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem are
now limited, Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit
3 provides one of the few remaining
areas that includes several of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the plant species
that depend upon this habitat type,
including appropriate elevation,
substrate, rainfall, and associated native
plant species (see also Comment (88),
(89), (93), and (109)). Areas of suitable
habitat within the historical range of N.
sericea include the lowland dry
ecosystem on east Maui. Considering all
of this information, we have determined
that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is
within the historical range of this
species, contains one or more of the
physical and biological features of the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5),
and is essential to its conservation to
attain the recovery goals as stated above.
(103) Comment: One commenter
stated that Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
may not be suitable habitat for Solanum
incompletum. The primary reason
provided by the commenter was that
this species is ‘‘found above 2,200 ft in
mesic to dry forest (Wagner et al. 1990,
p. 1,271).’’ The commenter also cited
information in our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464) that this
species is ‘‘apparently no longer extant
on Maui.’’
Our Response: According to Symon
(in Wagner et al. 1999, p. 1,271),
Solanum incompletum occurs in dry to
mesic forest, diverse mesic forest, and
subalpine forest, from 2,000 to 6,600 ft
(600 to 2,020 m) on Kauai, Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii Island. The
broad elevational range and distribution
among islands suggests that S.
incompletum may occupy a broad range
of ecosystems. Although this species no
longer occurs on Maui, historically it
was reported from the lowland dry
ecosystem in the area of Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 on east Maui
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The recovery
guidelines for short-lived perennial
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17843
plant species such as S. incompletum
are 8 to 10 populations of 300
individuals per population, sustained
over a minimum of 5 years and within
its historical range (Service 1999, pp.
iv–v). The conservation of this species
will therefore require a total of
approximately 2,400 to 3,000
individuals in 8 to 10 self-sustaining
populations across its historical range,
which formerly included five islands.
Currently, this species is known from 3
occurrences totaling 14 individuals on
the single island of Hawaii (PEPP 2009,
p. 26). Significant population growth,
expansion, and reestablishment in
suitable habitat across its historical
range will be essential to the
conservation of this species. Areas of
suitable habitat within the historical
range of S. incompletum include the
lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is in the
area where S. incompletum was once
found on east Maui, and is essential to
the conservation of the species because
it provides one of the few remaining
areas that includes several of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the plant species
that depend upon this habitat type,
including appropriate elevation,
substrate, rainfall, and associated native
plant species (see responses to
Comment (88), (89), and (93), as well as
(109)). We therefore conclude that
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is essential
to the conservation of the species in
order to attain the recovery goals for this
species.
(104) Comment: Several commenters
noted the occurrence of the endangered
plant Canavalia pubescens (awikiwiki)
on lands owned by Honuaula Partners
and the threat of development posed by
the proposed Honuaula (also known as
Wailea 670) development within
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. The
commenters supported Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 as proposed, and likewise
did not support the developer’s
proposal to set aside an area less than
the maximum acreage specified by
County zoning conditions. One
commenter recommended extending the
northern boundary of the unit to include
the historic rock wall ‘‘that demarcates
the remnant dry forest habitat from the
deep soil habitat which is devoid of
native plant species.’’ The commenters
also did not support the conservation
measures included in the developer’s
draft State and Federal habitat
conservation plan (HCP).
Our Response: We are aware that
Canavalia pubescens occurs on lands
owned by Honuaula Partners and
appreciate the commenters’ support for
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. We note
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17844
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the suggestion to extend the northern
boundary of the unit but were provided
no supporting information to justify this
change in the unit boundary. Honuaula
Partners, LLC, has been working with
the State Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DLNR) and the
Service to develop a State and Federal
HCP that addresses impacts to the
endangered Blackburn’s sphinx moth,
the endangered plant C. pubescens, and
other listed plant species and their
habitat. A draft of this plan has been
released for public comment by the
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources. The HCP applicant is
revising the draft HCP and we anticipate
a request for public comments based on
the updated draft. As this HCP is being
considered in a separate regulatory
process that is not yet completed, it is
inappropriate for us to respond to the
statements regarding the land acreage
set aside and County zoning conditions,
and the conservation measures included
in the draft HCP in this rule.
(105) Comment: One commenter
stated that all remaining habitat for
Canavalia pubescens is essential to its
conservation, and exclusion of habitat
in the Wailea 670 (Honuaula Partners,
LLC) development would very likely
contribute to the extinction of the
species.
Our Response: We carefully reviewed
the areas proposed as critical habitat
and the recovery needs of Canavalia
pubescens in the lowland dry and
coastal ecosystems on the islands of
Maui and Lanai, respectively (77 FR
34464). In this final rule, for the reasons
described above (see our response to
Comment (44), (74), (88), (89), (93), and
(109)), critical habitat is designated for
C. pubescens and 18 other plants in four
lowland dry critical habitat units
(Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1 through
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4). Proposed
critical habitat on Lanai is excluded
from final designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors, below).
(106) Comment: One commenter
requested that the land owned by
Honuaula Partners, LLC, in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 be excluded from
critical habitat designation pursuant to
the criteria under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and on the basis of the draft habitat
conservation plan under development.
The commenter also added that
Honuaula Partners, LLC, wishes to use
its lands in a way that would actively
help conserve and assist in the recovery
of endangered and threatened species,
and added that Honuaula Partners, LLC,
looks forward to partnering with the
Service and Hawaii DLNR to create
mitigation measures that will benefit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
many other species as well. The
commenter stated that designation of
critical habitat on land owned by
Honuaula Partners, LLC, will constrain
their ability to develop their property to
generate income to support conservation
actions, and be less beneficial to the
species.
Our Response: The draft Federal HCP
is being developed and is under
revision. Therefore, at this time, we are
not excluding lands owned by Honuaula
Partners, LLC in Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
See also our responses to Comment
(105) and (107).
(107) Comment: One commenter
stated that the Honuaula project will
provide significant economic benefits to
Maui and the Kihei-Makena region over
the coming 2 decades.
Our Response: The Service does not
anticipate loss of economic benefits of
this project to Maui. The Honuaula
project, a master planned community
with residential, commercial, and
recreational uses, has been in
development for many years, and the
developer, Honuaula Partners, LLC, has
been working with the Service to
develop an HCP as part of its
application for an incidental take
permit. The draft HCP considers the
impacts of the project on Blackburn’s
sphinx moth and the nene (Hawaiian
goose, Branta sandvicensis), as well as
the Maui Nui species. The draft HCP
includes a variety of conservation
measures, including a 40-acre on-site
conservation easement and 354 acres of
off-site conservation easements. In
response to the proposed critical habitat
rule for the Maui Nui species, the
Service made some additional
conservation recommendations to
Honuaula Partners. In response to these
recommendations, Honuaula Partners
elected to provide $125,000 to
contribute to a fencing project in
lowland dry habitat, perform fence
maintenance, and to include an
additional nine plant species in their
outplanting efforts. Because these
measures were not planned prior to the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Maui Nui species, our FEA
considers this cost to be an incremental
impact of the designation (IEc 2015, p.
3–16–3–17). There may additional
administrative costs associated with
section 7 consultation as well, estimated
at $4,000 (these costs, however, would
be borne primarily if not entirely by the
Service). Finally, there are unquantified
impacts associated with project delays
to allow for revision of the draft HCP,
and there may be some additional costs
associated with any additional measures
that may be recommended by the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Service to avoid adverse effects to
critical habitat. Such costs are, however,
only potential and uncertain at this time
(IEc 2015, p. 3–17). The roughly
$130,000 cost of additional conservation
measures and administrative effort is a
low end estimate of the incremental
impacts of critical habitat designation
on this project. However, it is important
to note that the purpose of these
conservation recommendations is to
allow the Honuaula project to move
forward; there is no information to
suggest that the anticipated economic
benefits to this area will not be realized.
See also our response to Comment (106).
(108) Comment: One commenter
stated that the Makena Property in
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is not
occupied by any of the current or
proposed endangered species and,
unless the Service determines that the
area is necessary for the conservation of
the species, is not necessary for the
conservation of any of the listed species
(50 CFR 424.02(d)(2)).
Our Response: See our responses to
Comment (44), (74), (88), (89), (93), (95)
through (99), (101) through (103), and
(109). For the reasons described in this
rule, we have determined that the area
within Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is
occupied by Canavalia pubescens and
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
this and 16 other species, and these
features require special management
considerations or protections. We have
also determined that the unit is essential
for the recovery and conservation of 16
listed lowland dry plant species as
unoccupied habitat. Please see the
Methods section of this document for a
detailed discussion of how we
determined that the area currently
occupied by each of these species is
inadequate to provide for their
conservation, and that unoccupied
habitat is essential for the conservation
of the Maui Nui plant species. In
addition, our responses to the comments
referenced above underscore the habitat
characteristics specific to Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 that makes this
particular unit essential to the
conservation of all of these 17 plant
species.
(109) Comment: One commenter
stated the Makena Property in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 is not a suitable
environment for many of the listed
species, and that the June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464) ignores the
impact on this property from drought,
invasive plants, deer, stock grazing,
insect predators, agriculture, and
miscellaneous land disturbances.
Our Response: See our responses to
Comment (44), (74) (88), (89), (93), (95)
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
through (99), and (101) through 103).
Although Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3
is within an area affected by invasive
plants and other disturbances, this unit
has the capability to be functionally
restored to support the physical and
biological features and provide essential
habitat for the 17 species for which it is
designated critical habitat. Due to its
relative accessibility, the lowland dry
ecosystem is one of the most negatively
affected native habitats on the island of
Maui, experiencing current and ongoing
threats of development and
urbanization, introduced ungulates,
nonnative plants, fire, and hurricanes.
As a result, there are no areas of
lowland dry habitat that remain in
pristine condition or are unaffected to
some degree by these various
deleterious agents. For this reason, an
area such as Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit
3 that still maintains relatively high
potential for restoration is particularly
valuable for the recovery of the Maui
Nui species that depend on this habitat,
and is therefore considered essential to
their conservation. See also the Methods
section regarding ‘‘Unoccupied Areas’’
for additional details on the essential
nature of unoccupied areas with the
inherent potential for restoration to
support reintroduced populations.
(110) Comment: One commenter
stated that the cost of reintroduction
would be tremendous because the
Makena Property in Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 is not occupied by any of
the current or proposed endangered
species.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
the Makena Property is not currently
known to be occupied by any of the 17
species for which Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 is designated as critical
habitat; however, other areas of the unit
are occupied by Canavalia pubescens
with some individuals within 220 ft (68
m) of the Makena Property boundary. In
addition, due to the small population
sizes, few numbers of individuals, and
reduced geographic range of each of the
17 species for which critical habitat is
here designated, we have determined
that a designation limited to the known
present range of each species would be
inadequate to achieve the conservation
of those species. For the reasons
described above, and reiterated in our
response to Comment (109), all of
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3, whether
occupied or unoccupied, is considered
essential to the conservation of the 17
species for which it is designated. The
areas believed to be unoccupied, and
that may have been unoccupied at the
time of listing, which includes the
Makena Property, have been determined
to be essential for the conservation of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
the species because they provide the
physical or biological features necessary
for the expansion of existing wild
populations and reestablishment of wild
populations within the historical range
of the species (see Comment (44), (74)
(88), (89), (93), (95) through (99), (101)
through 103) and (109)). We recognize
that species recovery actions will
require substantial resources. However,
critical habitat designation does not
obligate the land owner to undertake
any conservation measures.
(111) Comment: One commenter
stated that the proposed rule fails to
acknowledge that the boundaries of the
proposed unit Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3 includes their property.
Our Response: Our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule does not identify
landownership for individual parcels,
nor is it possible to do so given the
constraints on resolution for maps
published in the Federal Register.
However, we endeavored to reach all
landowners whose property was within
proposed critical habitat by letter
following publication of the June 11,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and
following publication of our January 31,
2013, document reopening the comment
period on the proposed rule (78 FR
6785) (see our response to Comment
(45), above).
(112) Comment: Some commenters
questioned the criteria used to
determine the proposed unit boundaries
for Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3. The
commenters stated that the ‘‘boundary
lines do not correspond to existing
property boundaries, geological features,
soil types or vegetation,’’ and, therefore,
the commenters suggested that the
‘‘process was broad brush and driven, at
least partly, by considerations other
than those mandated by law’’ and that
the designation is likely to be
considered arbitrary and capricious.
Our Response: As required by section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best
scientific data available in determining
those areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Maui Nui species,
by identifying the occurrence data for
each species and determining the
primary constituent elements based on
the ecosystems upon which they
depend, as well as other relevant
factors. The information we used is
described in our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule and in this final rule (see
Methods). The criteria used to identify
critical habitat boundaries, including
the boundaries for Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3, are described in our
proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11,
2012) and in this final rule (see below,
Criteria Used to Identify Critical
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17845
Habitat). Boundaries for this unit in
particular were determined using
current and historical species locations
and the presence of the physical and
biological features based on rainfall
data, soil type data and observations
from on-site surveys including locations
and distribution of the endangered
Canavalia pubescens, along with the
distribution other native lowland dry
plant species. As defined in section
(3)(5)(C) of the Act, critical habitat shall
not include the entire geographical area
which can be occupied by the
threatened or endangered species.
(113) Comment: One commenter
stated that the proposed rule fails to
adequately explain the portion of the
6,537 ac (2,645 ha) owned by
Ulupalakua Ranch under consideration
for exclusion from critical habitat
designation in Maui—Lowland Dry—
Unit 3.
Our Response: Our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464) identified
some of the specific landowners under
consideration for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In that
proposed rule, we indicated that we
were considering excluding 6,537 ac
(2,645 ha) of land owned by Ulupalakua
Ranch under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
and we presented a discussion of our
rationale in Conservation Partnerships
on Non-Federal Lands. In addition,
Figure 5—Ulupalakua Ranch (see 77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012) presented the
specific area owned by Ulupalakua
Ranch under consideration for
exclusion. In this final rule, we have
excluded 6,537 ac (2,645 ha) of land on
Ulupalakua Ranch from critical habitat
(see below, Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors, and Figure 5—
Ulupalakua Ranch, in the document
‘‘Supplementary Information for the
Designation and Nondesignation of
Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species,’’
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2015–0071).
Public Comments Specific to the Island
of Lanai
(114) Comment: One commenter
expressed opposition to the designation
of critical habitat on private lands on
Lanai because the commenter believes
the designation will negatively impact
the rights of private landowners, will
serve as a disincentive for landowners
to participate in voluntary conservation
efforts, and will have negative
consequences for Castle and Cooke
Resorts, LLC, who had committed
substantial resources and efforts
towards implementing a 2002
memorandum of agreement with the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17846
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Service. This commenter stated that the
designation of additional critical habitat
is unnecessary in light of the already
ongoing conservation management
activities benefiting endangered species
on the island and will result in little if
any additional benefit to the species,
and that any limited regulatory,
educational, or recovery benefits that
might arise from the designation are
greatly outweighed by the benefits of
encouraging and acknowledging
voluntary conservation efforts by other
private landowners.
Our Response: The Service recognizes
the importance of landowner
cooperation for recovery of listed
species. This is especially true for the
island of Lanai, which is almost entirely
under private ownership by two entities
(Castle and Cooke Properties, Inc., and
Lanai Resorts, LLC, now known as
Pulama Lanai). Conservation of rare
species on Lanai requires control of
threats from alien plant and animal
species, fire, and proactive propagation
and translocation of species into their
historical range where they no longer
occur. Castle and Cooke Properties, Inc.,
and Pulama Lanai cooperate with the
Service, the State of Hawaii, and other
organizations to implement voluntary
conservation activities on their lands
that result in conservation benefits to
the species and their habitat. We agree
with the commenter that listed species
can realize significant benefits as a
result of conservation partnerships with
private landowners; because the
majority of endangered or threatened
species are found on private lands, the
Secretary places great value on such
partnerships. For the reasons described
below (see ‘‘Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors’’), the Secretary has
determined that the benefit of excluding
the areas proposed for critical habitat on
Lanai outweighs the benefits of
including them in the designation;
therefore we have excluded all lands on
Lanai from critical habitat in this final
rule under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(115) Comment: One commenter
opposed the overlap of proposed critical
habitat on Lanai with water utility
infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, tanks,
reservoirs, etc.), communications
infrastructure (i.e., antennae, roadways,
etc.), existing electric utility
infrastructure owned by Maui Electric
Company, Ltd. (MECO), family housing,
parks, golf courses, the Lanai Cemetery,
and the Lanai Pine Sporting Clays and
Archery Range (Sporting Clay Range),
located along Keomuku Road. The
commenter stated that these areas do
not contain the PCEs and should not be
included in the critical habitat
designation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Our Response: The commenter is
correct that structures and urbanized
landscape areas such as those
mentioned above are considered
manmade features and therefore would
not be considered critical habitat
pursuant to this final rule, because these
features and structures normally do not
contain, and are not likely to develop,
any primary constituent elements and
do not meet the definition of critical
habitat. Thus, unless the operation and
maintenance of such facilities would
indirectly affect critical habitat, the
facilities would not be affected by
section 7 of the Act. Furthermore,
operation and maintenance of existing
manmade features and structures
adjacent to and within critical habitat
are not subject to section 7 consultation,
unless they involve Federal funding or
permitting and they affect the critical
habitat or the species. We removed the
area containing the existing water utility
infrastructure owned by MECO for the
reasons described above (see response to
Comment (40)), because these lands are
modified by the infrastructure and do
not contain the physical or biological
features required by the species, are not
likely to develop the primary
constituent elements, and are not
otherwise essential to the conservation
of these species.
(116) Comment: One commenter
objected to the overlap of proposed
Lanai—Dry Cliff—Unit 1 with the
Experience Golf Course at Koele.
Our Response: The commenter is
correct that structures and urbanized
landscape areas such as golf courses are
considered manmade features and
therefore are not considered critical
habitat pursuant to this final rule,
because these features do not meet the
definition of critical habitat.
(117) Comment: The proposed
Lanai—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1
includes a portion of the planned Lanai
wind farm to be located on
approximately 7,000 acres in the
northwest portion of the island of Lanai.
Meetings or coordination with several
local, State, and Federal agencies have
been conducted to identify the potential
permits or authorizations that may be
required for various parts of the
proposed project. These Federal permits
and any Federal funds used as part of
the Lanai wind project will trigger a
burdensome and costly obligation for
consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The wind project is not presently
subject to this consultation obligation,
and current project budgets do not
anticipate this additional expense, nor
should the project have to incur this
expense.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Our Response: For the reasons
described below (see ‘‘Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors’’), critical
habitat is not designated on the island
of Lanai in this final rule, as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we
wish to point out that exclusion from
critical habitat does not relieve the
planned Lanai wind farm from required
Federal permits and consultations with
the Service, due to the impacts of the
construction, running, and maintenance
of the wind farm on Federal and State
listed species present in the project area
(for example, there are listed seabirds
present, in addition to the relevant Maui
Nui species addressed in this final rule).
The protections of section 9 of the Act
still apply, and consultation is still
required under section 7 if listed species
may be affected; exclusion from critical
habitat removes only the requirement to
consult with the Service on effects to
critical habitat. Therefore, it is incorrect
to state that the wind farm project ‘‘is
not presently subject to this
consultation obligation.’’
(118) Comment: One commenter
noted the discussion in our proposed
rule at 77 FR 34496 (June 11, 2012)
regarding the potential effects of
changes in environmental conditions
that may result from global climate
change on the 38 species proposed for
listing and the Maui Nui ecosystems.
This commenter noted our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii), which state
that critical habitat designation is not
prudent if such designation ‘‘would not
be beneficial to the species.’’ According
to the commenter, designation of critical
habitat on Lanai will adversely affect
the development of the proposed wind
farm, a renewable energy project
intended to have a positive impact on
climate change. Therefore, the benefits
to these species will be lost, and critical
habitat designation is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of the Service’s
discretion, and not in accordance with
law.
Our Response: We share the
commenter’s concern for minimizing
and ameliorating climate change and its
effects upon Hawaii’s endangered and
threatened plants and animals. In our
proposed rule, in the absence of finding
that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical
habitat designation, then a prudent
finding is warranted (see Prudency
Determination for 44 Maui Nui Species,
at 77 FR 34511; June 11, 2012). The
potential benefits to the 44 species
include: (1) Triggering consultation
under section 7 of the Act for actions in
which it would not otherwise occur; (2)
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
focusing conservation activities on the
most essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State
or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
While the commenter states that ‘‘the
benefits to these species will be lost’’
from positive impacts to climate change
due to critical habitat designation on
Lanai, for the reasons given at 77 FR
34512 (June 11, 2012), we found
designation of critical habitat to be
prudent for these 44 species. Prudency
determinations for the other 91 species
were made in previous rulemakings (see
above, Previous Federal Actions). In
addition, for the reasons described
below (see Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not
designated on the island of Lanai in this
final rule, as a consequence of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
(119) Comment: One commenter
stated that the areas where the proposed
critical habitat designation overlaps the
proposed Lanai wind farm are devoid of
the plant species for which the
designation is proposed. The
commenter also stated that extensive
erosion is not identified in the proposed
rule and that the cost of any habitat
restoration in these extremely eroded
areas would be prohibitive.
Our Response: The commenter is
referring to proposed Lanai—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1, a proposed critical
habitat unit totaling 11,172 ac (4,521 ha)
that overlaps the jeep road area, east of
and including the ‘‘Garden of the Gods’’
area. The jeep road would be used to
access the wind tower project area.
Based on our understanding of existing
wind projects in Hawaii and elsewhere,
the actual footprint of wind tower
facilities is quite small, and on Lanai it
is anticipated that the existing jeep road
will be used for access to the wind
tower project. Lanai—Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1 was proposed as critical habitat
for a total of 13 plant species, and is
occupied by 5 species and unoccupied
by 8 species. This critical habitat unit
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and requires special
management considerations or
protections (e.g., feral ungulate control)
(occupied habitat) or habitat that is
essential to the conservation and
recovery of the species (unoccupied
habitat). Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for the recovery of the species. There are
seven fenced units (TNC’s Kanepuu
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
units) spaced along approximately 4.5
miles (7 km) of the summit ridge. To
protect these fenced units, provide
enough landscape-scale ecosystem
habitat for recovery of the 13 lowland
mesic species, and to prevent ‘‘edge
effects,’’ Lanai—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1
was delineated in the proposed rule to
provide an essential area of habitat up
to 1,000 ft (400 m) from the current
fencelines. Removal of ungulates (axis
deer and mouflon) from within this unit
would allow regrowth of vegetation and
prevent the ultimate progression of
erosion into the fenced units (Laurance
et al. 2002 in Miller 2009, in litt.). This
is an effective and relatively
inexpensive approach to begin
restoration efforts in this area, and has
been demonstrated in other restoration
areas on east Maui at Auwahi and Nuu
Mauka, and on the island of Kahoolawe,
especially if ungulates are controlled
and the seed bank is established through
seed-scattering (Medeiros 1999, 14 pp.).
In any case, for the reasons described
below (see Exclusions Based on Other
Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not
designated on the island of Lanai in this
final rule, as a consequence of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
(120) Comment: One commenter
stated that the proposed rule applies
broad-brush designations on Lanai that
cover vast territory with entirely
disparate ecosystems, elevations, and
terrain such that designation is without
an adequate scientific basis. According
to this commenter, the Service did not
establish any rational basis for
concluding that each designated
ecosystem unit has all of the necessary
primary constituent elements (PCEs).
Throughout the proposed rule,
boundaries for units are drawn without
regard for the actual unit definitions and
PCEs, including vastly disparate terrain
and ecological conditions. Indeed, areas
described in the proposed rule as having
certain topography, rainfall, and other
‘‘essential’’ elements do not have those
conditions at all. Often, even correct
descriptions are so generalized as to be
almost meaningless in the context of
assessing whether areas are critical for
survival of a species. The result of
drawing boundaries without particular
regard to the unit definition compels the
conclusion that either the PCEs are, in
fact, unimportant or the environment is
not critical for specific species recovery.
Our Response: When determining
critical habitat we used the best
available scientific information,
including TNC’s High Island Ecoregion
Plan, along with the accompanying GIS
ecosystem data. When we found
inconsistencies with regard to data from
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17847
more recent botanical surveys,
geological and vegetation databases, and
other resources, we conducted an
analysis to determine which ecosystem
characteristics best represented the area
and the species’ needs at a large
landscape scale. However, for the
reasons described below (see Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors),
critical habitat is not designated on the
island of Lanai in this final rule, as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(121) Comment: One commenter
disputed our characterizations of
ecosystem type and definitions of PCEs
within several proposed critical habitat
units on Lanai including Lanai—Coastal
Unit—1, Lanai—Coastal—Unit 2,
Lanai—Coastal Unit—3, Lanai—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1, Lanai—Lowland
Dry—Unit 2, Lanai—Lowland Mesic—1,
and Lanai—Dry Cliff—1. The
commenter stated that characterizations
of ecosystem type and the described
PCEs for these units were either
incorrect or contradictory or both.
Our Response: We disagree. We
consider the PCEs as described for each
unit and for each species to be the
specific compositional elements of
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of those
species. Our proposed rule (77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012) identified the
PCEs that support the life-history
processes for each species within the
ecosystems in which they occur, and
reflects a distribution that we believe
achieves the species’ recovery needs.
The described ecosystems’ features
include the appropriate microclimatic
conditions for germination and growth
of the plants (e.g., light availability, soil
nutrients, hydrologic regime, and
temperature, and space within the
appropriate habitats for population
growth and expansion). The PCEs are
defined by elevation, annual levels of
precipitation, locally influenced fogdrip, substrate type and slope, and the
characteristic native plant genera in the
canopy, subcanopy, or understory levels
of the vegetative community. The
physical or biological features for each
of the described ecosystems were
presented in Table 5 of our proposed
rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and
were derived from several sources,
including:
(a) The Nature Conservancy’s
Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian
High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps
(2007);
(b) Natural Resources Conservation
Service’s soil type analysis data layer for
GIS mapping;
(c) Ecosystem community analyses by
Gagne and Cuddihy (1999, pp. 45–114);
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17848
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Geographic information system
maps of habitat essential to the recovery
of Hawaiian plants (Hawaii and Pacific
Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee
1998);
(e) GAP (geographic analysis program)
vegetation data (GAP 2005);
(f) Projections of geographic ranges of
plant species in the Hawaiian Islands,
including climate data, substrate data,
topography, soils, and disturbance,
Price et al. 2012 (34 pp. + appendices);
(g) Final critical habitat designations
for the island of Lanai (68 FR 1220;
January 9, 2003); and
(h) Recent biological surveys, site
visits, and scientific reports regarding
species and their habitats.
(122) Comment: One commenter
stated that the area of proposed critical
habitat for the Lanai tree snails
(Partulina semicarinata and P.
variabilis) was excessive and too
extensive based upon the known
biology of these species and was
therefore unlawful.
Our Response: We disagree. The
extent and range of habitat required by
these species (lowland wet, montane
wet, wet cliff) is well-documented. Both
species were once widely distributed on
Lanai. Historically, Partulina
semicarinata was found in wet and
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forests
on Lanai. 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 this species in
the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems in central Lanai
(Hadfield 2005, pp. 3–5; TNC 2007).
Partulina variabilis was found
historically in wet and mesic
Metrosideros polymorpha forests on
Lanai. 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 this species in
the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems in central Lanai
(Hadfield 2005, pp. 3–5; TNC 2007).
For each tree snail, Partulina
semicarinata and P. variabilis, we
proposed critical habitat in the habitat
types and in the amount and
distribution we concluded is essential to
the conservation of these species. Under
the Act’s sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) and
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14, we are
to designate critical habitat on the basis
of the best scientific data available. The
best scientific data available include the
surveys conducted over the past 20
years and unpublished reports cited
above, which indicated that the areas
proposed as critical habitat for the Lanai
tree snails are essential for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
conservation of the species. Regardless,
for the reasons described below (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors), we have excluded all lands on
Lanai under section 4(b)(2), including
the lands that we proposed for critical
habitat for these two tree snails, from
critical habitat designation in this final
rule. We again note that exclusion from
critical habitat does not indicate that
these areas are not essential for the
conservation of the species, only that
the Secretary has determined that the
benefits of excluding these areas
outweigh the benefits of including them
in critical habitat (and that the
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species).
(123) According to one commenter,
the proposed rule violates the Act,
Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5
U.S.C. Subchapter II), various Executive
Orders, and the 2002 memorandum of
agreement between the Service and
Castle and Cooke Resorts.
Our Response: We disagree. Section
4(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides the
Secretary with the responsibility to
designate critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the
Secretary (acting through the Service) to
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available and
after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant
impact of the designation. The
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
governs the process by which Federal
agencies develop and issue regulations.
It requires the Federal agency to publish
notices of proposed and final
rulemaking in the Federal Register, and
to provide opportunities for public
comment. In our June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and in this
final rule we used the best scientific
data available (see Methods, below).
Following publication of our proposed
rule, we had 135 days of public
comment and held a public information
meeting and public hearing. We
determined that the proposed rule
would have no impact on national
security, but as a result of considering
other relevant impacts, we evaluated
and determined that the benefits of
excluding several areas from
designation outweighed the benefits of
inclusion, and will not lead to the
extinction of the species. The 2002
MOA referenced by the commenter has
been replaced by the 2015
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
As a result of the conservation benefits
provided by this 2015 MOU, in part, in
this final rule, all areas proposed as
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical habitat on Lanai are excluded
from designation (see below, Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors).
(124) Comment: One commenter
stated that the proposed rule failed to
provide sufficiently detailed narrative
descriptions of the proposed units on
Lanai to allow fair comment.
Additionally, the commenter stated that
the proposed rule contained only
generalized maps to indicate the areas
proposed for designation, and this
failure to provide sufficient maps and
information to allow fully informed
public review and comment was not in
accordance with law.
Our Response: A description of each
critical habitat unit is found in
Descriptions of Proposed Critical
Habitat Units in the June 11, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 34464). In the
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
section of our proposed rule, we used a
placeholder, ‘‘[Reserved for textual
description of . . . ],’’ to refer to the
UTMs (mapping vertices) for unit
delineation using GIS, which, until
recently, were identified and published
in the Federal Register in final
rulemakings. However, on May 1, 2012,
the Service published a final rule (77 FR
25611) revising the regulations for
requirements to publish textual
descriptions of final critical habitat
boundaries in the Federal Register. As
of May 31, 2012 (the effective date of
that final rule), the Service no longer
publishes the coordinates for critical
habitat boundaries in the Federal
Register. The coordinates on which
each map is based are available to the
public at the Federal eRulemaking
portal (https://www.regulations.gov)
using the docket number for the
rulemaking (in this case, FWS–R1–ES–
2015–0071), and at the Web site of the
field office responsible for the final
critical habitat for 125 Maui Nui species
(https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands).
The maps provided in the proposed rule
identify the areas proposed for critical
habitat designation. We believe these
maps are adequate for regulatory
purposes. The proposed rule also directs
reviewers to contact the Service for
further clarification on any part of the
proposed rule, and provides contact
information (77 FR 34464; June 11,
2012). Although we did not include
parcel-specific maps in our proposed
rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), we
did provide maps of this specificity to
every landowner who contacted us and
requested them following publication of
the proposed rule.
(125) Comment: The Service did not
respond to the Castle and Cooke Resorts,
LLC, Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request in a timely manner to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
allow meaningful comment on the
proposed rule.
Our Response: The rule proposing
listing 38 species and critical habitat for
135 species on Maui Nui was published
June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), with an
initial 60-day public comment period
that ran through August 10, 2012. We
received a FOIA request dated July 9,
2012, from Castle and Cooke Resorts,
LLC, on July 10, 2012. The letter
requested the Service to withdraw the
proposed designation of critical habitat
on the island of Lanai and the proposed
listing, as endangered, of species for
which critical habitat is proposed on
Lanai, or as an alternative, extend the
comment period to February 2013, for
the proposed designation. On August 9,
2012 (77 FR 47587), we extended the
comment period for an additional 30
days, through September 10, 2012, for a
total initial comment period 90 days in
length. We also notified the commenter
that we would again be reopening the
comment period for the forthcoming
draft economic analysis, which would
provide the opportunity for further
comments. On January 31, 2013 (78 FR
6785), we announced the reopening of
the comment period for the proposed
rule and the draft economic analysis for
an additional 30 days, through March 4,
2013. We also announced a public
information meeting and public hearing
to be held on Maui on February 21,
2013. On June 10, 2015 (80 FR 32922),
we reopened the comment period for
another 15 days. We believe the
commenter had sufficient time to
prepare comments on the proposed rule
during these open comment periods,
which totaled 135 days in length and
extended over more than 3 years.
(126) Comment: The proposed rule
states that ‘‘The Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs [(OIRA)] has
determined that this rule is not
significant’’ (77 FR 34586). However,
this is contradicted by overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. The proposed
rule encompasses areas slated for
development, including a proposed
wind farm on Lanai that will be the
largest in the State. The investment in
the project, including its undersea cable,
is estimated to total over $1 billion. The
critical habitat designation may
seriously impede the wind farm’s
construction or operation. Adverse
impacts on the project from the critical
habitat designation could jeopardize or
greatly impede the project, resulting in
an enormous economic effect. Executive
Order 12866 requires agencies to
consider not only the dollar figure
associated with the proposed rule’s
impact, but also the effect on State and
local communities. The proposed rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
would negatively impact the State’s
policies, laws, goals, and commitments
to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
Similarly, delays or other negative
impacts on the proposed wind farm
could affect the jobs that the project
would create, as well as substantial tax
revenues and community benefits
related to the development and
operation of the wind farm. If the wind
farm is not constructed, the State’s
heavy reliance on fossil fuels will
continue, contributing to global
warming, which will have a deleterious
effect on the plant and snail species for
which the designation is made. Given
the potential effects, economic and
otherwise, the proposed rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
should be treated as such.
Our Response: Executive Order 12866
provides that the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will
review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
determined that our proposed rule
published on June 11, 2012 (77 FR
34464) is not a significant rule. As
defined by Executive Order 12866, a
rule is determined to be significant if it
may:
• Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive order.
Like the proposed rule, this final rule
does not meet any of these criteria, and
OIRA does not consider it to be a
significant regulatory action.
(127) Comment: One commenter
disagreed that the proposed rule does
not ‘‘significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use’’ because proposed
critical habitat includes areas that are
part of the planned Lanai wind farm,
which will be ‘‘an enormous step
towards reducing Hawaii’s dependence
on fossil fuels.’’ According to this
commenter, the process required by the
Federal agencies to receive a ‘‘special
exemption’’ under 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)
to authorize, fund, or carry out any
action likely to result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17849
will present enormous barriers to
Hawaii’s transition to sustainable
energy. Finally, the commenter stated
that the Service must prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects that
addresses the planned Lanai wind farm.
Our Response: According to
information in our files, the proposed
critical habitat overlaps with an existing
agricultural road that will be upgraded
to provide access to lands identified for
a planned Lanai wind farm. The
commenter assumes that upgrading the
agricultural road will result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, and would prohibit
Federal agencies from authorizing or
funding the project. As stated elsewhere
in this final rule, manmade features,
including roads, are not considered
critical habitat pursuant to this rule,
because these features and structures
normally do not contain, and are not
likely to develop, any primary
constituent elements and do not meet
the definition of critical habitat.
Moreover, the Service excluded this
critical habitat unit from the final
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act for the reasons described below. We
note, however, that consultation on any
Federal permits needed may be required
due to potential effects on listed species.
If no Federal agency is involved with
the project, but the project may take
federally listed species, the applicant
should apply for an incidental take
permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act.
We do not need to submit a summary
of the potential effects of this
designation on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy (Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use—Executive Order
13211), because our regulatory action
would not result in a ‘‘significant
adverse effect’’ as defined by Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Memoranda 01–27 (Guidance for
Implementing E.O. 13211) (July 13,
2001).
Public Comments on the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) Between Lanai
Resorts, LLC, (Doing Business as Pulama
Lanai), Castle & Cooke Properties, Inc.
(CCPI), and the Service
(128) Comment: Two commenters
stated that, through the MOU, the
landowner acknowledges the
importance of commitment to habitat
management and that the interests of
preservation and conservation are often
better served through mutual
agreements between landowners and the
Service.
Our response: We agree. Continued
support of management actions for
Lanai’s natural resources is important to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17850
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the landowner and to the threatened
and endangered species known from
Lanai.
(129) Comment: Five commenters
oppose the MOU between the Service,
Pulama Lanai, and CCPI, and the
exclusion of critical habitat on Lanai.
Three of these commenters believe that
the Service would allow the landowner
‘‘free rein’’ over Lanai’s environment,
removing all regulatory controls and all
private responsibilities of land
stewardship. Two of these commenters
believe the MOU would be used for
personal gain by the landowner and the
Service. One commenter states that the
MOU will not contribute to the longterm conservation of the Maui Nui
species.
Our response: The MOU promotes
cooperative conservation efforts that
benefit the covered species, including
preparation and implementation of the
Lanai Natural Resources Plan (LNRP).
Any funding for conservation measures
and implementation will be used for
such, and certainly not for personal
gain. The MOU does not limit or
diminish the legal obligations and
responsibilities to engage in
consultation as required under section 7
of the Act for listed species occurring on
Lanai. The MOU does not place the
Service in a position to advocate for
activities counter to its mission. We
believe that there is a higher likelihood
of beneficial conservation activities
occurring on Lanai with the MOU
between Pulama Lanai, CCPI, and the
Service. Designation of critical habitat
ensures that, if there is a Federal nexus,
the Federal action agency must consult
with the Service on actions that may
affect the critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat. However, designation of
critical habitat does not result in
preparation of land management plans
by a landowner or require a landowner
to manage land areas, or to undertake
specific steps toward recovery of a
species. The Service therefore believes
that the value of the MOU lessens the
benefits of possible section 7
consultations related to critical habitat,
allows for a positive working
relationship between all parties
involved, and will result in long-term
benefits for species and their habitats.
Our rationale for concluding that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including this area as critical
habitat is discussed in detail in the
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors section, below.
(130) Comment: One commenter
stated that the MOU does not provide
enough specific information regarding
conservation measures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Our response: The MOU is not a
management plan, it is a document that
initiates the cooperative conservation
efforts between the Service and the
Pulama Lanai. As outlined in the MOU,
the Service will provide technical
assistance to Pulama Lanai in the
development and implementation of the
LNRP.
(131) Comment: Eight commenters
stated that preparation and
implementation of the MOU and the
LNRP lacks community input and
approvals.
Our response: The Lanai MOU is an
agreement specifically between the
landowner and the Service. The Service
published a notice in the Federal
Register on June 10, 2015(80 FR 32922),
reopening the comment period on the
proposed rule from that day through
June 25, 2015, to allow the public the
opportunity to provide further input on
the proposed exclusions and the
conservation benefits provided by
continued landowner partnerships for
Maui Nui. We have incorporated our
responses to those comments in this
final rule. The LNRP is currently being
developed by Pulama Lanai with
technical assistance from the Service.
(132) Comment: Three commenters
state that Pulama Lanai has attempted to
disband the Lanai Water Advisory
Committee and the Lanai Forest and
Watershed Partnership, and based on
this action, the Service should not
establish a partnership with Pulama
Lanai.
Our response: Participation in Hawaii
Watershed Partnerships are voluntary
and are only one of many ways in which
the Service may engage and cooperate
with a private landowner on
conservation actions. The Act allows the
Secretary of the Interior to exclude areas
when the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion, unless the
Secretary determines that such
exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The
Service, Pulama Lanai, and CCPI, have
worked in partnership to execute an
MOU that is intended to benefit the
covered species on the island of Lanai.
For reasons described below (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors), no critical habitat is designated
on the island of Lanai in this final rule
as a consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(133) Comment: Six commenters
oppose the development of a wind
power facility on Lanai and believe the
MOU between Pulama Lanai, CCPI, and
the Service facilitates such
development.
Our response: The Lanai MOU and
exclusion from critical habitat does not
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
preclude the need for CCPI to avoid the
incidental take of listed species and it
is our expectation that CCPI will consult
with the Service and DOFAW regarding
the impacts of wind development to
such species. This activity would likely
require the development of a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) that
appropriately avoids, minimizes, and
mitigates potential project impacts on
listed species. If so, the Service would
evaluate impact of issuing an Incidental
Take Permit for the HCP under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and conduct a section 7
consultation. While we believe that
Pulama Lanai’s voluntary participation
in conducting conservation measures
lessens the conservation benefits of
critical habitat, making exclusion from
this designation warranted, nothing in
the MOU supersedes the requirements
of the Act.
(134) Comment: Five commenters
stated that an annual commitment of
$210,000 annually, as included in the
MOU, is not enough funding to support
management actions.
Our response: An MOU does not
obligate a landowner to any set amount
of funding for conservation actions in
covered areas. Landowner participation
in an MOU is voluntary. An MOU sets
goals for conservation measures,
including preparation and
implementation of management plans.
Within the Lanai MOU, the landowner
has committed to contribute a minimum
of $210,000 annually for
implementation of activities described
in the MOU and the LNRP, based on
priorities identified in the LNRP. LNRP
funds shall not be inclusive of costs of
mitigation actions for management
activities in No Development Areas (as
outlined in Exhibit H of the MOU).
(135) Comment: Four commenters
stated that oversight of implementation
of the MOU and the LNRP would be
inadequate. One commenter also stated
that the fencing project begun in 2002
was not completed.
Our response: The current landowner
has indicated interest in being a good
steward of Lanai’s natural resources,
and has entered into the MOU
agreement with the Service with that
understanding, and has also expanded
resources management capabilities. The
LNRP, resulting from the MOU, will
describe in more detail conservation
measures and timelines, including how
adaptive management measures will be
addressed. Fencing projects are
expensive and often larger projects are
broken into increments to allow for the
complexities of construction and
management. The first and second
increments of the planned fencing
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
project, beginning with the MOU in
2002, were completed. Other fencing
activities will be covered in the LNRP.
See also our response to Comment (140).
(136) Comment: Five commenters
objected to statements in the MOU
regarding the permit process and stated
that the Service oversteps its bounds.
Our response: Under the MOU, the
Service agreed to cooperate with Pulama
Lanai and CCPI to process in a timely
manner any necessary recovery permits
that may be required to implement
objectives of the LNRP. This would
allow completion of conservation
measures in a timely manner to meet
specified timelines as outlined in the
LNRP. However, any permit would have
to comply with normal permitting
requirements and procedures. Permits
for wind farm and other projects would
be obtained by the landowner
independently from the MOU
agreement, and may include the
development of an HCP, and associated
NEPA evaluation and section 7
consultation, as described above.
(137) Comment: Five commenters
object to exclusion of The Nature
Conservancy’s Kanepuu management
unit of Kanepuu Preserve from critical
habitat, and also state that widening of
the road in that area would contribute
to negative impacts to habitat.
Our response: As stated in the MOU,
both the landowner and the Service
recognize the importance of habitat
within Kanepuu. We believe that the
benefits of exclusion this area from
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including this area in critical habitat.
Both the landowner and the Service
support identification and
implementation of conservation
measures for the habitat and any listed
species. Improvement or widening of
the existing access roadway through or
around Kanepuu may occur as long as
such activities: (1) Have the consent of
The Nature Conservancy (who holds a
permanent easement of the area) or its
successor, (2) have the consent of
Pulama Lanai, and (3) mitigation
measures by CCPI are reasonably agreed
to by the Service in order to mitigate
any adverse effects on native vegetation.
However, nothing in the MOU
supersedes the requirements of the Act
and all activities undertaken pursuant to
the MOU must be in compliance with
all applicable State and Federal laws
and regulations. Currently, the Service
has not received a project proposal for
a wind farm on Lanai; however, as
discussed above, it would likely entail
a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
process, including NEPA and section 7
consultation, to assess and mitigate for
environmental impacts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(138) Comment: One commenter
suggested that the uau, or Hawaiian
petrel, be considered as part of the
LNRP.
Our response: The LNRP is a
comprehensive resource management
plan and will include conservation
actions for this species.
(139) Comment: One commenter
stated that the MOU and any future
LNRP do not provide sufficient
information to determine if a specific
exclusion may result in extinction of a
species.
Our response: The determination of
whether an exclusion will result in the
extinction of a listed species is not
provided in the MOU or the LNRP, but
is provided in this final rule. Here, at
the conclusion of the section titled
‘‘Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors,’’ we detail our assessment of
whether the exclusion of any particular
areas would result in the extinction of
the listed species that occur within that
area (see ‘‘Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species’’). We have
carefully considered the status of each
species within each of the areas
excluded, and evaluated whether the
exclusion would result in the extinction
of each listed species on a case by case
basis. We paid particular attention to
several of the Lanai species, as some of
these species occur only within the
areas excluded from the final
designation of critical habitat (i.e., the
two Lanai tree snails, and the plants
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea
gibsonii, Kadua cordata ssp. remyi,
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis,
Pleomele fernaldii, Viola lanaiensis). As
described in this final rule, in the case
of each exclusion from this final
designation of critical habitat, we
conclude that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, for
the reasons detailed below, and further
conclude that the failure to designate
such areas as critical habitat will not
result in the extinction of the listed
species concerned. Each exclusion made
in this final rule is based upon the
strength of existing conservation
actions, commitments, and
partnerships, which will maintain,
restore, or enhance habitat for the Maui
Nui species, above and beyond the
benefits that would accrue from the
designation of critical habitat. Based on
the management plans and agreements
in place, and the proven track record of
our conservation partners, we
reasonably assume these positive
actions will continue into the future.
For all of these reasons, we conclude
not only that exclusion will not result
in the extinction of any of the Maui Nui
species, but we expect that exclusion
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17851
will result in the improvement of the
status of each species in question, due
to the positive conservation efforts
taking place in those areas excluded.
See, for example, our response to
Comment (140), below, for an
accounting of the positive conservation
benefits demonstrated to date for the
Lanai species as a result of the actions
of our conservation partners and the
management plans and agreements in
place on that island, and the further
benefits that are expected to accrue to
those species as a result of future efforts
as well.
(140) Comment: One commenter
stated that, based on previous failure to
complete the Lanaihale fencing project,
the current MOU would also result in
failure to complete conservation
measures or management actions.
Our response: The first two phases of
an ungulate exclusion fence, described
by the commenter as the Lanaihale
fencing project, were completed under a
MOU and partnership with Lanai’s
previous landowner. We anticipate the
completion of the fence and other
conservation measures under the Lanai
Natural Resources Plan (LNRP), which
is currently under development as a
consequence of the MOU with the new
landowners, recently signed by the
Service, Lanai Resorts, LLC (dba Pulama
Lanai), and Castle and Cooke Properties,
Inc., on January 26, 2015. Since that
time, the parties have worked diligently
to implement the actions described in
the MOU. Beginning in February, 2015,
Pulama Lanai has convened meetings
with their planning team, including the
Service, for the development of the
comprehensive LNRP that will address
priorities and actionable items
necessary for the conservation of species
and habitats on the island. While this
effort is ongoing, Pulama Lanai has
begun to implement specific
conservation measures for priority
species and areas. The MOU also calls
for the landowner to identify
conservation measures for some of the
rarest plants that would be implemented
in the near term, even before the LNRP
is completed. Specifically, to date
Pulama Lanai has: (1) Worked with the
Service and the Hawaii Division of
Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)
regarding necessary permits to conduct
listed plant species conservation work;
(2) designated an additional 220 ac (89
ha) to be added to the Lanaihale No
Development Area; (3) developed and
implemented a fence maintenance plan
for all existing conservation fences; (4)
conducted monitoring for ungulates
within existing conservation fences and
implemented ungulate removal; (5)
communicated with The Nature
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17852
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Conservancy regarding ungulate
management and fence maintenance at
Kanepuu Preserve; (6) installed deer
proof fencing for Hibiscus brackenridgei
along Keomuku Road and have plans to
do the same for the populations of
Tetramalopium remyi and Abutilon
menziesii (also referred to as the ‘‘Core
Rare Plant Clusters’’) within the 24month time frame set forth in the MOU;
(7) identified other rare plant species for
conservation actions and protection in
coordination with the Plant Extinction
Prevention Program (PEPP); and (8)
implemented advanced technology and
additional measures to improve biosecurity on the island to reduce the
incursion of invasive species.
Additionally, Pulama Lanai has
coordinated closely with the Service on
the location of a protective listed tree
snail enclosure, which will be
constructed following a ranking of
potential sites by the State’s snail
experts. Further coordination is
occurring on the conservation of listed
Hawaiian petrels on Lanaihale. While
not part of the MOU, Pulama Lanai and
the Service are working on plans to
implement conservation activities
starting in 2016. Most recently, Pulama
Lanai has hired a lead wildlife biologist
to assist with the planning and
implementation of conservation actions
across the island. Developing and
maintaining public and private
partnerships for species conservation is
important and we believe that the steps
this landowner has already taken to
implement the MOU and the significant
conservation benefits that have already
been realized as a result indicate that
this conservation partnership will
provide significant benefits to the listed
species that occur on Lanai. These
benefits lessen the incremental benefit
of critical habitat.
(141) Comment: One commenter
stated that the selection of no more than
215 additional acres to the ‘‘no
development area’’ is inexplicable and
unexplained.
Our response: The addition of 215
acres to the No Development Area was
in response to possible disturbance of
habitat resulting from development of a
wellhead within Increment 1 fencing
(see Exhibit J, and section 4.3.2(1) of the
MOU), if it occurs. Development of a
new water well would be subject to
conditions as outlined in the MOU,
including botanical surveys, restoration,
and mitigation of other impacts (and
consistent with applicable provisions of
Exhibit H of the MOU).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comments on the Draft Economic
Analysis (DEA)
Comments From the State of Hawaii
Agencies on the DEA
(142) Comment: The Hawaii
Department of Agriculture (HDOA) is
concerned that incremental impacts of
critical habitat designation are not
sufficiently quantified in the DEA and
the DEA uses probable or possible
ranges of other listed species to discount
the economic impacts of proposed
critical habitat. The HDOA believes that
baseline protection costs should include
only already designated critical habitat
that is occupied by listed species and
subject to existing conservation
measures.
Our Response: The presence of a
listed species provides extensive
baseline protections under sections 7, 9,
and 10 of the Act, regardless of the
designation of critical habitat; therefore
we do not limit our consideration of
baseline protections to those areas that
are already designated as critical
habitat. As described in chapter 2 of the
draft EA, section 7 of the Act in
particular requires Federal agencies to
consult with the Service to ensure that
any action authorized, funded, or
carried out will not likely jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, even absent
critical habitat designation. In this case,
the presence of the listed Blackburn’s
sphinx moth would trigger protections
under the jeopardy standard that would
by extension provide baseline
protections to the Maui Nui species in
areas within the probable range of the
moth (see paragraphs 71 through 73 of
the final EA). Because these protections
are in place regardless of designated
critical habitat, they are appropriately
considered as part of the baseline for
this analysis.
(143) Comment: The HDOA and two
other commenters stated that the
Service has already designated critical
habitat in a significant amount of area
in Hawaii and should use the costs of
these designations on agricultural
landowners to monetize some of the
indirect impacts in the current DEA.
Our Response: The DEA does
consider how previous critical habitat
designations may have indirectly
affected agricultural landowners and
therefore no changes were made in the
FEA in response to this comment. This
analysis involved outreach to
agricultural landowners and
organizations to gather information on
experience with previous critical habitat
designations in Hawaii. The information
gathered supports the qualitative
analysis of potential indirect impacts of
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical habitat designation on grazing
and farming in Exhibit 5–8, including
descriptions of potential change in
management of land by the State and
county; perceptional effects on land
values; limitations on ability of ranch
owners to diversify; increased potential
for legal actions; and obstacle to
statewide food sustainability. However,
we could identify no specific historical
studies or examples of critical habitat
designation precipitating these types of
impacts in Hawaii. For each of the
potential indirect impacts, Exhibit 5–8
accordingly describes the uncertainties
that preclude their monetization but
highlights their potential for
consideration alongside the quantified
impacts in the analysis.
Comments From the Public on the DEA
(144) Comment: The Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy
(AURA) disagreed with the conclusions
of the draft economic analysis (DEA).
According to AURA, the DEA doesn’t
take into consideration the lengthy and
costly consultations that have already
taken place regarding the University of
Hawaii’s Haleakala High Altitude
Observatory Site (also known as the
Advanced Technology Solar Telescope
(ATST) project) and it does not consider
more than $1.5 million in funds
committed to wildlife protection in the
328-acre mitigation area.
Our Response: Our DEA was designed
to look at the potential economic
impacts stemming specifically from the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Maui Nui species; it was not
intended to address any and all costs
that may have been incurred as a
consequence of other actions (for
example, prior consultations that may
have occurred related to the presence of
listed species at the ATST site). The
FEA concluded that construction of the
ATST facilities, which falls within
proposed critical habitat unit Maui—
Alpine—Unit 1, was likely to result in
land disturbance of less than 1 acre (IEc
2015, p. 3–12). The FEA also
acknowledges that the Service
conducted a formal consultation on the
proposed construction and issued a
biological opinion on June 15, 2011 (IEc
2015, p. 3–13). The Service indicated
that they would likely not recommend
any further project modifications
beyond the mitigation already planned,
and that any further incremental costs
would be limited to additional
administrative costs, estimated to be
$4,000 borne by the Service, Federal
action agency, and the project
proponent (IEc 2015, p. 3–13). However,
in this final rule, we also re-evaluated
proposed critical habitat for two
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
proposed units within or bordering the
project area (Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1
and Maui—Alpine—Unit 1) and
removed areas that no longer contained
the physical or biological features that
could support and provide for species’
recovery, or that we determined was
otherwise not essential for the
conservation of the species (see our
response at Comment (36), above). As a
result of this evaluation, the University
of Hawaii’s Haleakala High Altitude
Observatory Site has been removed from
the final designation because it does not
meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Maui Nui species.
(145) Comment: The DEA contains no
mention of the Makena Resort or
Makena property, and fails to consider
the economic impact of designation on
the ATC Makena property. ATC Makena
was not contacted during preparation of
the DEA regarding the proposed
designation or for additional
information on their property.
Our Response: The final economic
analysis (FEA) incorporates additional
discussion regarding the potential
expansion of the Piilani Highway within
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 (IEc 2015,
p. 3–18). Although the timing, nature,
and location of the project is currently
uncertain, we forecast costs associated
with a formal section 7 consultation on
the project. The Service has determined
that the potential project area for the
highway expansion overlaps with the
probable range of the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth (see pp. 2–11—2–13 of our
FEA (IEc 2015) for a detailed discussion
of the baseline protections associated
with the Blackburn’s sphinx moth, as
well as an explanation of the term
‘‘probable range’’ as applied here; see
also our response to Comment (149),
below). As described in our FEA,
consultation on this project would be
required due to the presence of the
Blackburn’s sphinx moth regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated for
the Maui Nui species (IEc 2015, pp. 2–
11—2–13). As discussed in Section 2.3.2
of the FEA, critical habitat designation
for the Maui Nui species is not likely to
generate additional conservation
recommendations beyond what would
be recommended due to the presence of
the moth. Accordingly, we conclude
that the incremental impacts of critical
habitat on the Piilani Highway project
would be limited to the administrative
costs of considering critical habitat as
part of the forecast section 7
consultation, estimated at
approximately $4,000 (IEc 2015, p. 3–
18). Such costs are generally borne
primarily by the Service and the Federal
action agency, with some costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
occasionally accrued by the project
proponent.
(146) Comment: Several commenters
stated that: (1) The estimated costs of
$115,000 to $125,000 over the next 10
years for Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
Kahoolawe, combined, were not
credible; (2) an analysis of the total cost
of designation (as in the DEA) does not
help to determine which parcels should
be included in the critical habitat area
and which should be excluded; and (3)
consultations in Hawaii require more
effort than elsewhere.
Our Response: As stated in the FEA,
quantified incremental impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation are
estimated at $100,000 for areas
proposed for critical habitat designation,
and $5,000 for areas considered for
exclusion (2014–2023, 7 percent
discount rate) (IEc 2015, p. 1–7). The
derivation of these costs are presented at
the proposed critical habitat unit level
throughout the FEA, are detailed in
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the FEA, and are
also summarized in the Executive
Summary Exhibit ES–3. As stated in
Section 2.3.2 of the FEA, the
administrative costs of consultation
applied in the analysis are based on data
from the Federal Government Schedule
Rates, Office of Personnel Management,
and a review of consultation records
from several Service field offices across
the country, as described in the notes to
Exhibit 2–2 (IEc 2015, p. 2–18). The
costs are intended to provide a
representative order of magnitude for
administrative costs associated with
consultation. To the extent that
consultations occurring in the areas
proposed for critical habitat designation
require a greater amount of effort, the
FEA may underestimate consultation
costs; this limitation is acknowledged
throughout the FEA (IEc 2015, Exhibits
3–11, 4–5, and 5–9). The administrative
cost estimates and associated
implications on the findings of the
analysis are described in Section 2.3.2
of the FEA.
(147) Comment: The impact of critical
habitat designation on 13,700 acres of
private lands on Maui may range up to
$50 million or more. Impacts from the
designation on the per acre land value
range from $975 to $45,000. For the
islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, the
total impact from the designation will
be $56.5 million or more, with an
average of up to $3,900 or more, per
acre.
Our Response: We are uncertain as to
the source of the commenter’s
information; no documentation was
provided to support the costs claimed.
The FEA quantified the impacts of
designation of critical habitat on Maui
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17853
to be approximately $100,000 over 10
years, and annualized impacts of
$20,000, based on our consideration of
the potential impacts of critical habitat
on development projects, energy
projects, and grazing and farming
activities, as documented and described
in detail in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the
FEA (IEc 2015). We did consider the
potential for loss in land value
associated with foregone potential
future uses, based on an average ‘‘asset
value’’ for agricultural land (including
buildings) of $8,201 per acre in 2007.
This average asset value is based on
County level information from the
National Agricultural Statistics Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (IEc
2015, p. 5–19).
(148) Comment: One commenter,
citing the DEAs for critical habitat
designation for three Willamette species
and 124 Oahu species, stated that the
loss of land value in those analyses
ranged from 73 to 100 percent, with
devaluation of property by as much as
$65 million.
Our Response: The findings of the two
studies referenced in the comment are
not transferable to this analysis for
multiple reasons. First, the three
Willamette species analysis applied a
different framework for evaluating
impacts (Northwest Economic
Associates 2006). Specifically, the
analysis quantified all impacts of
species conservation regardless of
whether they were incremental effects
of the critical habitat designation. Thus
the results should not be interpreted as
impacts of critical habitat designation.
Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges
that it is uncertain whether the
quantified impacts would occur at all,
explaining: ‘‘The estimates of economic
loss in this section are overstated. As
stated in the introduction, the impact of
species and habitat conservation on
future development projects is
uncertain. Absent specific information
on how development projects would
mitigate for impacts to Fender’s blue
butterfly, Kincaid’s lupine, and
Willamette Daisy, the economic analysis
presents the value derived from
potential future development on private
lands within the proposed critical
habitat designation. To the extent that
development is excluded from the
proposed critical habitat designation,
the estimated impacts accurately
represent the non-agriculture
component of land value lost by private
landowners. To the extent that
development is allowed within the
proposed critical habitat designation the
estimated impacts are overstated
(Northwest Economic Associates 2006,
pp. 39–41).’’
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17854
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
In the case of Oahu, the commenter
has overstated the range of potential
impacts to land values estimated in the
DEA (IEc 2013). Potential effects to land
values were forecast only in the context
of one particular critical habitat unit
that was slated for development,
Lowland Dry 8. In that case, we stated
‘‘The Service believes that a realistic
lower-bound estimate of the potential
economic impacts to the landowners in
Lowland Dry 8 is no impact at all. The
Service cannot identify any realistic
Federal nexus on the types of future
uses identified. Critical habitat
designations have no effect on private
actions on private property absent a
Federal nexus that would allow the
Service to consult on the activity with
its Federal partner.’’ The possible
decrease in land value cited by the
commenter refers to the ‘‘worst case
scenario’’ contemplated in the DEA that
no future development would proceed
on the property at all; this scenario was
included to be conservative, but is
described as ‘‘extremely unlikely to
occur’’ (IEc 2013, p. 74). The
designation of critical habitat does not
prevent development from occurring; it
requires Federal agencies to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Even if such a finding is
made, we will attempt to recommend
reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Therefore, we have no basis to assume
that development would be prohibited.
(149) Comment: Four commenters
stated that the incremental impacts are
not sufficiently quantified or monetized.
The commenters are concerned that the
DEA is using probable or possible
ranges of other listed species, such as
the Blackburn’s sphinx moth, to
discount economic impacts of proposed
critical habitat. The commenters believe
that only prior critical habitat
designations where protected species
occupy the land and are subject to
existing conservation measures under
the Act should be used as baseline
protection costs. One commenter stated
that it was inappropriate to use the
probable range of Blackburn’s sphinx
moth to minimize the impacts of the
proposed designation. In addition, no
maps of historical or probable range of
the moth are provided in the proposed
rule or DEA.
Our Response: See our responses to
Comment (142) and (145). The probable
range of the Blackburn’s sphinx moth is
an important consideration in this
analysis, because due to the significant
overlap between the essential physical
or biological features for the moth and
those of the Maui Nui species,
consultations under the jeopardy
standard (and associated conservation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
recommendations) within the probable
range of the moth afford extensive
baseline protections to the Maui Nui
species within the area of overlap and
limits the potential impact of critical
habitat (see Section 2.3.2 of the FEA).
Exhibit ES–5 of the DEA showed the
relevant map of unoccupied units that
do not overlap with the probable range
of the Blackburn’s sphinx moth (and
hence have the potential for relatively
greater incremental impacts); however,
we have updated this figure in the FEA
to show the entirety of the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth’s probable range. As
detailed on p. 2–12 of the FEA, the term
‘‘probable range’’ is used because the
precise location of the present range of
the Blackburn’s sphinx moth is not well
known; therefore, the Service
recommends consultation in areas
within the historical range of the moth
because the species may be present.
Within that range, the Service suggests
surveys to determine whether there is
suitable habitat for the moth within the
proposed project area. If there is suitable
habitat within the project area, the
Service recommends that project
proponents survey within these areas to
determine presence or absence of the
moth. Because the majority of the
moth’s lifespan is spent underground in
a pupal stage, and only moth larvae and
adults transit the landscape, it may not
be feasible to confirm absence of the
moth from the proposed project area.
Due to the difficulty in confirmation of
moth absence, many project proponents
opt to assume the moth is present in
suitable habitat. Because of the
significant overlap between the essential
physical or biological features for the
moth and those of the Maui Nui species,
the Service has assumed for purposes of
this analysis that within the probable
range of the moth, there will be
significant overlap between those areas
that provide suitable habitat for the
moth and the areas identified as critical
habitat for the Maui Nui species.
(150) Comment: One commenter
stated that because the legal standards
for determination of jeopardy and
adverse modification are not the same,
the Service cannot assume that the
outcomes of jeopardy and adverse
modification analyses for the
designation will be closely linked.
Our Response: We agree that the
standards for determination of jeopardy
and adverse modification are not the
same, nor did we intend to give the
impression that we consider them to be
so. Section 7 of the Act (7)(a)(2) states
that ‘‘each Federal agency shall, in
consultation with and with the
assistance of the Secretary, insure that
any action authorized, funded, or
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
carried out by such agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat of such
species . . .’’ If jeopardy or adverse
modification is determined, reasonable
and prudent alternatives are
recommended. These recommendations
focus on minimizing impacts so as to
avoid jeopardy or adverse modification
(IEc 2015, p. 2–15). In some cases, such
as for the Maui Nui species considered
here, project modifications
recommended to avoid jeopardy may be
similar to those recommended to avoid
adverse modification of habitat, such as
‘‘avoid destruction of individual listed
plants,’’ ‘‘control feral ungulates,’’ and
‘‘propagate and outplant’’ (IEc 2015, pp.
D–11—D–12). However, the FEA
recognizes that the analyses for jeopardy
and those for adverse modification can
differ. The economic impacts of
conservation measures undertaken to
avoid jeopardy to the species are
considered baseline impacts in the FEA,
as they are not generated by the critical
habitat designation. Baseline
conservation measures and associated
economic impacts are not affected by
decisions related to critical habitat
designation for the species (IEc 2015,
pp. 2–7—2–9).
(151) Comment: Some commenters
stated that the incremental
administrative consultation costs
estimated by the Service are too low.
Environmental activist groups have
sued landowners to force them to
undertake conservation activities. Note
the palila case, in which the State was
sued for allowing destruction of habitat
by uncontrolled feral ungulates. Given
that ungulates are identified as one of
the primary threats to endangered
species, there is a possibility of
landowners being forced to undertake
costly ungulate control on their land as
a result of critical habitat designation. A
baseline cost for mitigation is
$6,000,000 for every 120 acres of
disturbed habitat, which is the cost of
mitigation for the Saddle Road-Palila
project on the Big Island.
Our Response: The Palila case was
based on section 9 of the Act, which
makes it a crime for anyone to ‘‘take’’
(defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,
or attempt any of these actions) an
endangered species. This provision of
the Act can be asserted by private
citizens or by the Federal government.
In Palila, private non-profit
organizations claimed that the State’s
Department of Land and Natural
Resources was taking the palila by
maintaining populations of feral sheep
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and goats in the bird’s habitat. The fact
that it was designated critical habitat
had no legal relevance to this allegation;
the designation played only an
informational role in identifying habitat
important to the species.
In contrast to section 9, which sets
forth protections that apply to
individuals of the listed species, critical
habitat receives protection under
section 7 of the Act. The requirements
of section 7 apply to Federal agencies
and requires that these agencies ensure,
in consultation with the Service, that
any action they authorize, fund, or carry
out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7 requirements
do not apply to non-Federal landowners
absent a Federal nexus. The designation
of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. The designation does
not allow the government or public to
access private lands, and does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a
landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action
that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification
finding, the obligation of the Federal
action agency and the landowner is not
to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
We do acknowledge that in some
highly unusual cases, wherein a
landowner undertakes an action with a
Federal nexus, and that action is so
significant to the critical habitat as a
whole as to be considered potential
adverse modification, some reasonable
and prudent alternatives may result in
significant costs. We recognize this
possibility in our FEA, which
underscores that such a situation may
have a potentially major effect on the
economic impacts as estimated in our
analysis. Specifically, the FEA clarifies
that while we anticipate that the most
likely change in conservation
recommendations, if any, would be the
additional specification that habitat
offsets occur within the affected critical
habitat unit, or within critical habitat of
the same type (based on our past
experience with consultation),
nonetheless ‘‘final recommendations to
avoid adverse effects on critical habitat
will depend upon the specific nature of
the proposed project and will be made
as part of future consultation on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
project’’ (IEc 2015, p. 3–21). Because of
the significant uncertainties
surrounding the probability of such a
situation arising, and the entirely
speculative nature of what reasonable
and prudent alternatives might be called
for in such a hypothetical, it is not
possible to quantify such potential
impacts. We therefore acknowledge in
our FEA that our assumptions regarding
the effect of critical habitat designation
on potential conservation
recommendations may result in an
underestimate of costs (IEc 2015, p. 3–
21).
(152) Comment: One commenter
stated that, of the 25,413 acres proposed
for designation on Lanai, 99.99 percent
(25,408 acres) are privately owned by
Lanai Resorts. This is in contrast to the
entire proposed designation, which is
reported [in the DEA] to only overlap
private lands by 42 percent. Lanai
Resorts suffers a disproportionate
burden resulting from the proposed
designation on Lanai and the DEA fails
to recognize this disproportionate
burden. Another commenter stated that
the DEA fails to quantify impacts to
existing and proposed development
(e.g., Manele Project, Koele Project,
water utility infrastructure, electric
utility infrastructure, Lanai wind
project) on Lanai.
Our Response: Forty-two percent of
the proposed critical habitat on the four
islands of Maui, Kahoolawe, Molokai,
and Lanai overlapped private lands. The
DEA analyzed the effects of critical
habitat designation on those areas with
known or possible development
pressure. At the time of the writing of
the DEA, the level of uncertainty
regarding the nature of future
development, as well as how the
designation of critical habitat may affect
projects, precluded the quantification of
impacts of critical habitat on future
development in three proposed Lanai
critical habitat units (Lanai—Coastal—1,
Lanai—Dry Cliff—Unit 1, and Lanai—
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1). As a result,
the DEA qualitatively described the
likely incremental impacts to potential
future development activities in these
units. However, for the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors, below),
critical habitat is not designated on the
island of Lanai in this final rule, as a
consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(153) Comment: One commenter
stated that the DEA is flawed and does
not meet the requirements to support
the designation. Specifically, the
commenter stated that the designation
must be limited geographically to what
is essential to the conservation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17855
species, and that the Service cannot
arbitrarily proposed to designate ‘‘acres
upon acres of areas already developed
or proposed for development’’ without
first identifying the elements essential
for the survival of the species. The
commenter further stated that the
determination must consider the
probable economic and other impacts of
the designation upon proposed or
ongoing activities, and implied that the
Service failed to clearly identify
accurate and relevant facts to support its
economic analysis. The commenter
cited several court cases to support this
statement and concludes that the DEA
contained several errors that biased the
analysis in a single direction, producing
lower estimates of the costs resulting
from critical habitat designation.
Our Response: First, our process for
identifying those areas proposed as
critical habitat is not arbitrary, and is
clearly detailed in the Methods section
of this document. As required by the
Act, we used the best scientific data
available to first determine the physical
or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the species, and to
identify those specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species that provide those essential
features, which may require special
management considerations or
protection. In addition, we identified
some specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species upon a determination that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.
Second, the purpose of the DEA is not
to ‘‘support the designation,’’ but to
inform the Secretary for the purpose of
considering the potential economic
impacts of the designation, as required
by section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Specifically, the information contained
in the DEA is intended to assist the
Secretary in determining whether the
benefits of excluding particular areas
from the designation outweigh the
benefits of including those areas in the
designation. Our DEA, and subsequent
FEA, analyzed the potential for both
direct and indirect incremental impacts
of the critical habitat designation; this
analysis is thoroughly detailed and
documented, and clearly identifies the
source of all relevant facts and figures
utilized (IEc 2015, entire). The FEA
incorporates consideration of all
reasonably foreseeable potential
economic impacts, including some that
were not initially recognized but that
were identified during the public
comment periods; this includes
consideration of the potential impacts of
the designation on ongoing or proposed
development projects, energy projects,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17856
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and grazing and farming activities.
Although the FEA quantifies the
potential direct and indirect impacts of
the designation wherever possible, in
some cases of significant uncertainty,
such quantification was not possible.
However, the FEA is explicit in
acknowledging all assumptions and
limitations of the analysis, including the
identification of those areas where the
potential impacts may be
underestimated (e.g., Exhibits 3–11, 4–
5, and 5–9).
(154) Comment: One commenter
states the Honuaula project is not being
held up by consultations with State and
Federal wildlife officials, but because
the developer has failed to complete an
accurate archeological review, as
required for Phase II Project District
approval.
Our Response: Section 3.3.1 of the
FEA describes that the Honuaula project
has been subject to delays related to the
revision of the HCP following the
proposed critical habitat designation
(IEc 2015, p. 3–17). The analysis does
not address delays that may be
associated with State Historic
Preservation Division’s processes, as
these are unrelated to the proposed
critical habitat designation.
(155) Comment: Many of the areas
proposed for designation are not
currently inhabited by any of the listed
species. Thus, the ‘‘baseline’’ for
evaluating the economic impact of
designation of these areas is ‘‘zero’’
because there is no present duty to
consult with the Service. The Service
must consider the full economic impact
of the proposed habitat designation,
rather than just looking at the
incremental increase in cost.
Our Response: We agree that areas not
presently occupied by any listed species
and therefore not already subject to
consultation with the Service have the
potential for greater economic impacts.
We explicitly acknowledged this
situation in the DEA, stating ‘‘Where
critical habitat is both unoccupied by
the Maui Nui species and outside of the
probable range of the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth, the incremental impact of
critical habitat designation would be
greater than in units occupied by the
Maui Nui species or the moth. This is
because impacts of critical habitat in
these units would include all
administrative costs of consultation and
all costs associated with implementing
conservation measures for the Maui Nui
species’’ (IEc 2013, p. 2–12).
Recognizing that economic activities in
these units are the most likely to be
subject to recommendations for
incremental conservation measures to
avoid adverse modification of critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
habitat, and therefore experience
incremental economic impacts, the DEA
(and subsequent FEA) focused the
analysis specifically on these units (IEc
2015, p. ES–10, Exhibit ES–7). The
potential economic impact of the
designation reported in the DEA (and
subsequent FEA) therefore directly
incorporates this consideration into its
estimate, and the costs presented are
those that are fully attributable to the
proposed critical habitat.
(156) Comment: A key finding of the
DEA is that ‘‘The presence of the Maui
Nui species provides extensive baseline
protection that includes offsetting
habitat loss. . .’’ This statement is
erroneous in that it assumes that each
proposed unit claimed to be occupied
by the species is entirely occupied. This
is not the case. This is because the
Service has a unique and unprecedented
‘‘ecosystem’’ approach to this proposed
designation.
Our Response: As described in the
FEA (pp. ES–10—ES–13, 2–11), a
number of the proposed critical habitat
units are not considered to be occupied
by the Maui Nui species. In addition,
within the occupied units for the plant
species, we clearly acknowledge that the
plants are not necessarily identified
throughout the unit but may occur
intermittently throughout the unit (IEc
2015, p. 2–11). Where the species are
not present at a project or activity site,
section 7 consultations may not focus
on the effects to the species but will
consider the potential for adverse
modification of critical habitat. With
this in mind, the FEA identified ongoing
and currently planned projects within
the proposed critical habitat units and
determined whether and how the
designation would affect the projects.
As stated in the FEA, for most of the
ongoing and currently planned projects
identified, project modifications,
including habitat offsets, have been
implemented or are currently being
planned within the critical habitat unit
even absent the proposed designation
(IEc 2015, p. ES–4). Therefore, for these
projects, incremental impacts are
expected to be limited to the costs of
additional administrative effort in
section 7 consultations. However, the
FEA also states that ‘‘critical habitat
designation may generate the additional
specification that offsets be located
within the affected critical habitat unit,
or within critical habitat of the same
type’’ (IEc 2015, p. ES–4). The FEA
identified one project for which this was
the case (the Honuaula project) and
presents both quantified and
unquantified incremental effects of
critical habitat in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The ‘‘ecosystem approach’’ used in
this rule is not unprecedented, but has
been used in similar rulemakings for
species in the Hawaiian islands as an
organizational tool due to many of the
characteristics shared by the listed
species (for example, 48 Species on
Kauai; 75 FR 18959, April 13, 2010).
These characteristics include common
threats to the essential physical or
biological features (e.g., introduced
ungulates, nonnative plants) and a
shared dependence on similar habitat
types or ecosystems. In addition, in
many cases the species in question are
extremely rare or have been extirpated
from the wild, therefore data to inform
us as to the essential physical or
biological features for each species is
extremely limited. In such cases, the
identification of indicator species or
other characteristics of the specific
ecosystems known to have historically
supported the species in question
represent the best scientific data
available to help us identify the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of these species
(occupied areas), as well as the specific
areas essential to the conservation of
these species (unoccupied areas). This
approach and our application of it to
each of the species addressed in the
final rule is detailed in the Methods
section of this document.
(157) Comment: Based on a single
telephone call with an unidentified staff
person at the DLNR Office of
Conservation and Coastal Lands, the
DEA concludes that the proposed
critical habitat designation will have no
effect on conservation district boundary
amendments. There is no opinion from
a Hawaii court, attorney general, or the
chair of DLNR to that effect. Without
substantial legal authority to the
contrary, the appropriate assumption for
the DEA is that all land designated as
critical habitat will be included within
conservation district boundaries by
DLNR. It must be assumed that agencies
will dutifully encourage protection of
areas designated as critical habitat,
meaning that permits, entitlements, or
rezoning sought for such lands will
either be denied, or extremely expensive
mitigation or offsetting will be required.
These assumptions must be applied
even to areas presently unoccupied by
any species for which they are
designated. In addition, the comments
note that because critical habitat triggers
reclassification of land to the
conservation district under Hawaii law,
this will lower property values, making
it difficult to sell property in the future,
cause project delays, lead to EIS
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, and cause costly lawsuits,
and therefore constitutes a ‘‘taking.’’
Our Response: As described in
Section 3.1 of the FEA, the analysis
integrates the best available information
regarding the potential effects of critical
habitat on State and county land
management based on interviews with
staff from the Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DLNR)’s Office of
Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL)
and the State Office of Planning, as well
as the County of Maui’s Department of
Planning. According to the State Office
of Planning, critical habitat is taken into
consideration during the redistricting
process, but does not itself generate a
redistricting of lands to the
Conservation District. According to the
County Department of Planning, the
presence of critical habitat is one of
many factors under consideration
during the rezoning process.
Representatives from OCCL, the State,
and the county were unable to identify
an instance in which the presence of
critical habitat specifically drove
decisions related to redistricting or
rezoning. As such, it has not been the
State’s practice thus far to redistrict
critical habitat areas as conservation
district lands. The FEA does, however,
describe uncertainty with regard to the
future State and county management of
these lands in Section 3.4. In addition,
Section 5.3.2 of the FEA describes the
potential indirect effects of critical
habitat designation, including concern
that the designation may result in
lawsuits. Uncertainty exists regarding
the potential for as well as the number,
timing, and outcome of such lawsuits,
thus associated impacts are not
monetized in the economic analysis.
Please also see our responses to
Comment (22), (50), and (59),
concerning critical habitat and rezoning
issues, above.
(158) Comment: No attribution to the
Service or agreement by the Service is
offered in the DEA for the conclusion
that the expectation that ‘‘the effects of
critical habitat [on the Lanai wind
project] will be limited to incremental
administrative effort as part of a future
formal section 7 consultation.’’ and that
‘‘it is unlikely however, that the project
will be subject to additional
conservation . . . ’’. Three factors are
listed as the basis for the conclusion
that additional conservation is unlikely
to be required: (1) The project will have
a limited physical footprint and only
affect poor quality habitat; (2) the level
of ground disturbance as access roads
will be located on existing roadways;
and (3) the project is already subject to
considerable conservation measures as
identified by the Hawaii Clean Energy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PEIS. There is no indication that the
Service is in agreement with these
reasons.
Our Response: The FEA provides
explanation for each of these
conclusions, with attribution, in section
4.3.1 (IEc 2015, pp. 4–10—4–11). We
agree with the statements in the DEA
(and subsequent FEA) cited by the
commenter, as well as the ultimate
conclusion that the effects of critical
habitat will be limited to incremental
administrative effort as part of a future
formal section 7 consultation on the
Lanai wind project. We note that for the
reasons described below (see Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors,
below), critical habitat is not designated
on the island of Lanai in this final rule,
as a consequence of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(159) Comment: The DEA should be
revised to include the new development
plans that encompass grazing and
farming on Lanai.
Our Response: The level of
uncertainty regarding the nature of
future development, as well as how the
designation of critical habitat may result
in project modifications, precluded the
quantification of impacts of critical
habitat on future development in the
FEA (IEc 2015, p. 3–2). However, for the
reasons described below (see Exclusions
Based on Other Relevant Factors),
critical habitat is not designated on the
island of Lanai in this final rule as a
consequence of exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
(160) Comment: The DEA fails to
adequately quantify the impacts of
critical habitat designation on Kaupo
Ranch operations. The DEA does not
acknowledge that the designation of
critical habitat on ranch lands will
result in the removal of 756 acres from
production.
Our Response: We do not anticipate
that critical habitat would result in
Kaupo Ranch’s land being taken out of
production. As described in Section 5.3
of the FEA, the designation is not likely
to change how NRCS and the Service
manage and regulate farming and
grazing activities. Chapter 5 of the
analysis also notes the potential fire
break benefit of cattle grazing; however,
absent changes in management of
grazing activity, we do not expect
critical habitat to affect this potential
benefit. In any case, for the reasons
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors) Kaupo
Ranch lands have been excluded from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act in this final rule.
(161) Comment: One commenter
requested that an analysis of the
interplay of grazing activities, critical
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17857
habitat designation and ‘‘harm’’ under
Hawaii’s endangered species State law
be conducted by experts familiar with
State law and included in the final
economic analysis.
Our Response: As described in
Section 3.1 of the FEA, several State
agencies were contacted to inform the
discussion and evaluation of the
interplay between critical habitat
designation and land use in Hawaii,
including the potential for critical
habitat to result in redistricting to the
Conservation District. State agencies
contacted include the State Office of
Planning, the Department of Land and
Natural Resources’ Office of
Conservation and Coastal Lands, the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the State Land Use Commission, and the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
The Maui County Planning
Department’s Zoning Administration
and Enforcement Division was also
contacted regarding the issue of critical
habitat affecting how the county
implements zoning changes. However,
although critical habitat may be an
educational tool to identify habitat
where a species may occur, it does not
increase or decrease a landowner’s
liability for take of a listed species
under either State or Federal law.
(162) Comment: The incremental
approach to evaluating economic
impacts has been misapplied in the DEA
and the incremental impacts are likely
underestimated. As much as 70 to 80
percent of the critical habitat could be
expected to be unoccupied habitat
where recommendations for habitat
offsets for habitat disturbance would not
be baseline recommendations, and
therefore, the incremental costs of
critical habitat designation could be
significant. The DEA contends that
approximately 42 percent of unoccupied
critical habitat overlaps with the
probable range of the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth. The basis for this
assumption is unclear and it is unclear
why the probable range of the moth is
the regulatory equivalent of occupied
habitat.
Our Response: We have provided
further detail regarding our rationale for
the baseline protections provided
within the probable range of the
Blackburn’s sphinx moth in paragraphs
71 through 75 of the FEA. See also our
responses to Comment (142) and (149),
above.
(163) Comment: The DEA does not
adequately consider costs associated
with indirect impacts of critical habitat
designation. Failure to quantify these
impacts renders them meaningless in
terms of the overall economic impact
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17858
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
estimated for the proposed critical
habitat.
Our Response: Both the DEA and
subsequent FEA consider the potential
for both direct and indirect incremental
impacts of the designation. The FEA
provides an extensive discussion on the
potential indirect impacts of the
designation, including the entirety of
Sections 2.3.2 (IEc 2015, pp. 2–19—2–
21) and section 5.3.2 of the FEA (IEc
2015, pp. 5–16—5–22); Exhibit 5.8 is
entirely devoted to potential indirect
effects of the proposed critical habitat.
Chapter 5, in particular, includes an
extensive discussion on the potential
indirect impacts of the designation, and
considers information provided by
stakeholders indicating particular
concerns with the potential for changes
in the way the State or county may
manage lands, possible reductions in
land values due to changes in land
management, and perceptional effects
on land values. These concerns are all
presented and discussed, but the
potential indirect impacts cannot be
quantified due to their speculative
nature. There is substantial uncertainty
regarding whether they will occur, and,
if they do, the potential magnitude of
any effect. For example, although many
landowners expressed concern that their
land would use value as a result of
redistricting or rezoning in response to
critical habitat, the assumption that this
would occur and result in limiting
development is speculative, based on
information provided to us by State and
county agencies (IEc 2015, pp. 3–3—3–
4; see our response to Comment (148),
above). According to the Department of
Planning’s Zoning Administration and
Enforcement Division, there has never
been an instance when an area of land
was rezoned due to the presence of
critical habitat (IEc 2015, p. 3–7). The
FEA presents a discussion that
specifically addresses the uncertainty
surrounding the potential indirect
impacts of critical habitat that preclude
quantification in this particular
instance, but acknowledges that such
uncertainties may result in an
underestimate of the quantified impacts
of the designation reported in the
analysis (IEc 2015, pp. 5–22—5–23).
(164) Comment: The economic
analysis needs to include specific cost
estimates or ranges of potential costs for
a variety of other potential impacts from
critical habitat designation. These costs
include: Impacts on credit availability,
lawsuits, limitations on ability to
diversify land uses, project delays,
environmental compliance, and
reduction in food production. In
addition, the economic analysis should
quantify these types of incremental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
costs: $100,000 per acre to acquire
mitigation land to offset impacts to
critical habitat (these are costs above
and beyond the costs of offsetting
impacts to listed species), impacts of
administrative consultation, project
modifications and delays, section 7
consultations, and completion of an EIS.
Our Response: The quantified impacts
presented in the analysis include costs
associated with section 7 consultations,
as well as costs of additional
conservation measures for the Honuaula
development project resulting from the
proposed critical habitat designation.
The analysis also identifies areas in
which projects or activities may be
affected by critical habitat designation
but significant uncertainty and data
limitations preclude quantification of
impacts—these impacts are referred to
in the analysis as ‘‘unquantified
impacts.’’ Section 5.3.2 of the FEA
addresses stakeholders’ concerns that
critical habitat designation will change
the way the State or county manages
and permits current and future activities
on designated lands; results in
perceptional effects on land values;
limits the ability of land owners to
diversify current land uses; generates
costly lawsuits; and hinders the State’s
goal to work toward food sustainability.
While uncertainty regarding the
likelihood of such outcomes and
magnitude of associated impacts
precludes quantification, the Service
considers all potential impacts of the
proposed critical habitat, regardless of
whether they are direct or indirect, or
quantified or unquantified. See also our
response to Comment (151), above.
(165) Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern that the proposed
critical habitat will negatively affect
hunting, for example by causing areas to
be fenced and thus limiting land
available for hunting.
Our Response: Critical habitat
designation does not affect activities,
including human access, on State or
private lands unless some kind of
Federal permit, license, or funding is
involved (there is a Federal nexus) and
the activities may affect the species.
Recreational, commercial, and
subsistence activities, including
hunting, on non-Federal lands are not
regulated by critical habitat designation,
and may be impacted only where there
is Federal involvement in the action and
the action is likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. As
noted in our FEA, the Service
coordinates with the State in managing
hunting areas. The State does not fence
critical habitat areas and the Service
does not anticipate recommending to
the State that the Maui Nui critical
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
habitat area be fenced. Critical habitat is
accordingly not expected to limit land
available for hunting (IEc 2015, p. 1–5).
V. Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we
reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public on the
proposed critical habitat designation for
135 Maui Nui species. This final rule
incorporates the following substantive
changes to our proposed designation,
based on the comments we received:
(1) In the Methods section of our June
11, 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 34464),
we explained that we used the recovery
areas delineated in the Service’s 2006
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Forest Birds to assist us in our
identification of proposed critical
habitat. In response to public comments,
in this final rule we have expanded our
discussion of how we used the
information in that plan, which we
consider to be the best scientific data
available, to explain the need to
designate critical habitat in unoccupied
areas for the akohekohe and kiwikiu. In
addition, we have outlined the goals
and necessary management actions to
ensure the conservation of these two
endangered forest birds within their
existing occupied habitat and those
unoccupied habitats identified as
necessary for their conservation (see
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
Boundaries and Special Management
Considerations or Protections, below),
based on peer review comments.
(2) We have included additional
information on disease and disease
vectors in our discussion of Hawaiian
forest birds (see ‘‘Disease and Disease
Vectors’’ in Special Management
Considerations or Protections, below),
based on peer review comments.
(3) In response to public comments,
we have included additional
information from the Service’s recovery
plans for one or more of the Maui Nui
plants to further clarify why it is
essential to the conservation of each
species to designate critical habitat in
unoccupied areas and to include area
for the expansion or augmentation of
existing populations. In addition,
although we had explained in our
proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR
34464) that we had relied, in part, on
maps of habitat essential to the recovery
of Hawaiian plants, as determined by
the HPPRCC (1998, 32 pp. +
appendices), in response to public
comments received, in this final rule we
have provided further clarifying
information on the overall recovery
goals and objectives for Hawaiian plants
(see ‘‘Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Plants,’’ below) that we used to help
guide the areas identified as critical
habitat for those species lacking
recovery plans. Where specific recovery
plans were lacking, we relied on all
species information in our files,
including the recovery guidelines
provided by the HPPRCC (1998) and
other reports such as the recently
developed plant species range maps
(Price et al. 2012, 34 pp.), if available for
the species. In this final rule, we further
clarify why it is essential to the
conservation of each species to
designate critical habitat in unoccupied
areas, and to include area for the
expansion or augmentation of existing
populations.
(4) We have included additional
information on current recovery
delisting objectives for the three tree
snails included in this final rule (see
‘‘Recovery Strategy for Three Tree
Snails,’’ below), to further clarify the
habitat needs of these species in
response to public comments.
(5) We have included additional
information on the threat posed by the
predatory rosy wolf snail (Euglandina
rosea) to the Newcomb’s tree snail (see
‘‘Predation by the Nonnative Rosy Wolf
Snail,’’ in Special Management
Considerations or Protections, below).
(6) We made revisions to the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for eight
plants, based on comments we received.
Because of these PCE revisions, we
removed Alectryon macrococcus var.
auwahiensis and Melicope adscendens
from the list of plants in Maui—
Lowland Dry—Units 3 and 4 because
the elevation of these units is too low to
have the ability to provide habitat for
these species. We added Dry Cliff as an
ecosystem for Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, and
Geranium multiflorum on east Maui in
Maui—Dry Cliff—Units 1 through 4,
added Lowland Wet and Montane Wet
as ecosystems for Phyllostegia
haliakalae on east Maui (Maui—
Lowland Wet—Unit 1, Maui—Montane
Wet—Units 1–4), added Lowland Dry as
an ecosystem for Hibiscus brackenridgei
on Molokai (Molokai—Lowland Dry—
Units 1 and 2), and we removed Maui—
Subalpine—Units 1 and 2 for Solanum
incompletum on east Maui, in response
to comments received from biologists
regarding critical habitat and habitat
requirements for these species. We also
revised Tables 5 and 6 to reflect these
changes.
(7) We had specifically described in
the text of the proposed rule (June 11,
2012; 77 FR 34464) that space within
the appropriate habitats for population
growth and expansion, as well as to
maintain the historical geographical and
ecological distribution of each species,
is an essential physical or biological
feature for each of the Maui Nui species.
In this final rule, in response to public
comment, we have expanded that
discussion to further clarify why
additional suitable habitat in areas that
are currently unoccupied, or that may
have been unoccupied at the time of
listing, is essential for the conservation
of each of the Maui Nui species.
(8) We have modified Table 5,
Physical or Biological Features in Each
Ecosystem, so that the heading for
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
plants reads ‘‘Supporting one or more of
these associated native plant genera’’
instead of ‘‘Capable of supporting one or
more of these associated native plant
genera,’’ to make it clear that the
presence of one or more of the
associated native plant genera identified
is a physical or biological feature for the
listed species in each ecosystem.
(9) We are removing the entry for
‘‘Family Rhamnaceae: Gouania
hillebrandii’’ from 50 CFR 17.96(a).
With this rule, the critical habitat
designation for Gouania hillebrandii is
set forth at 50 CFR 17.99.
17859
(10) We revised the unit boundaries
proposed for Molokai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe, based on comments
indicating that changes in land use had
occurred within the proposed critical
habitat units that would preclude
certain occupied areas from supporting
the primary constituent elements, or
that the unoccupied areas in question
were not essential to the conservation of
the species. Such areas do not meet the
statutory definition of critical habitat,
therefore we removed them from the
final designation. In addition, portions
of some units were excluded from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (as described in the section
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors, below). These removals and
exclusions resulted in acreage
reductions in several units on Maui,
Molokai, and Kahoolawe. In addition,
four units on Maui (Dry Cliff—Unit 7,
Montane Wet—Unit 8, Montane Mesic—
Unit 6, Wet Cliff—Unit 5) and all units
on Lanai are removed entirely as critical
habitat as a result of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 3, A
through E, provides details for all units
that have changed as a result of these
removals and exclusions between the
proposed and final rules.
Table 3. Summary of Changes From
Proposed Rule—Critical Habitat Units
With Changes to Area (Note: Units that
are unchanged are not shown in this
table, hence final acreages do not sum
up to equal the total final critical
habitat). All changes are reductions
unless otherwise noted; values denoted
with a plus sign (+) are additions to
units. In many cases, additions reflect
acres that were initially misclassified
into a different ecosystem unit and were
simply moved from one unit to another
(thus those acres are reflected as a
reduction in a different unit under the
Boundary Adjustment column).
TABLE 3–A—ISLAND OF MAUI
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Maui units
Coastal—Unit 2 ............................
Coastal—Unit 3 ............................
Coastal—Unit 4 ............................
Coastal—Unit 5 ............................
Coastal—Unit 7 ............................
Coastal—Unit 8 ............................
Coastal—Unit 9 ............................
Coastal—Unit 10 ..........................
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 2 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 3 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 4 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 5 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 6 ....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
68 (28)
54 (22)
243 (98)
27 (11)
187 (76)
597 (242)
393 (159)
434 (176)
22,196 (8,983)
2,612 (1,057)
1,089 (441)
1,283 (519)
5,448 (2,205)
579 (234)
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Removed * acres
(hectares)
Boundary
adjustments * acres
(hectares)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
43 (17)
43 (17)
169 (68)
1 (0)
71 (29)
104 (42)
19 (8)
261 (106)
1,607 (650)
30 (12)
................................
17 (7)
99 (40)
156 (63)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
71 (29)
................................
205 (83)
................................
7,053 (2,854)
732 (296)
901 (365)
................................
1,690 (685)
184 (74)
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
25 (10)
10 (4)
74 (30)
26 (11)
46 (19)
493 (200)
170 (69)
173 (70)
13,537 (5,478)
1,851 (749)
188 (76)
1,266 (512)
3,658 (1,480)
240 (97)
17860
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3–A—ISLAND OF MAUI—Continued
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Maui units
Removed * acres
(hectares)
Boundary
adjustments * acres
(hectares)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 ................
Lowland Mesic—Unit 2 ................
Lowland Wet—Unit 1 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 2 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 3 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 4 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 5 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 6 ...................
Montane Wet—Unit 1 ..................
Montane Wet—Unit 2 ..................
Montane Wet—Unit 6 ..................
Montane Wet—Unit 7 ..................
Montane Wet—Unit 8 ..................
Montane Mesic—Unit 1 ...............
Montane Mesic—Unit 2 ...............
Montane Mesic—Unit 3 ...............
Montane Mesic—Unit 5 ...............
Montane Mesic—Unit 6 ...............
Montane Dry—Unit 1 ...................
Subalpine—Unit 1 ........................
Subalpine—Unit 2 ........................
Alpine—Unit 1 ..............................
Dry Cliff—Unit 1 ...........................
Dry Cliff—Unit 3 ...........................
Dry Cliff—Unit 5 ...........................
Dry Cliff—Unit 7 ...........................
Wet Cliff—Unit 1 ..........................
Wet Cliff—Unit 5 ..........................
Wet Cliff—Unit 6 ..........................
Wet Cliff—Unit 7 ..........................
1,930 (781)
3,424 (1,386)
26,703 (10,807)
5,066 (2,050)
1,427 (577)
1,165 (472)
2,112 (855)
639 (259)
7,815 (3,162)
16,687 (6,753)
3,964 (1,604)
608 (246)
46 (19)
20,972 (8,487)
366 (148)
218 (88)
304 (123)
94 (38)
4,988 (2,019)
19,401 (7,851)
10,931 (4,424)
2,107 (853)
1,018 (412)
293 (119)
1,536 (622)
808 (327)
460 (186)
2,048 (829)
9,103 (3,684)
781 (316)
43 (17)
549 (222)
9,822 (3,975)
5 (2)
................................
................................
................................
................................
46 (19)
................................
................................
................................
................................
2,449 (991)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
1,215 (492)
................................
295 (119)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
52 (21)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
+282 (+114)
................................
................................
................................
................................
¥282 (¥114)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
6 (2)
1,729 (700)
802 (325)
4,997 (2,022)
180 (73)
301 (122)
2,082 (843)
503 (204)
5,940 (2,404)
2,104 (851)
2,565 (1,038)
528 (214)
46 (18)
7,269 (2,942)
242 (98)
44 (18)
134 (54)
94 (38)
1,464 (592)
2,211 (895)
1,045 (423)
15 (6)
264 (107)
93 (38)
238 (97)
808 (327)
170 (69)
1,996 (808)
6,993 (2,830)
222 (90)
1,882 (762)
1,147 (464)
16,079 (6,507)
65 (26)
1,247 (505)
864 (350)
30 (12)
136 (55)
2,110 (854)
14,583 (5,901)
1,399 (566)
80 (32)
0 (0)
10,972 (4,440)
124 (50)
174 (70)
170 (69)
0 (0)
3,524 (1,426)
15,975 (6,465)
9,886 (4,001)
1,797 (727)
755 (305)
200 (81)
1,298 (525)
0 (0)
290 (117)
0 (0)
2,110 (854)
557 (225)
Total ......................................
182,225 (73,744)
17,094 (6,918)
0 (0)
55,921 (22,631)
109,210 (44,196)
* Refinement in unit areas made in response to public comments and additional field visits; includes reclassification from one ecosystem type
to another.
TABLE 3–B—ISLAND OF MOLOKAI
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Critical habitat units
Removed * acres
(hectares)
Boundary
adjustments * acres
(hectares)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
250 (101)
3,544 (1,434)
862 (349)
1,913 (774)
306 (124)
70 (28)
3,201 (1,295)
10,330 (4,180)
3,628 (1,468)
1,952 (790)
8,074 (3,267)
4,818 (1,950)
1,629 (659)
1,888 (764)
1,280 (518)
126 (51)
1,642 (664)
60 (24)
29 (12)
257 (104)
46 (19)
2,608 (1,055)
1,199 (485)
679 (275)
5 (2)
4,832 (1,955)
3 (1)
................................
281 (114)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
+10 (+4)
................................
¥4 (¥2)
+27 (+11)
................................
+3 (+1)
¥23 (¥9)
+0.5 (+ 0)
................................
................................
................................
................................
924 (374)
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
388 (157)
................................
................................
................................
1,419 (574)
813 (329)
................................
12 (5)
125 (50)
977 (396)
803 (325)
1,884 (762)
49 (20)
24 (10)
589 (238)
8,770 (3,549)
2,949 (1,193)
1,950 (789)
3,219 (1,303)
3,397 (1,375)
816 (330)
1,607 (651)
1,268 (513)
Total ......................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Coastal—Unit 1 ............................
Coastal—Unit 2 ............................
Coastal—Unit 3 ............................
Coastal—Unit 6 ............................
Coastal—Unit 7 ............................
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 ....................
Lowland Dry—Unit 2 ....................
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 ................
Lowland Wet—Unit 1 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 2 ...................
Lowland Wet—Unit 3 ...................
Montane Wet—Unit 1 ..................
Montane Mesic—Unit 1 ...............
Wet Cliff—Unit 1 ..........................
Wet Cliff—Unit 2 ..........................
43,746 (17,703)
11,766 (4,761)
+14 (+5)
3,557 (1,440)
28,434 (11,507)
* Refinement in unit areas made in response to public comments and additional field visits; includes reclassification from one ecosystem type
to another.
TABLE 3–C—ISLAND OF KAHOOLAWE
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Critical habitat units
Coastal—Unit 3 ................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Removed * acres
(hectares)
339 (137)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
151 (61)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
................................
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
* 189 (76)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17861
TABLE 3–C—ISLAND OF KAHOOLAWE—Continued
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Critical habitat units
Removed * acres
(hectares)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 ........................................................
1,380 (559)
160 (65)
................................
1,220 (494)
Total ..........................................................................
1,719 (696)
311 (126)
................................
1,409 (570)
* Reflects adjustment for original unit acreage, which mistakenly overlapped with Lowland Dry 1.
TABLE 3–D—ISLAND OF LANAI
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Critical habitat units
Excluded acres
(hectares)
Coastal—Unit 1 ....................................................................................................
Coastal—Unit 2 ....................................................................................................
Coastal—Unit 3 ....................................................................................................
Lowland Dry—Unit 1 ............................................................................................
Lowland Dry—Unit 2 ............................................................................................
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 ........................................................................................
Lowland Wet—Unit 1 ...........................................................................................
Lowland Wet—Unit 2 ...........................................................................................
Montane Wet—Unit 1 ..........................................................................................
Dry Cliff—Unit 1 ...................................................................................................
Dry Cliff—Unit 2 ...................................................................................................
Dry Cliff—Unit 3 ...................................................................................................
Wet Cliff—Unit 1 ..................................................................................................
Wet Cliff—Unit 2 ..................................................................................................
373 (151)
2 (1)
509 (206)
9,766 (3,952)
939 (380)
11,172 (4,521)
374 (152)
232 (94)
248 (101)
83 (34)
354 (143)
398 (161)
731 (296)
230 (93)
373 (151)
2 (1)
509 (206)
9,766 (3,952)
939 (380)
11,172 (4,521)
374 (152)
232 (94)
248 (101)
83 (34)
354 (143)
398 (161)
731 (296)
230 (93)
Total ..............................................................................................................
25,413 (10,284)
25,413 (10,284)
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0 (0)
TABLE 3–E—SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PROPOSED RULE IN TERMS OF AREA
Proposed critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Removed * acres
(hectares)
Excluded acres
(hectares)
Final critical
habitat acres
(hectares)
Maui .................................................................................
Molokai .............................................................................
Kahoolawe .......................................................................
Lanai ................................................................................
192,362 (77,852)
46,831 (18,949)
6,451 (2,611)
25,413 (10,284)
17,094 (6,918)
* 11,752 (4,755)
311 (126)
0 (0)
55,921 (22,631)
3,557 (1,440)
0 (0)
25,413 (10,284)
119,349 (48,299)
31,523 (12,757)
6,142 (2,486)
0 (0)
Total ..........................................................................
271,062 (109,695)
* 29,157 (11,799)
84,891 (34,354)
157,014 (63,541)
* Net acres removed, adjusted to reflect 13 ac (5 ha) added in course of boundary adjustments, as detailed in Table 3B.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VI. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary.
Such methods and procedures include,
but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources
management, such as research, census,
law enforcement, habitat acquisition
and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the
government or public access to private
lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a
landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an
action that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act would apply, but even in the event
of a destruction or adverse modification
finding, the Federal action agency’s and
the applicant’s obligation is not to
restore or recover the species, but to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17862
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) that
may require special management
considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical or
biological features within an area, we
focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands,
water quality, tide, soil type) that are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements
are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that
provide for a species’ life-history
processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently
occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the
critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by a species only when designation
limited to its range would be inadequate
to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine to be
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) section 9
of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including
taking caused by actions that affect
habitat. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of the species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Prudency Determination for 44 Maui
Nui Species
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) state that designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat
to the species; or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
40 Maui Nui Species
On May 28, 2013, we published the
final rule to list as endangered 38 Maui
Nui species (35 plants and 3 tree snails)
and reaffirm the listing as endangered of
two endemic Hawaii plants (78 FR
32014). These 40 species include 3 tree
snails and 37 plants, as follows:
Newcomb’s tree snail (Newcombia
cumingi) and the two Lanai tree snails
(Partulina semicarinata and P.
variabilis); 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.
There is currently no documentation
that the 37 listed endangered or
threatened plants are threatened by
taking or other human activity.
Overcollection is a potential serious
threat to the three listed endangered tree
snails (Newcombia cumingi, Partulina
semicarinata, and P. variabilis) (see ‘‘B.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes,’’ at 78 FR 32050; May 28,
2013). Europeans and others collected
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Hawaiian tree snails starting in the
1800s and into the early 20th century.
Even today, there are Internet Web sites
that sell Hawaiian tree snail shells,
including other species of the Hawaiian
Partulina. It is unknown if the shells
offered for sale are from historical
collections or recent collections from
the wild. However, we do not believe
the designated critical habitat will
increase the threat of overcollection of
N. cumingi, P. semicarinata, and P.
variabilis because our approach to
critical habitat designation is based on
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species and does not identify the
locations of individuals of the three tree
snails. In addition, the critical habitat
unit maps are published at a scale that
does not pinpoint the locations of the
three snail species to the extent that
individuals of these three tree snail
species can be located on the private
lands on which they occur.
Four Previously Listed Maui Nui
Species
We listed the akohekohe or crested
honeycreeper and the kiwikiu or Maui
parrotbill as endangered species in 1967
(32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967), under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of
1966 (precursor to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973). Critical habitat
was not determined at that time because
it was not required under the Act until
1978. Neither the akohekohe nor the
kiwikiu is threatened by taking or other
human activity (32 FR 4001, March 11,
1967; USFWS 2006, pp. 2–81 to 2–82,
2–142).
At the time we listed the plant Kokia
cookei (Cooke’s kokia) as endangered in
1979, we found that designation of
critical habitat was not prudent because
this species had been extirpated from its
natural range on Molokai and was
known only from a single specimen in
cultivation and tissue culture
maintained in a laboratory, therefore at
that time we concluded that the species
would not benefit from the designation
of critical habitat (44 FR 62470; October
30, 1979). Kokia cookei is not threatened
by vandalism, collecting, or other
human activities, and we believe there
is a benefit to a critical habitat
designation for this species (see
discussion below).
We listed the plant Acaena exigua
(liliwai), known from Kauai and Maui,
as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 20772;
May 15, 1992). At that time, the species
had not been seen since 1973. In 1997,
botanists rediscovered A. exigua in the
Puu Kukui Preserve on west Maui, but
it has not been seen at this location
since 2000 (68 FR 25934; May 14, 2003).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
We determined that critical habitat was
not prudent for Acaena exigua at the
time of listing (1992) and again at the
time we reevaluated prudency
determinations for many listed plants in
the Hawaiian Islands because at that
time we believed A. exigua was most
likely extinct, and therefore would not
benefit from a critical habitat
designation (2003) (57 FR 20772, May
15, 1992; 68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003, p. 9185). Acaena exigua is not
threatened by vandalism, collecting, or
other human activities, and we believe
there is a benefit to a critical habitat
designation for this species (see
discussion below). Although the reasons
for the disappearance of this species on
west Maui are not known, botanists
believe it may be rediscovered in the
same area where it was last seen in
2000, with sustained searching.
We reviewed the information
available for the 39 endangered plants,
3 tree snails, and the 2 endangered birds
(akohekohe and kiwikiu) pertaining to
the biological needs of these 44 species
and characteristics of their last known
habitats. In the absence of finding that
the designation of critical habitat would
increase threats to a species, if there are
any benefits to a critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is
warranted. The potential benefits to the
39 endangered plants, the 3 tree snails,
and the 2 endangered birds (akohekohe
and kiwikiu) include: (1) Triggering
consultation under section 7 of the Act,
in new areas for actions in which there
may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for
example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in
question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features
and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments
or private entities; and (4) preventing
people from causing inadvertent harm
to the species.
There are two plant species, Kokia
cookei and Acaena exigua, for which we
now find that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent, which is a change
from earlier determinations that critical
habitat was not prudent for these
species, neither of which is known to
occur in the wild. At the time the K.
cookei was listed (October 30, 1979; 44
FR 62470) we determined that the
designation of critical habitat was not
prudent, because K. cookei had been
extirpated from its natural range;
however, the rule noted that critical
habitat may be determined at a future
date in connection with efforts to
reintroduce the species. Currently, there
is a single individual of K. cookei in
cultivation on Oahu, and there are
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17863
propagules in captive propagation, with
two individuals outplanted on Molokai
in a living gardens collection. Acaena
exigua was listed as endangered in
1992, at which time it was determined
that critical habitat was not prudent as
it would not provide a benefit to the
species (May 15, 1992; 47 FR 20772).
When we reconsidered not prudent
findings as required by Conservation
Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.
2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998) we found (65 FR
79192, December 18, 2000) that critical
habitat for A. exigua was not prudent
because it had not been seen in the
wild, and no genetic material of the
species was known to exist. However, as
described in our proposed rule (June 11,
2012; 74 FR 34464,), we have
reconsidered these findings and now
conclude that designation of critical
habitat is prudent for these two species.
Recovery of these two plants, K. cookei
and A. exigua, neither of which are
currently known to occur as wild
individuals (A. exigua was briefly
rediscovered in 1997, and survived until
2000), will require in-situ conservation
and protection of wild individuals, if
rediscovered; enhancement of existing
populations with outplantings; and
establishment of new populations
through outplanting of propagated
individuals into potentially suitable
habitat within their historical ranges
(USFWS 1997, p. 11; USFWS 1998a, pp.
22–23; Orr 2007, in litt., p. 8; Seidman
2007, in litt.). The conservation of these
species cannot be achieved unless
individuals are reintroduced and
eventually populations are reestablished
in the wild. Therefore, for the reasons
described above, we have determined
that critical habitat is prudent and will
be of benefit to these species, as suitable
habitat within their historical range is
essential to their conservation to
provide for the reintroduction and
reestablishment of the species in the
wild.
The primary regulatory effect of
critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2)
requirement that Federal agencies
refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical
habitat. We find that the designation of
critical habitat for each of the 44
endangered species identified above
will benefit it by serving to focus
conservation efforts on the restoration
and maintenance of ecosystem functions
that are essential for attaining its
recovery and long-term viability. In
addition, the designation of critical
habitat serves to inform management
and conservation decisions by
identifying any additional physical or
biological features of the ecosystem that
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
may be essential for the conservation of
certain species, such as the availability
of bogs for Calamagrostis hillebrandii,
Geranium hanaense, and G.
hillebrandii. Therefore, as we have
determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase
the degree of threat to the species and
may provide some measure of benefit,
we find that designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the following 44
species, as critical habitat would be
beneficial and there is no evidence that
the designation of critical habitat would
result in an increased threat from taking
or other human activity for these
species:
(1) Plants—Acaena exigua, 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, Kokia
cookei, 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;
(2) Animals—birds: akohekohe and
kiwikiu; snails: Newcombia cumingi,
Partulina semicarinata, and Partulina
variabilis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Critical Habitat Determinability for the
Listed Plant Species Cyanea mauiensis
and Phyllostegia hispida
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the
Act requires the designation of critical
habitat concurrently with the species’
listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable.’’ Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical
habitat is not determinable when one or
both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the
designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as
critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, in determining which areas
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider those physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection. The
primary constituent elements of critical
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We are currently unable to identify
the physical and biological features that
are considered essential to the
conservation of the plant Cyanea
mauiensis, one of the recently listed
species on Maui, because information
necessary to understand the life-history
needs of the species is not available at
this time. Key features of the life history
of this plant species, such as flowering
cycles, pollination vectors, specific
environmental requirements, and
limiting factors, remain unknown.
Nothing is known of the preferred
habitat of, or native species associated
with, this species on the island of Maui.
Cyanea mauiensis was last observed on
Maui over 100 years ago, and its habitat
has been modified and altered by
nonnative ungulates and plants, fire,
and stochastic events (e.g., hurricanes,
landslides). In addition, predation by
nonnative rats, and herbivory by
nonnative ungulates and invertebrates,
likely led to the extirpation of this
species from Maui. Because a century
has elapsed since C. mauiensis was last
observed, the optimal conditions that
provide the biological or ecological
requisites of this species are not known.
As described above, we can surmise that
habitat degradation from a variety of
factors and predation by a number of
nonnative species has contributed to the
decline of this species on Maui;
however, we do not know the physical
or biological features that are essential
for C. mauiensis. As we are unable to
identify the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
this species, we are unable to identify
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
areas on Maui that contain these
features.
Although we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat is
prudent for the plant Cyanea mauiensis,
the biological needs of this species are
not sufficiently well known to permit
identification of the physical or
biological features that may be essential
for the conservation of the species, or
those areas that provide the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Therefore,
we find that critical habitat for C.
mauiensis is not determinable at this
time. We intend to continue gathering
information regarding the essential lifehistory requirements of this plant
species to facilitate the identification of
those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of C.
mauiensis. We recognize that in the case
of a ‘‘not determinable’’ finding the Act
provides 1 year from the date of the
proposed rule in which such a finding
is made to propose critical habitat. As
such a proposal would further delay the
finalization of critical habitat for the
other 135 Maui Nui species addressed
in this rule, we will be proposing
critical habitat for C. mauiensis in a
separate rulemaking in the near future.
We listed the plant Phyllostegia
hispida (NCN), known only from the
island of Molokai, as an endangered
species on March 17, 2009 (74 FR
11319). At the time of listing, we
determined that critical habitat was
prudent but not determinable for this
species, but acknowledged that for the
future designation of critical habitat we
would evaluate the needs of P. hispida
within the ecological context of the
ecosystem in which it occurs. We are
now designating critical habitat for P.
hispida, based on the identification of
the physical and biological features that
contribute to the successful functioning
of the ecosystem upon which it
depends.
Critical Habitat Designation for 50
Species and Revision of Critical Habitat
Designation for 85 Species on Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
In this section, we discuss the
designation of critical habitat for 50
listed plants and animals on the islands
of Maui Nui (39 of the 40 species
discussed above in our listing proposal
and reevaluation, for which we
concluded that critical habitat was both
prudent and determinable; 2 listed bird
species (akohekohe or crested
honeycreeper and kiwikiu or Maui
parrotbill); and 9 listed plants Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Acaena exigua, Cyanea
gibsonii, Kadua cordata ssp. remyi,
Kokia cookei, Labordia tinifolia var.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Phyllostegia hispida, and Viola
lanaiensis. This section also discusses
the currently designated critical habitat
for 85 species of plants on the islands
of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe, which is being revised here
based on new information. This
information represents the best current
scientific information available.
Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian Plants
The lack of detailed scientific data on
the life history of the 130 plant species
in this final rule makes it impossible for
us to develop a robust quantitative
model (e.g., population viability
analysis (National Research Council
1995)) to identify the optimal number,
size, and location of critical habitat
units to achieve recovery. Based on the
best information available at this time,
including information on which the
listing and recovery plans for most of
these species were based, we have
concluded that the current size and
distribution of the extant populations
are not sufficient to provide for the
conservation of these plant species
(Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217–238;
Reed 2005, pp. 563–568).
For 95 of these plant species, the
overall recovery strategy, outlined in the
approved recovery plans, includes: (1)
Stabilization of existing wild
populations; (2) protection and
management of habitat; (3) enhancement
of existing small populations and
reestablishment of new populations
within historical range; and (4) research
on species biology and ecology (Service
Recovery Plan for Gouania hillebrandii
(Rhamnaceae), July 1990; Recovery Plan
for the Kauai Plant Cluster, September
1995; Lanai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan,
September 1995; Recovery Plan for
Marsilea villosa, April 1996; Recovery
Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster,
September 1996; Recovery Plan for
Molokai Plant Cluster, September 1996;
Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant
Cluster, July 1997; Recovery Plan for
Kokia cookei, June 1998; Recovery Plan
for the Oahu Plant Cluster, August 1998;
Recovery Plan for 4 Hawaiian Ferns,
April 1998; Molokai II: Addendum to
the Recovery Plan for the Molokai Plant
Cluster, May 1998; Recovery Plan for
the Multi-Island Plants, July 1999; and
Addendum to the Recovery Plan for
Multi-Island Plants, September).
Although recovery plans have not yet
been developed for 35 of the plants in
this final rule (Bidens campylotheca
ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, B. conjuncta,
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Canavalia
pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
duvalliorum, C. horrida, C. kunthiana,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. munroi, C.
obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. filipes, C.
oxybapha, Festuca molokaiensis,
Geranium hanaense, G. hillebrandii,
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, Myrsine
vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P.
pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum,
Pleomele fernaldii, Schiedea jacobii, S.
laui, S. salicaria, Stenogyne
kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa)
listed as endangered on May 28, 2013
(78 FR 32014), or for Phyllostegia
hispida, listed as endangered on March
17, 2009 (74 FR 11319), and for which
we are designating critical habitat in
this final rule, we believe it is
reasonable to apply this same recovery
strategy to these 35 plant species
because they have similar life histories,
occur in the same habitat, and face the
same threats as the 95 plant species
with approved recovery plans and
addressed in this final rule, including
small numbers of individuals and
greatly reduced distributions.
The overall recovery goal stated in the
recovery plans for each of 95 plant
species with approved recovery plans
and which we have applied to the 35
plant species without recovery plans,
includes the establishment of 8 to 10
populations with a minimum of 100
mature, reproducing individuals per
population for long-lived perennials;
300 mature, reproducing individuals per
population for short-lived perennials;
and 500 mature, reproducing
individuals per population for annuals.
These are the minimum population
targets set for considering delisting of
the species, which we consider the
equivalent of achieving the conservation
of the species as defined in section 3 of
the Act (hereafter we refer to these
delisting objectives as defined in
recovery plans or by the HPPRCC (1998)
as simply ‘‘recovery objectives’’). (There
is only one exception to the criteria
above, and that is Marsilea villosa, a
short-lived terrestrial fern dependent on
flooding regimes for its reproductive
cycle. The recovery plan states that for
downlisting, at least six distinct, selfsustaining populations must be
maintained over two successive
flooding events, and that to delist, the
six populations must no longer be in
need of active management, and that
these criteria should then be
reconsidered 5 years following the
delisting). To be considered recovered,
the populations of multi-island species
should be distributed among the islands
of its known historical range (Service
Recovery Plan for Gouania hillebrandii
(Rhamnaceae), July 1990; Recovery Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17865
for the Kauai Plant Cluster, September
1995; Lanai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan,
September 1995; Recovery Plan for
Marsilea villosa, April 1996; Recovery
Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster,
September 1996; Recovery Plan for
Molokai Plant Cluster, September 1996;
Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant
Cluster, July 1997; Recovery Plan for
Kokia cookei, June 1998; Recovery Plan
for the Oahu Plant Cluster, August 1998;
Recovery Plan for 4 Hawaiian Ferns,
April 1998; Molokai II: Addendum to
the Recovery Plan for the Molokai Plant
Cluster, May 1998; Recovery Plan for
the Multi-Island Plants, July 1999; and
Addendum to the Recovery Plan for
Multi-Island Plants, September;
HPPRCC 1998). A population, for the
purposes of this discussion and as
defined in the recovery plans for these
species, is a unit in which the
individuals could be regularly crosspollinated and influenced by the same
small-scale events (such as landslides),
and which contains a minimum of 100,
300, or 500 mature, reproducing
individuals, depending on whether the
species is a long-lived perennial, shortlived perennial, or annual, respectively.
For all plant species, propagated and
outplanted individuals are generally not
initially counted toward recovery, as
populations must demonstrate
recruitment (the ability to reproduce
and generate multiple generations) and
viability over an extended period of
time to be considered self-sustaining.
By adopting the specific recovery
objectives enumerated above, the
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and
random environmental events and
catastrophes, such as landslides, floods,
and hurricanes, which could destroy a
large percentage of a species at any one
time, may be reduced (Kramer et al.
2008, p. 879; Menges 1990, pp. 56–60;
Neel and Ellstrand 2003, p. 347). These
recovery objectives were initially
developed by the HPPRCC and are
found in the recovery plans for 95 plant
species, and applied to the 35 plant
species without approved recovery
plans. Further discussion on these
recovery objectives can be found in our
final critical habitat designations for 3
plants on the island of Lanai (68 FR
1220; January 9, 2003), 41 plants on
Molokai (68 FR 12982; March 18, 2003),
and 60 plants on the islands of Maui
and Kahoolawe (68 FR 25934; May 14,
2003). As stated above, these objectives
describe the minimum population
criteria to be met, based on the best
available scientific data, to ensure
adequate population resiliency
(population size, growth rate, and
connectivity; indicative of ability to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
withstand stochastic disturbances),
redundancy (spreading the risk among
multiple populations over a large
geographic area; ability to withstand
catastrophic events), and representation
(genetic and environmental diversity;
ability to adapt to changing conditions
over time) to ensure long-term viability
and bring these species to the point at
which the protections of the Act are no
longer necessary (delisting). As this is
the definition of conservation under
section 3 of the Act, we consider the
ability to meet these recovery objectives
as essential to the conservation of these
species. These population recovery
objectives are not necessarily the only
recovery criteria for each species, but
they served as the guide for our
identification of the critical habitat areas
essential for the conservation of the
Maui Nui species in this rule, in terms
of providing the ability to meet the
specified population objectives.
In conclusion, for the 130 plant
species addressed in this final rule, their
conservation is dependent upon the
protection of habitat for existing
population sites, including room for
population growth and expansion, and
suitable unoccupied habitat within their
historical range to provide for the
requisite resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of populations through
restoration and reintroductions (see
Unoccupied Areas, below).
Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds
The recovery strategies for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu are generally
similar because these two birds inhabit
similar geographic areas and face
common threats (Service 2006, pp. 2–
83, 2–143). These recovery strategies,
enumerated in the Service’s 2006
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Forest Birds (pp. 2–83, 2–143), include
the protection, restoration, and
management of native high-elevation
habitat on east Maui; research to
understand the threats from disease and
predation; and reestablishment (through
captive propagation (both akohekohe
and kiwikiu) or translocation of wildcaught adult birds (kiwikiu)) of a second
population of both species in historical
habitat on west Maui or east Molokai to
reduce the risk of extinction due to
catastrophic events, such as hurricanes
and disease outbreaks (Service 2006, pp.
2–83, 2–143). Currently, there is only
one population each of the akohekohe
and kiwikiu, both on the windward side
of Haleakala, east Maui. Suitable habitat
is needed in other areas to achieve at
least two populations or a
metapopulation of each species on the
islands of Maui Nui. The akohekohe and
kiwikiu are known to have occurred on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Molokai. West Maui and Molokai
contain intact native forest suitable for
both species, except for the presence of
mosquitoes and avian diseases.
Haleakala supports a population of
approximately 3,800 akohekohe that
occupy 22 sq mi (58 sq km), and a
population of approximately 500
kiwikiu that occupy about 19 sq mi (59
sq km). For each species these areas
represent less than 5 percent of the
estimated historical ranges on Maui.
Both species appear to occupy almost
all habitat that is currently suitable,
because of disease constraints at lower
elevations. To ensure the potential for
population increase, additional habitat
must be restored from 4,000 to 7,000 ft
(1,200 to 2,000 m) on the leeward slopes
and from 5,000 to 7,000 ft (1,500 to
2,000 m) on the western slopes,
including a lower elevational limit of
2,500 ft (750 m) on windward Haleakala
to encompass nonbreeding habitat for
some birds following seasonal flowering
downslope. A recovery area on west
Maui, from 2,500 ft (750 m) to the
summit (5,800 ft (1,800 m) that
encompasses suitable forest habitat,
most of which is already managed for
conservation, with large areas of native
forest, would provide a second
geographically disjunct population for
each of these species. A recovery area
on Molokai, from 2,500 ft (750 m) to the
summit, would encompass forest habitat
suitable for the two forest birds, and
currently, upper elevations are managed
for conservation, with management still
required for control and prevention of
avian disease. This would provide for
population increases and populations
disjunct from the island of Maui, in case
of catastrophic events. The
establishment of these additional
populations in unoccupied but suitable
habitat is essential to the conservation
of these two bird species, as each
remains highly vulnerable to extinction
through either a single catastrophic
event or a disease epizootic, since each
species has been reduced to only a
single population.
The recovery plan also provides the
recovery criteria for delisting the
akohekohe and kiwikiu (i.e., removing
the species from protection under the
Act). The following criteria must be met
over a 30-year time period: (1) Two or
more viable populations or a viable
metapopulation on Haleakala and either
west Maui or Molokai that represent the
ecological, morphological, behavioral,
and genetic diversity of the species; (2)
population viability demonstrated by
quantitative surveys or demographic
monitoring and total population size not
expected to decline by more than 20
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
percent over a 30-year period; (3)
sufficient habitat in recovery areas is
protected and managed to achieve
criteria 1 and 2; and (4) threats that led
to the decline of the species are
identified and controlled (Service 2006,
pp. x–xi, 3–5).
In conclusion, for both of these birds,
their conservation is dependent upon
the protection of existing population
sites and suitable unoccupied habitat
within their historical range.
Unoccupied but suitable habitat, as
described in the Revised Forest Birds
Recovery Plan, is essential for the
conservation of both bird species to
provide for the expansion of extant
populations, as well as sites for
translocation or reintroduction to
establish additional populations
essential to the conservation of the
species. Areas both on east and west
Maui, and on Molokai, are designated as
critical habitat because these areas are
necessary to promote natural
demographic and evolutionary
processes, and to allow the species to
expand into potential habitat in a ‘‘ring’’
of suitable forest at upper elevations
where mosquitoes (that spread disease)
are rare. Reestablishment of these forest
birds on west Maui or Molokai is
necessary; however, it is uncertain in
exactly which area (east or west Maui,
or Molokai) a new population of birds
might have the most success in
reestablishing. Relatively large areas of
suitable unoccupied habitat are needed
to support the additional populations
that are essential to the conservation of
each species, based on the large home
ranges of the birds, their territorial
behavior, and the requisite availability
of food sources that are ephemeral on
the landscape and therefore shift in
geographic location over time (i.e., trees
come into flower in different locations
at different times).
Recovery Strategy for Three Tree Snails
Only one recovery plan is available
for listed Hawaiian tree snails, and it is
for 41 species on Oahu previously listed
as endangered (Service Recovery Plan
for Oahu Tree Snails of the Genus
Achatinella 1992, entire). Although
there are no downlisting or delisting
criteria for these 41 endangered species
of tree snails, the primary interim
recovery objective is to stabilize
populations in the wild and initiate
captive propagation. Additional actions
include conducting surveys, assessing
and managing threats, protecting
habitat, and conducting research.
Although recovery plans have not yet
been developed for the three tree snails
in this final rule, it is reasonable to
conclude that their conservation needs
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
would be similar and apply these same
interim recovery objectives to the three
Maui Nui tree snails because they are in
the same family, have similar life
histories (long-lived, low reproductive
rates, etc.), occur in similar habitat, and
face the same threats as the 41 species
of Achatinella tree snails that have an
approved recovery plan (Browning
2013, in litt.; Sether 2013, in litt.). The
essential habitat for the Achatinella tree
snails was determined by mapping their
current and historical ranges on the
island of Oahu, and selecting forest
areas with suitable vegetation and
rainfall within those current and
historical ranges. As described in the
recovery plan, Achatinella sp. had
ranges varying from 3 to 150 square
kilometers (sq km) (1 to 58 square miles
(sq mi). In the absence of a recovery
plan for the three species at issue here,
we are following the same delisting
objectives as for the Achatinella tree
snails, i.e., determine their current range
on the island of Maui (Newcombia
cumingi) and Lanai (Partulina
semicarinata and P. variabilis) and
select forest areas with suitable
vegetation and rainfall within those
areas, to stabilize wild populations by
managing threats and protecting habitat
within suitable forest areas within their
current ranges, and to initiate captive
propagation for reintroduction to these
areas. As each of the three Maui Nui tree
snails has been considerably reduced in
both range and number (each of the
three species is a single-island endemic;
on Maui, the last survey for N. cumingi
in 2012 identified a single individual,
and on Lanai, the most recent surveys
in 2005 estimated a total of 29
individuals of P. semicarinata and 90 of
P. variabilis), unoccupied but suitable
habitat including the forest and rainfall
to provide for wet forest habitat within
their current range (a total of
approximately 10 sq km (4 sq mi) for
each Partulina sp. and 2.5 sq km (1 sq
mi) for Newcombia) will be essential to
the conservation of each of these
species.
In summary, the overall recovery of
these 135 Hawaiian species (130 plants,
2 forest birds, and 3 tree snails) in this
final rule includes protection of existing
populations and their habitat,
augmentation of existing populations
and reestablishment of new populations
within their historical range, control of
threats, research on species’ biology and
ecology, and research on abatement and
control of threats that are currently not
addressed. Relevant to this designation
of critical habitat, the recovery of these
135 Hawaiian species therefore requires
a combination of both presently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
occupied habitat (to protect existing
populations) and unoccupied habitat
(for expansion or augmentation of
existing populations and
reestablishment of new populations
within their historical range) (see
Occupied Areas and Unoccupied Areas,
below).
Revision of Critical Habitat for 85 Plants
on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe
Under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
we may, as appropriate, revise a critical
habitat designation. In 1984, we
designated critical habitat for a single
species of plant, Gouania hillebrandii,
on 114 ac (46 ha) in four units (49 FR
44753) based on its known location at
the time. In 2003, we designated critical
habitat for 3 Lanai plants on 789 ac (320
ha) in 6 units (68 FR 1220, January 9,
2003); for 41 Molokai plants on 24,333
ac (9,843 ha) in 88 units (68 FR 12982,
March 18, 2003); and for 60 plants on
Maui (93,200 ac (37,717 ha)) and
Kahoolawe (2,915 ac (1,180 ha)) in 139
units (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). All
designations were based on the known
locations of the species at the time.
Based on new scientific data available
since 2003, we are revising critical
habitat for these 85 plant species on the
islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe (this number differs from the
original number of species with critical
habitat designations, due to some
taxonomic revisions made subsequent to
the original designations; in addition, as
some species occur on more than one
island, they are counted twice if the
species are counted on an island-byisland basis; see Table 1). When
designating critical habitat in occupied
areas, we focus on the essential physical
or biological features that may be
essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special
management considerations or
protections. In unoccupied habitat, we
focus on whether the area is essential to
the conservation of the species. We have
determined that the physical or
biological features identified in the
original critical habitat designations for
these 85 plant species can be improved,
based on new information that has
become available. The physical or
biological features for occupied areas as
described in this rule, in conjunction
with the unoccupied areas needed to
expand and reestablish wild
populations within their historical
range, provide a more accurate picture
of the geographic areas needed for the
recovery of each species. We believe
this information will be helpful to
Federal agencies and our other partners,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17867
as we collectively work to recover these
imperiled species.
Approximately 64 percent of the area
we are designating as critical habitat in
this rule overlaps with the areas already
designated in the 1984 and 2003 final
critical habitat rules. In some areas, the
footprint of the revision is larger than
the 1984 and 2003 designations, to
accommodate the expansion of species’
ranges within the particular ecosystem
in which they occur (e.g., expansion
into currently unoccupied habitat),
which may not have been accounted for
in the original designations. Based on
the best available information, the
revision correlates each species’
physical or biological requirements with
the characteristics of the ecosystems on
which they depend (e.g., elevation,
rainfall, species associations, etc.), and
also includes some areas unoccupied by
the species but determined to be
essential for the conservation of the
species. One ancillary benefit is that the
revision should enable managers to
focus conservation management efforts
on common threats that occur across
shared ecosystems and facilitates the
restoration of the ecosystem function
and species-specific habitat needs for
the recovery of each of the 85 species.
Another added benefit is that the
publication of more comprehensive
critical habitat unit maps that should be
more useful to the public and
conservation managers.
Here we have reevaluated the
physical or biological features for each
of the 85 plant species for which we are
revising critical habitat, based on habitat
type using species information from the
1984 and 2003 critical habitat
designations, and new scientific
information that has become available
since that time. As noted above, in 1984
and 2003, the physical or biological
features for each plant species were
defined on the basis of the habitat
features of the areas actually occupied
by the plants, which included plant
community, associated native plant
species, locale information (e.g., steep
rocky cliffs, talus slopes, gulches,
stream banks), and elevation (49 FR
44753, November 9, 1984; 68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In
this final rule, we are designating
critical habitat in areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing as well as
areas currently unoccupied by the
species but determined to be essential
for their conservation (i.e., areas
necessary to bring the species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer needed).
The physical or biological features have
now been more precisely identified for
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
these 85 plant species, and include
elevation, precipitation, substrate,
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
characteristics. In addition, since 2003,
we have found that many areas where
these species are currently or recently
reported from are marginal habitat and
that the species occurs there due to
remoteness or inaccessibility to feral
ungulates. The physical or biological
features essential to the species’
conservation have now been more
accurately identified for these 85 plant
species, and include elevation,
precipitation, substrate, canopy,
subcanopy, and understory
characteristics. In addition, as all of the
species addressed in this final rule have
been greatly reduced from their former
abundance and distribution, a
designation limited to the areas
currently occupied by these species is
inadequate for their conservation,
especially if the areas currently
occupied represent suboptimal habitats.
Therefore, the 1984 and 2003 critical
habitat designations may not have
included all of the unoccupied areas
that are essential for the conservation of
the species. When occupied areas were
not adequate to achieve essential
recovery goals, we also identified some
unoccupied areas as critical habitat
upon a determination that such areas
are essential to the conservation of the
species. We concluded that each of the
Maui Nui species requires some
currently unoccupied areas that are
essential to achieve recovery and
therefore the conservation of the
species. We address this issue under
‘‘Unoccupied Areas,’’ below.
VII. Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining those areas
occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the 135 species, and those areas that
may be unoccupied but are essential to
the conservation of the species, by
identifying the occurrence data for each
species and determining the ecosystems
upon which they depend. This
information was developed by using:
• The known locations of the 135
species, including site-specific species
information from the Hawaii
Biodiversity and Mapping Program
(HBMP) database (HBMP 2010), the
TNC database (TNC 2007), and our own
rare plant database;
• Species information from the plant
database housed at the National
Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG);
• Maps of habitat essential to the
recovery of Hawaiian plants, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
determined by the Hawaii and Pacific
Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee
(HPPRCC 1998, 32 pp. + appendices);
• Recovery area as determined in the
revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Forest Birds (USFWS 2006);
• Maps of important habitat for the
recovery of plants protected under the
Act (USFWS 1999, pp. F8–F11);
• Projections of geographic ranges of
plant species in the Hawaiian Islands,
including climate data, substrate data,
topography, soils, and disturbance,
Price et al. 2012 (34 pp. + appendices);
• Recovery plans that are available for
95 of the plant species (Recovery Plan
for Gouania hillebrandii (Rhamnaceae),
July 1990; Recovery Plan for the Kauai
Plant Cluster, September 1995; Lanai
Plant Cluster Recovery Plan, September
1995; Recovery Plan for Marsilea
villosa, April 1996; Recovery Plan for
the Big Island Plant Cluster, September
1996; Recovery Plan for Molokai Plant
Cluster, September 1996; Recovery Plan
for the Maui Plant Cluster, July 1997;
Recovery Plan for Kokia cookei, June
1998; Recovery Plan for the Oahu Plant
Cluster, August 1998; Recovery Plan for
4 Hawaiian Ferns, April 1998; Molokai
II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan for
the Molokai Plant Cluster, May 1998;
Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island
Plants, July 1999; and Addendum to the
Recovery Plan for Multi-Island Plants,
September);
• Recovery plan for Oahu tree snails
(Recovery Plan for Oahu Tree Snails of
the Genus Achatinella, April 1993);
• The Nature Conservancy’s
Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian
High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps
(TNC 2007);
• Color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital
aerial photographs for the Hawaiian
Islands (April to May 2005);
• Island-wide Geographic Information
System (GIS) coverage (e.g., Gap
Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data
of 2005);
• 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics
of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic quadrangles;
• Geospatial data sets associated with
parcel data from Maui County (includes
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe)
(2010);
• Final critical habitat designations
for Gouania hillebrandii and for listed
plant species on the islands of Lanai,
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (49 FR
44753, November 9, 1984; 68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003);
• Recent biological surveys and
reports; and
• Discussions with qualified
individuals familiar with these species
and ecosystems.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Based upon all of this data, we
determined that one or more of the 11
habitat types described in this rule are
currently occupied or were occupied at
the time of listing by one or more of the
135 species addressed in this rule and
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, or are currently not
occupied by one or more of the 135
species but are areas essential for the
conservation of the species (coastal
(TNC 2006a), lowland dry (TNC 2006b),
lowland mesic (TNC 2006c), lowland
wet (TNC 2006d), montane wet (TNC
2006e), montane mesic (TNC 2006f),
montane dry (TNC 2006g), subalpine
(TNC 2006h), alpine (TNC 2006i), dry
cliff (TNC 2006j), and wet cliff (TNC
2006k)).
Occupied Areas
Essential Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act, we determine which areas
within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing contain the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. These
physical or biological features provide
the essential life-history requirements of
the species, and include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
rearing (or development) of offspring,
germination, or seed dispersal; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
For plant species, ecosystems that
provide appropriate seasonal wetland
and dry land habitats, host species,
pollinators, soil types, and associated
plant communities are taken into
consideration when determining the
physical or biological features essential
for a species. For the two forest bird
species, ecosystems that provide
appropriate forest habitat for shelter,
breeding, reproduction, rearing (or
development) of offspring and
nutritional requirements are taken into
consideration when determining the
physical or biological features essential
for both species. For tree snail species,
ecosystems that provide appropriate
host plant species for shelter,
reproduction, and nutritional
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements are taken into
consideration when determining the
physical or biological features essential
for the three species in this final rule.
Under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
we may, as appropriate, revise a critical
habitat designation. For the reasons
described above, we are revising critical
habitat for 85 plants from Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, based on
new information received since the
original designations and the need to
designate unoccupied habitat to
conserve the species. In addition, the
recovery plans for 95 of the plant
species (see list, above) identify several
actions needed to recover these species
(see above, ‘‘Recovery Strategy for
Hawaiian Plants,’’ ‘‘Recovery Strategy
for Two Forest Birds,’’ and ‘‘Recovery
Strategy for Three Tree Snails’’),
including: (1) Protecting habitat and
controlling threats; (2) expanding
existing wild populations; (3)
conducting essential research; (4)
developing and maintaining monitoring
plans; (5) reestablishing wild
populations within the historical range;
and (6) validating and revising recovery
criteria. Of these actions essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
species, of primary relevance to this
designation of critical habitat for the
Maui Nui species is the objective of
providing for expansion or
augmentation of existing wild
populations (relevant to consideration
of occupied critical habitat) and the
need for reintroduction and
reestablishment of populations within
the historical range (relevant to the
consideration of unoccupied critical
habitat). For species with recovery
plans, recovery criteria have been
established, and generally include
specific objectives in terms of numbers
17869
of populations and individuals that are
needed to achieve the conservation of
the species. Where such objectives exist,
we considered them in our
identification of critical habitat (i.e.,
whether population expansion,
augmentation, or reestablishment is
essential to the conservation of the
species, in light of its current status). As
noted above, most but not all of the
plant species included in this final rule
have a recovery plan in place. For those
plant species without specific recovery
goals set forth in a recovery plan, we
used the general recovery objective
guidelines established by the HPPRC
(1998) to help determine what is needed
for each species in terms of critical
habitat. Although we have described
these guidelines earlier, here we
summarize them for ease of reference in
Table 4.
TABLE 4—RECOVERY OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES FOR HAWAIIAN PLANTS
[Goals presented here are for delisting, which is equivalent to achieving the conservation of the species, as defined in section 3 of the Act. In
addition to achieving the numbers shown here, the guidelines stipulate that all populations must be stable, secure, and naturally reproducing]
Number of
populations 2
Life history
Long-lived perennials 4 .....................................................................................
Short-lived perennials ......................................................................................
Annuals ............................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
We derive the specific physical and
biological features required for each of
the plant and animal species from
studies of the species’ habitat, ecology,
and life history as described in the
Critical Habitat section of the June 11,
2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule, and
in the information presented below. The
consideration of whether space for the
expansion or augmentation of current
occurrences or populations is needed, in
light of the recovery objectives for each
species and its current status, was also
taken into account in our derivation of
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Primary Constituent Elements
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the 135
species in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features’ primary
constituent elements. Primary
constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ life2 Number
of populations that must reach stability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
5–10
5–10
5–10
Number of
individuals per
population 3
100–200
300–500
500–1,000
Total number
of individuals
500–2,000
1,500–5,000
2,500–10,000
Time
sustained
(years)
10
5–10
5
history processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
The primary constituent elements
identified in this final rule take into
consideration the habitat types in which
each species occurs and reflect a
distribution that we believe is essential
to achieving the species’ recovery needs
within those ecosystems. As described
above, we considered the current
population status of each species, to the
extent it is known, and assessed its
status relative to the recovery objectives
for that species, in terms of population
goals (numbers of populations and
individuals in each population, which
contributes to population resiliency)
and distribution (whether the species
occurs in habitats representative of its
historic geographical and ecological
distribution, and are sufficiently
redundant to withstand the loss of some
populations over time). This assessment
informed us as to whether the species
requires space for population growth
and expansion in areas occupied at the
time of listing, or whether additional
areas unoccupied at the time of listing
may be required for the reestablishment
of populations to achieve conservation.
In this final rule, primary constituent
elements for each of the 135 species are
defined based on those physical or
biological features essential to support
the successful functioning of the habitat
type upon which each species depends,
and which may require special
management considerations or
protection. As the conservation of each
species is dependent upon functioning
habitat to provide its fundamental life
requirements, such as a certain soil
type, minimum level of rainfall, or
suitable native host plant, we consider
the physical or biological features
present in the ecosystems described in
this rule to provide the necessary PCEs
for each species. These features
collectively provide the suite of
environmental conditions within each
ecosystem essential to meeting the
requirements of each species, including
space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior, the
appropriate microclimatic conditions
for germination and growth of the plants
(e.g., light availability, soil nutrients,
3 Number of mature, reproducing individuals that
must be present in each stable population.
4 Known to live for more than 10 reproductive
years; if no solid information available, assume
short-lived.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
hydrologic regime, temperature);
maintenance of upland habitat to
provide for the proper ecological
functioning of forest elements for the
three tree snails and the two forest
birds; and, in all cases, space within the
appropriate habitats for population
growth and expansion, as well as to
maintain the historical geographical and
ecological distribution of each species.
Due to our limited knowledge of the
specific life-history requirements for the
species that are little-studied and occur
in remote and inaccessible areas, the
physical or biological features described
in this document that provide for the
successful function of the ecosystem
that is essential to the conservation of
the species represents the best (and, in
many cases, the only) scientific
information available. Accordingly, for
purposes of this rule, the physical or
biological features of a properly
functioning ecosystem are, at least in
part, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of these
135 species.
Table 5 identifies the physical or
biological features of a functioning
ecosystem for each of the habitat types
identified in this final rule, and each
species identified in this rule requires
the physical or biological features for
each ecosystem in which that species
occurs. These physical or biological
features provide the PCEs for the
individual species in each ecosystem or
habitat type. The physical or biological
features are defined here by elevation,
annual levels of precipitation, substrate
type and slope, and the characteristic
native plant genera that are found in the
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
levels of the vegetative community
where applicable. If further information
is available indicating additional,
specific life-history requirements for
some species, PCEs relating to these
requirements are described separately
and are termed ‘‘species-specific PCEs,’’
which are identified in Table 6. The
PCEs for each species are therefore
composed of the physical or biological
features found in its functioning
ecosystem(s) (Table 5), in combination
with additional requirements specific to
that species, if any (Table 6). Note that
the PCEs identified in Table 6 for each
species are directly related to the
physical or biological features presented
in detail in Table 5; thus, both Tables
5 and 6 must be read together to fully
describe all of the PCEs for each species.
TABLE 5–PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES IN EACH ECOSYSTEM
[Read in association with Table 6]
Ecosystem
Elevation
Annual
precipitation
Substrate
Supporting one or more of these associated native plant
genera
Canopy
Subcanopy
Understory
Hibiscus,
Myoporum,
Santalum,
Scaevola.
Gossypium, Sida,
Vitex.
Eragrostis,
Jacquemontia,
Lyceum, Nama,
Sesuvium,
Sporobolus,
Vigna.
Diospyros,
Myoporum,
Pleomele,
Santalum.
Chamaesyce,
Dodonaea,
Leptecophylla,
Osteomeles,
Psydrax,
Scaevola,
Wikstroemia.
Dodonaea,
Freycinetia,
Leptecophylla,
Melanthera,
Osteomeles,
Pleomele,
Psydrax.
Cibotium,
Claoxylon,
Kadua,
Melicope.
Alyxia, Artemisia,
Bidens, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis,
Peperomia,
Sicyos.
<980 ft (<300 m)
<20 in (<50 cm) ..
Lowland Dry 2 .........
<3,300 ft (<1,000
m).
<50 in (<130 cm)
Lowland Mesic 3 .....
<3,300 ft (<1,000
m).
50–75 in (130–
190 cm).
Shallow soils, little
to no herbaceous layer.
Acacia,
Diospyros,
Metrosideros,
Myrsine,
Pouteria,
Santalum.
Lowland Wet 4 ........
<3,300 ft (<1,000
m).
>75 in (>190 cm)
Clays; ashbeds;
deep, welldrained soils;
lowland bogs.
Montane Wet 5 .......
3,300–6,500 ft
(1,000–2,000
m).
>75 in (>190 cm)
Well-developed
soils, montane
bogs.
Antidesma,
Metrosideros,
Myrsine,
Pisonia,
Psychotria.
Acacia,
Charpentiera,
Cheirodendron,
Metrosideros.
Montane Mesic 6 ....
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Coastal 1 .................
3,300–6,500 ft
(1,000–2,000
m).
50–75 in (130–
190 cm).
Deep ash deposits, thin silty
loams.
PO 00000
Fmt 4701
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Frm 00082
Well-drained, calcareous, talus
slopes; dunes;
weathered clay
soils; ephemeral pools;
mudflats.
Weathered silty
loams to stony
clay, rocky
ledges, littleweathered lava.
Sfmt 4700
Acacia, Ilex,
Metrosideros,
Myrsine,
Nestegis,
Nothocestrum,
Pisonia,
Pittosporum,
Psychotria,
Sophora,
Zanthoxylum.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Broussaisia,
Cibotium,
Eurya, Ilex,
Myrsine.
Alyxia,
Charpentiera,
Coprosma,
Dodonaea,
Kadua,
Labordia,
Leptecophylla,
Phyllostegia,
Vaccinium.
30MRR2
Carex,
Dicranopteris,
Diplazium,
Elaphoglossum,
Peperomia.
Alyxia, Cyrtandra,
Dicranopteris,
Diplazium,
Machaerina,
Microlepia.
Ferns, Carex,
Coprosma,
Leptecophylla,
Oreobolus,
Rhynchospora,
Vaccinium.
Ferns, Carex,
Peperomia.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17871
TABLE 5–PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES IN EACH ECOSYSTEM—Continued
[Read in association with Table 6]
Ecosystem
Elevation
Annual
precipitation
Substrate
Supporting one or more of these associated native plant
genera
Canopy
Montane Dry 7 ........
3,300–6,500 ft
(1,000–2,000
m).
<50 in (<130 cm)
Dry cinder or ash
soils, loamy volcanic sands,
blocky lava,
rock
outcroppings.
Acacia,
Metrosideros,
Myoporum,
Santalum,
Sophora.
Subalpine 8 .............
6,500–9,800 ft
(2,000–3,000
m).
15–40 in (38–100
cm).
Dry ash, sandy
loam, rocky, undeveloped soils,
weathered lava.
Chamaesyce,
Chenopodium,
Metrosideros,
Myoporum,
Santalum,
Sophora.
Alpine 9 ...................
>9,800 ft (>3,000
m).
30–50 in (75–125
cm).
Barren gravel, debris, cinders.
none ....................
Dry Cliff 10 ..............
unrestricted .........
<75 in (<190 cm)
>65 degree slope,
rocky talus.
none ....................
Wet Cliff 11 ..............
unrestricted .........
>75 in (>190 cm)
>65 degree slope,
shallow soils,
weathered lava.
none ....................
Subcanopy
Chamaesyce,
Coprosma,
Dodonaea,
Dubautia,
Leptecophylla,
Osteomeles,
Wikstroemia.
Coprosma,
Dodonaea,
Dubautia, Geranium,
Leptecophylla,
Vaccinium,
Wikstroemia.
Argyroxiphium,
Dubautia,
Silene,
Tetramolopium.
Antidesma,
Chamaesyce,
Diospyros,
Dodonaea.
Broussaisia,
Cheirodendron,
Leptecophylla,
Metrosideros.
Understory
Bidens,
Eragrostis,
Melanthera,
Vaccinium.
Ferns, Bidens,
Carex,
Deschampsia,
Eragrostis,
Gahnia, Luzula,
Panicum,
Pseudognaphalium, Sicyos,
Tetramolopium.
none.
Bidens,
Eragrostis,
Melanthera,
Schiedea.
Bryophytes,
Ferns,
Coprosma,
Dubautia,
Kadua,
Peperomia.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
1 The physical or biological features for the species in the Coastal ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Coastal–Units 1–11;
Kahoolawe–Coastal–Units 1–3; Molokai–Coastal–Units 1–7.
2 The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Dry ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Lowland Dry–Units 1–6;
Kahoolawe–Lowland Dry–Units 1–2; Molokai–Lowland Dry–Units 1–2.
3 The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Mesic ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Lowland Mesic–Units
1–3;
Lanai–Lowland Mesic–Unit 1; Molokai–Lowland Mesic–Unit 1.
4 The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Wet ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Lowland Wet–Units 1–8;
Molokai–Lowland Wet–Units 1–3.
5 The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Wet ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Montane Wet–Units 1–
77; Molokai–Montane Wet–Units 1–3.
6 The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Mesic ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Montane Mesic–Units
1–55; Molokai–Montane Mesic–Unit 1.
7 The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Dry ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Montane Dry–Unit 1.
8 The physical or biological features for the species in the Subalpine ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Subalpine–Units 1–2.
9 The physical or biological features for the species in the Alpine ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Alpine–Unit 1.
10 The physical or biological features for the species in the Dry Cliff ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Dry Cliff–Units 1–66.
11 The physical or biological features for the species in the Wet Cliff ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui–Wet Cliff–Units 1–44, 6–8;
Molokai–Wet Cliff–Units 1–3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
..................
Alectryon macrococcus var. macrococcus ...............
PO 00000
Frm 00084
..................
..................
..................
..................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
..................
..................
..................
Bidens conjuncta .......................................................
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha ..............................
Bidens wiebkei ..........................................................
Bonamia menziesii ....................................................
Brighamia rockii ........................................................
Clermontia lindseyana ..............................................
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes .......................
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis ....................
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
..................
30MRR2
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Clermontia samuelii ..................................................
Colubrina oppositifolia ...............................................
Ctenitis squamigera ..................................................
Cyanea asplenifolia ...................................................
Cyanea
Cyanea
Cyanea
Cyanea
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis ....................
dunbariae .....................................................
duvalliorum ..................................................
gibsonii ........................................................
..................
Clermontia peleana ...................................................
Calamagrostis hillebrandii .........................................
Canavalia molokaiensis ............................................
Canavalia pubescens ................................................
Cenchrus agrimonioides ...........................................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
MO ...........
LA ............
..................
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis ....................
Asplenium dielerectum ..............................................
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare ........................
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera ......................
..................
..................
Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis .................
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.macrocephalum ....
..................
..................
..................
Plants
Abutilon eremitopetalum ...........................................
Acaena exigua ..........................................................
Adenophorus periens ................................................
Coastal
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA, LA ...
..................
EMA, MO
..................
..................
WMA, LA ..
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
EMA .........
LA.
..................
..................
Lowland
dry
EMA .........
MO ...........
..................
..................
WMA.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
LA .............
LA.
..................
MO ...........
..................
LA .............
..................
LA, MO .....
..................
..................
WMA, MO
..................
WMA ........
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
mesic
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
MO ...........
EMA .........
..................
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
MO ...........
EMA,
WMA,
LA.
EMA .........
..................
MO ...........
WMA ........
WMA ........
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
WMA, MO
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
wet
EMA .........
..................
EMA.
LA .............
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA.
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
..................
WMA ........
EMA, LA,
MO.
..................
Montane
wet
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA.
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Sub-alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
Montane
dry
..................
MO.
WMA ........
..................
..................
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
MO.
..................
..................
..................
EMA, MO
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA, MO
EMA .........
..................
..................
Montane
mesic
Ecosystem
LA.
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Dry
cliff
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
LA ............
..................
EMA, LA.
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Alpine
LA.
EMA.
WMA, LA.
..................
..................
MO.
..................
MO
WMA.
MO.
WMA.
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
Wet
cliff
observed
epiphytic
on ohia,
koa,
olapa.
bog margins.
bogs.
stream
banks.
elevation
>1,200 ft
(>370
m).
elevation
>1,200 ft
(>370
m).
alpine cinder
deserts.
bogs.
epiphytic.
Speciesspecific
physical or
biological
features
TABLE 6—PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS FOR THE MAUI NUI SPECIES ARE A COMBINATION OF THE PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES (SEE TABLE 5) IN
THE APPLICABLE ECOSYSTEM(S) AS WELL AS PCES SPECIFIC TO EACH SPECIES, IF ANY ARE IDENTIFIED
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17872
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Hesperomannia arbuscula ........................................
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus ....................
Hibiscus brackenridgei ..............................................
..................
..................
MO ...........
LA, MO ....
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis ............................
Eugenia koolauensis .................................................
Festuca molokaiensis ...............................................
Flueggea neowawraea ..............................................
Geranium arboreum ..................................................
Geranium hanaense .................................................
Geranium hillebrandii ................................................
Geranium multiflorum ................................................
Gouania hillebrandii ..................................................
Gouania vitifolia ........................................................
Hesperomannia arborescens ....................................
EMA, MO.
..................
..................
..................
..................
KAH .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
Huperzia mannii ........................................................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
ferripilosa ..................................................
filipes ........................................................
munroi ......................................................
oxybapha ..................................................
molokaiense .............................................
Cyanea lobata ssp. baldwinii ....................................
Cyanea lobata ssp. lobata ........................................
Cyanea magnicalyx ...................................................
Cyanea mannii ..........................................................
Cyanea maritae .........................................................
Cyanea mceldowneyi ................................................
Cyanea munroi ..........................................................
Cyanea obtusa ..........................................................
Cyanea procera ........................................................
Cyanea profuga ........................................................
Cyanea solanacea ....................................................
Cyperus fauriei ..........................................................
Cyperus pennatiformis ..............................................
Cyperus trachysanthos .............................................
Cyrtandra
Cyrtandra
Cyrtandra
Cyrtandra
Diplazium
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
..................
glabra ...........................................................
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana ........................
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora ........................
horrida .........................................................
kunthiana .....................................................
Cyanea
Cyanea
Cyanea
Cyanea
Cyanea
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Ischaemum byrone ...................................................
Isodendrion pyrifolium ...............................................
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi .........................................
Kadua coriacea .........................................................
Kadua laxiflora ..........................................................
Kanaloa kahoolawensis ............................................
Kokia cookei ..............................................................
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis ...............................
Labordia triflora .........................................................
Lysimachia lydgatei ...................................................
Lysimachia maxima ..................................................
Marsilea villosa .........................................................
30MRR2
Melanthera kamolensis .............................................
EMA.
..................
..................
WMA.
..................
KAH.
MO.
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA, MO,
KAH.
..................
..................
MO.
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, KAH
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA, MO .....
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
LA .............
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
LA .............
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA,
WMA.
LA.
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA.
EMA .........
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO.
MO ...........
..................
LA .............
..................
MO.
..................
LA .............
..................
MO ...........
..................
LA .............
MO.
..................
..................
..................
LA .............
WMA, LA ..
LA, MO .....
..................
EMA,
WMA.
WMA ........
LA.
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, MO
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
MO ...........
EMA .........
..................
EMA,
WMA.
..................
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
LA .............
EMA .........
..................
..................
MO.
MO.
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO.
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
LA, MO .....
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
WMA ........
EMA .........
EMA.
..................
..................
EMA.
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
MO.
MO.
EMA.
..................
EMA.
MO.
..................
WMA ........
MO.
EMA .........
..................
EMA.
EMA .........
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
..................
LA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA.
LA.
WMA, LA.
WMA.
..................
WMA.
WMA, MO,
LA.
WMA.
MO.
..................
..................
WMA.
WMA.
WMA, LA.
..................
LA, MO.
WMA.
WMA.
EMA.
WMA.
MO.
seasonal
wetland.
epiphytic.
bogs.
bogs.
seasonally
wet soil
and
pond
margins.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17873
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
..................
LA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Platanthera holochila ................................................
Frm 00086
WMA, MO
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA,
MO,
KAH.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Pleomele fernaldii .....................................................
Portulaca sclerocarpa ...............................................
Pteris lidgatei ............................................................
Remya mauiensis .....................................................
Sanicula purpurea .....................................................
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense .........................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO.
..................
..................
..................
EMA, MO
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Melicope balloui ........................................................
Melicope knudsenii ...................................................
Melicope mucronulata ...............................................
Melicope munroi ........................................................
Melicope ovalis .........................................................
Melicope reflexa ........................................................
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea ................................
Myrsine vaccinioides .................................................
Neraudia sericea .......................................................
Phyllostegia haliakalae .............................................
Phyllostegia hispida ..................................................
Phyllostegia mannii ...................................................
Phyllostegia pilosa ....................................................
Pittosporum halophilum ............................................
Plantago princeps .....................................................
PO 00000
Nototrichium humile ..................................................
Peperomia subpetiolata ............................................
Peucedanum sandwicense .......................................
Phyllostegia bracteata ...............................................
..................
Melicope adscendens ...............................................
Coastal
Schenkia sebaeoides ................................................
Schiedea haleakalensis ............................................
Schiedea jacobii ........................................................
Schiedea laui ............................................................
Schiedea lydgatei ......................................................
Schiedea salicaria .....................................................
Schiedea sarmentosa ...............................................
Sesbania tomentosa .................................................
Silene alexandri ........................................................
Silene lanceolata .......................................................
Solanum incompletum ..............................................
Spermolepis hawaiiensis ..........................................
Stenogyne bifida .......................................................
Stenogyne kauaulaensis ...........................................
LA .............
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
Lowland
mesic
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
MO ...........
..................
MO.
MO.
EMA, LA ...
LA, MO .....
MO.
MO.
..................
..................
..................
MO.
..................
WMA ........
..................
EMA,
WMA.
LA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA.
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA, MO,
KAH.
..................
LA .............
EMA, LA ...
EMA,
WMA,
LA.
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA, LA,
MO.
LA .............
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA, KAH.
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
Lowland
dry
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
WMA, LA ..
LA .............
..................
MO ...........
EMA .........
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
WMA, MO.
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
MO ...........
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
wet
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
MO.
MO ...........
..................
WMA ........
LA .............
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
MO ...........
EMA, MO
EMA, MO.
EMA.
WMA ........
..................
EMA.
..................
..................
LA .............
EMA .........
MO.
..................
Montane
wet
MO ...........
WMA.
..................
MO.
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA.
EMA .........
..................
EMA, MO
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
Montane
mesic
Ecosystem
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA.
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
Montane
dry
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Sub-alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Alpine
..................
LA.
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
EMA .........
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA.
..................
..................
..................
Dry
cliff
MO.
WMA, MO.
WMA.
..................
WMA, LA.
LA.
EMA,
WMA.
WMA.
EMA, LA.
MO.
EMA.
..................
LA.
EMA.
..................
Wet
cliff
bogs.
bogs.
elevation
>3,200 ft
(>975
m).
Speciesspecific
physical or
biological
features
TABLE 6—PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS FOR THE MAUI NUI SPECIES ARE A COMBINATION OF THE PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES (SEE TABLE 5) IN
THE APPLICABLE ECOSYSTEM(S) AS WELL AS PCES SPECIFIC TO EACH SPECIES, IF ANY ARE IDENTIFIED—Continued
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17874
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
..................
..................
..................
MO.
EMA, KAH
..................
..................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Akohekohe ................................................................
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
EMA = east Maui.
WMA = west Maui.
LA = Lanai.
MO = Molokai.
KAH = Kahoolawe.
Newcombia cumingi (Newcomb’s tree snail) ............
Partulina semicarinata (Lanai tree snail) ..................
Partulina variabilis (Lanai tree snail) ........................
Snails
Kiwikiu .......................................................................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense ..........................................
Birds
..................
Tetramolopium capillare ............................................
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum .................
Tetramolopium remyi ................................................
Tetramolopium rockii .................................................
Vigna o-wahuensis ....................................................
Viola lanaiensis .........................................................
Wikstroemia villosa ...................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, MO
WMA, MO
WMA, MO
LA, KAH ...
..................
..................
EMA .........
LA, MO.
..................
..................
WMA ........
LA.
WMA, LA.
WMA.
LA .............
LA .............
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
EMA,
WMA.
LA, MO .....
..................
LA .............
LA .............
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
MO ...........
LA .............
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA.
..................
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
EMA,
WMA.
LA ............
WMA ........
LA..
LA..
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
LA.
WMA.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17875
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17876
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Some of the species addressed in this
final rule occur in more than one
ecosystem. The PCEs for these species
are described separately for each
ecosystem in which they occur. The
reasoning behind this approach is that
each species requires a different suite of
environmental conditions depending
upon the ecosystem in which it occurs.
For example, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera will occur in association
with different native plant species,
depending on whether it is found
within the lowland dry, lowland mesic,
montane wet, montane mesic, dry cliff,
or wet cliff ecosystems. Each of the
physical or biological features described
in each ecosystem in which the species
occurs are essential to the conservation
of the species, to retain its geographical
and ecological distribution across the
different ecosystem types in which it
may occur. Each physical or biological
feature is also essential to retaining the
genetic representation that allows this
species to successfully adapt to different
environmental conditions in various
native ecosystems. Although some of
these species occur in multiple native
ecosystems, their declining abundance
in the face of ongoing threats, such as
increasing numbers of nonnative plant
competitors, indicates that they are not
such broad habitat generalists as to be
able to persist in highly altered habitats.
Based on an analysis of the best
available scientific information,
functioning native ecosystems provide
the fundamental biological requirements
for the narrow-range endemics
addressed in this rule.
Some examples may help to clarify
our approach to describing the PCEs for
each individual species. If we want to
determine the PCEs for the plant
Abutilon eremitopetalum, we look at
Table 6 and see that the PCEs for A.
eremitopetalum are provided by the
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem. Table 5
indicates that the physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem
include elevations of less than 3,300 ft
(1,000 m); annual precipitation of less
than 50 in (130 cm); weathered silty
loams to stony clay, rocky ledges, and
little-weathered lava; and potential
habitat for one or more genera of the
canopy (Diospyros, Myoporum,
Pleomele, and Santalum), subcanopy
(Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Leptecophylla,
Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola, and
Wikstroemia), or understory plants
(Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens,
Chenopodium, Nephrolepis, Peperomia,
and Sicyos). As we do not specifically
know of any PCEs specific to A.
eremitopetalum and this plant is found
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
only in the lowland dry ecosystem, we
believe that the physical or biological
features for the lowland dry ecosystem
best approximate the PCEs for A.
eremitopetalum. Thus we use the
physical and biological features
provided in the ecosystem in which A.
eremitopetalum is found as the PCEs for
A. eremitopetalum.
As another example, Table 6 indicates
the physical or biological features for
the plant Geranium hillebrandii include
the ecosystem-level physical or
biological features for the montane wet
and montane mesic ecosystems,
depending on the locations, and also
that this species has a species-specific
PCE: Bogs. The PCEs for G. hillebrandii
are thus composed of the physical or
biological features for each of the two
ecosystems it occupies, as described in
Table 5 for the montane wet and
montane mesic ecosystems, as well as
bogs, as identified in Table 6. Table 6
is read in a similar fashion in
conjunction with Table 5 to describe the
PCEs for each of the 125 species for
which we are designating critical habitat
in this final rule.
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection.
In identifying critical habitat in
occupied areas, we determine whether
those areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the
species require any special management
actions. Although the determination
that special management may be
required is not a prerequisite to
designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas, special management
is needed throughout all of the critical
habitat units in this final rule. The
following discussion of special
management needs is therefore
applicable to each of the Maui Nui
species for which we are designating
critical habitat in this rule.
In this final rule, we are designating
critical habitat for 125 of the 135 species
for which we proposed critical habitat.
For the reasons described below (see
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors), we are not designating critical
habitat for eight plants (Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Cyanea gibsonii,
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Pleomele
fernaldii, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lepidotum, and Viola lanaiensis) and
two tree snails (Partulina semicarinata
and P. variabilis). The 125 species for
which we are designating critical habitat
include 108 plant and animal species
that are currently found in the wild on
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe; (10
plant species which were historically
found on one or more of these islands,
but are currently found only on other
Hawaiian Islands (Adenophorus
periens, Clermontia peleana, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis,
Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea,
Nototrichium humile, and Solanum
incompletum), 6 plant species that may
not be currently extant in the wild
(Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae,
Schiedea jacobii, and Tetramolopium
capillare), and 1 plant species, Kokia
cookei, which exists only in cultivation.
For each of the 108 species currently
found in the wild on Molokai, Maui,
and Kahoolawe, we have determined
that the features essential to their
conservation are those required for the
successful functioning of the
ecosystem(s) in which they occur (see
Tables 5 and 6, above). As described
earlier, in some cases, additional
species-specific primary constituent
elements were also identified (see Table
6, above). Special management
considerations or protections are
necessary throughout the critical habitat
areas designated here to avoid further
degradation or destruction of the habitat
that provides those features essential to
their conservation. The primary threats
to the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of all of
these species include habitat
destruction and modification by
nonnative ungulates, competition with
nonnative species, hurricanes,
landslides, rockfalls, flooding, fire,
drought, and climate change.
Additionally, the rosy wolf snail poses
a threat to the Newcomb’s tree snail and
mosquito-borne diseases pose threats to
the two forest birds. The reduction of
these threats will require the
implementation of special management
actions within each of the critical
habitat areas identified in this final rule.
All designated critical habitat requires
active management to address the
ongoing degradation and loss of native
habitat caused by nonnative ungulates
(pigs, goats, mouflon sheep, axis deer,
and cattle). Nonnative ungulates also
impact the habitat through predation
and trampling. Without this special
management, habitat containing the
features that are essential for the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
conservation of these species will
continue to be degraded and destroyed.
All designated critical habitat requires
active management to address the
ongoing degradation and loss of native
habitat caused by nonnative plants.
Special management is also required to
prevent the introduction of new
nonnative plant species into native
habitats. Particular attention is required
in nonnative plant control efforts to
avoid creating additional disturbances
that may facilitate the further
introduction and establishment of
invasive plant seeds. Precautions are
also required to avoid the inadvertent
trampling of listed plant species in the
course of management activities.
The active control of nonnative plant
species would help to address the threat
posed by fire to 31 of the designated
ecosystem critical habitat units in
particular: Maui-Coastal—Units 4
through 7; Maui-Lowland Dry—Units 1
through 6; Maui-Lowland Mesic—Units
1 and 2; Maui-Montane Mesic—Units 1,
2, and 5; Maui-Dry Cliff—Units 1, 5, and
7; Kahoolawe-Coastal—Units 1 through
3; Kahoolawe-Lowland Dry—Units 1
and 2; Molokai-Coastal—Units 1, 2, 3, 6,
and 7; Molokai-Lowland Dry—Units 1
and 2; and Molokai-Lowland Mesic—
Unit 1. This threat is largely a result of
the presence of nonnative plant species
such as the grasses Andropogon
virginicus (broomsedge), Cenchrus spp.
(sandbur, buffelgrass), and Melinis
minutiflora (molasses grass), that
increase the fuel load and quickly
regenerate after a fire. These nonnative
grass species can outcompete native
plants that are not adapted to fire,
creating a grass-fire cycle that alters
ecosystem functions (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, pp. 64–66; Brooks et al.
2004, p. 680).
Nine of the ecosystem critical habitat
units (Maui-Lowland Wet—Units 1 and
4; Maui-Montane Wet—Units 1 through
3; Maui-Montane Mesic—Unit 2; MauiWet Cliff—Units 6 and 7; and MolokaiMontane Wet—Unit 1) may require
special management to reduce the threat
of landslides, rockfalls, and flooding.
These threaten to further degrade
habitat conditions in these units and
have the potential to eliminate some
occurrences of 50 plant species (e.g.,
Adenophorus periens, Alectryon
macrococcus, Asplenium peruvianum
var. insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, B. conjuncta, B. wiebkei,
Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, C.
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida,
C. kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. mannii,
C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. profuga,
C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis,
Geranium hanaense, G. multiflorum,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Huperzia
mannii, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia
lydgatei, L. maxima, Melicope balloui,
M. ovalis, Phyllostegia hispida, P.
mannii, P. pilosa, Plantago princeps,
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei,
Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae
var. lanaiense, Schiedea laui, Stenogyne
bifida, S. kauaulaensis, Wikstroemia
villosa, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense)
found on steep slopes and cliffs, or in
narrow gulches.
Special Management To Address
Disease and Disease Vectors
All of the forest bird critical habitat
units may require special management
to reduce the threat of mosquitoes.
Mosquito-borne disease (i.e., avian pox
and malaria) is identified as a threat to
both the akohekohe and kiwikiu, and
limits distribution of these two birds to
their current high-elevation ranges (i.e.,
above 4,000 ft (1,200 m)). It is believed
that the incidence of avian disease is
less prevalent above 4,000 ft, where the
abundance of mosquito vectors is low
and development of the malarial
parasite in the mosquito vector is
limited by thermal constraints (Service
2006, p. 4–62). The recovery strategy for
the akohekohe and kiwikiu calls for the
reestablishment of a second population
of both species in historical habitat on
west Maui or east Molokai in areas that
possibly harbor populations of
mosquitoes, and therefore will require
special management to reduce the threat
from mosquito-borne disease.
Special Management To Address
Predation by the Nonnative Rosy Wolf
Snail
The only critical habitat unit for the
Newcomb’s tree snail (Newcombia
cumingi—Unit 1—Lowland Wet) may
require special management to reduce
the threat of predation by the nonnative
rosy wolf snail (Euglandina rosea). This
nonnative snail is now found on six of
the eight main Hawaiian Islands (its
presence on Niihau and Kahoolawe has
not been confirmed) and it 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.). For the reasons
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17877
described below (see Exclusions Based
on Other Relevant Factors), critical
habitat is not designated on the island
of Lanai, where the two Lanai tree snails
(Partulina semicarinata and P.
variabilis) are found.
In summary, we find that each of the
areas we are designating as critical
habitat that were occupied at the time
of listing contains features essential for
the conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection to ensure
the conservation of 125 Maui Nui
species. These special management
considerations and protections may be
required to preserve and maintain the
essential features provided to these
species by the ecosystems upon which
they depend.
Unoccupied Areas
Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act,
we may designate as critical habitat
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed upon a determination that
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. Here we
have designated critical habitat for 17
plant species that historically occurred
on the islands of Maui Nui but are no
longer found on these islands. Ten of
these plants were historically found on
one or more of these islands, but are
currently found only on other Hawaiian
Islands (Adenophorus periens, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis,
Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea,
Nototrichium humile, Solanum
incompletum, and Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum), 6 plant
species may not be currently extant in
the wild (Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae,
Schiedea jacobii, and Tetramolopium
capillare), and 1 plant species, Kokia
cookei, which exists only in cultivation.
The conservation of these species will
be entirely dependent upon suitable but
unoccupied habitat for the
reestablishment of populations to
ensure their conservation and recovery.
In addition, because of reduced
population sizes and distribution, and
because of ongoing threats in the areas
currently occupied by the species, all of
the Maui Nui species additionally
require presently unoccupied but
suitable habitat to provide space for the
expansion of existing populations and
reestablishment of additional
populations to achieve the conservation
of the species, as guided by the goals set
in recovery plans for the species (for 95
of the plant species, the 3 tree snails,
and 2 birds) or general recovery
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17878
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
objectives for Hawaiian plants (for 30 of
the plant species without specific
recovery plans), and to provide
resiliency of the populations in the face
of ongoing threats.
One of the primary reasons for listing
of these 125 species is that their
numbers have been so greatly reduced
in terms of numbers of individuals,
populations, and distribution as to
render these species vulnerable to
extinction. Based on the current status
of each species (see Current Status of
135 Listed Maui Nui Species, above), we
have determined that each requires
suitable habitat and space for the
expansion of existing populations to
achieve a level that could approach
recovery; in all cases, this requires areas
of suitable habitat that are not currently
occupied by the species. Most of these
species have been reduced to only a few
known occurrences with numbers so
low that not even a single existing
viable population is known; in such
cases, suitable but unoccupied habitat is
essential for the conservation of the
species to both expand and reestablish
populations and maintain its historical
geographical and ecological
distribution. In addition, for plant
species in particular, the reintroduction
of imperiled species is a relatively new
and inexact science (see, e.g., Guerrant
and Kaye 2007, entire). Most attempted
reintroductions are not successful; a
recent global meta-analysis found rare
plant reintroductions resulting in
recruitment of offspring ranged from
only 5 percent to just under 50 percent
(Dalrymple et al. 2012, p. 39), despite
using conditions associated with extant,
wild populations to select
reintroduction sites (Dalrymple et al.
2012, p. 47). For all of the Maui Nui
plant species, reintroductions may
therefore be needed at a number of sites
of potentially suitable habitat greater
than the number of sites eventually
required to support the minimum
number of populations required for
recovery (Kaye 2008, p. 316; Dalrymple
et al. 2012, pp. 48–49). Furthermore,
long-term success of a reintroduction
will depend not only on initial growth
and survival, but ultimately the
reintroduced species must be embedded
in a larger ecological community that is
capable of promoting persistence
(Guerrant and Kaye 2008, p. 367).
We have taken all of these factors into
account in our designation of
unoccupied habitat for the Maui Nui
species, and have concluded that more
potentially suitable habitat than what
would appear to be the minimum
required to achieve conservation goals is
essential, space is needed between
populations, and a stochastic event may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
negatively impact one or more
populations. Given the need for this
redundancy in unoccupied habitat
suitable for future reintroductions,
because populations must be widely
distributed across the range of the
species to protect each against
extirpation from stochastic events, and
because room is needed for expansion of
known occurrences, we conclude that
all of the unoccupied areas designated
here as critical habitat are essential to
the conservation of the species, in order
to achieve the requisite abundance and
distribution of stable, secure, and selfsustaining populations to consider the
species recovered. As described above,
for similar reasons we have designated
unoccupied habitat for the akohekohe
and kiwikiu based on the recovery areas
identified in the Revised Recovery Plan
for Hawaiian Forest Birds (Service
2006), and for future reintroduction
sites for the three tree snails based on
the interim recovery objectives as
identified in the Recovery Plan for Oahu
Tree Snails of the Genus Achatinella
(1992, entire). As we have determined
that a designation limited to the current
range of the 125 Maui Nui species
would be inadequate to achieve their
conservation, for all of the reasons
outlined above, here we are designating
unoccupied critical habitat that we have
determined is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we used the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information
pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species. In accordance with the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species. If after
identifying currently occupied areas, a
determination is made that those areas
are inadequate to ensure conservation of
the species, in accordance with the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we then consider
whether designating additional areas—
outside those currently occupied—are
essential for the conservation of the
species. We are designating critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing because we have determined
that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
We considered several factors in the
selection of specific boundaries for
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species.
We determined critical habitat unit
boundaries taking into consideration the
known past and present locations of the
species, areas determined to be essential
to Hawaiian plants (HPPRCC 1998,
entire), the recovery areas as determined
by species’ Recovery Plans (for plants,
birds, and tree snails), any previously
designated critical habitat for the
species, projections of geographic ranges
of Hawaiian plant species (Price et al.
2012, entire), space to allow for
increases in numbers of individuals and
for expansion of populations to provide
for the minimum numbers required to
reach delisting goals (as described in
Recovery Plans), space between
individual critical habitat units to
provide for redundancy of populations
across the range of the species in case
of catastrophic events such as fire and
hurricanes, and critical habitat units on
multiple islands for those species
known from more than one Hawaiian
island (see also Methods, and
‘‘Unoccupied Areas,’’ above). The initial
boundaries were superimposed over
digital topographic maps of the islands
of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
and further evaluated. In general, land
areas that were identified as highly
degraded were removed from the
proposed critical habitat units, and
natural or manmade features (e.g., ridge
lines, valleys, streams, coastlines, roads,
obvious land features, etc.) were also
used to delineate the final critical
habitat boundaries. We are designating
critical habitat on lands that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to conserving multiple species, based on
their shared dependence on the
functioning ecosystems they have in
common. Because the 11 habitat types
discussed in this final rule do not form
a single contiguous area, they are
divided into geographic units on the
islands of Molokai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe: 82 Plant critical habitat
units, 82 forest bird critical habitat units
(41 units for each bird), and 1 tree snail
critical habitat unit. The forest bird and
the tree snail critical habitat units
completely overlap the 82 plant critical
habitat units.
The critical habitat is a combination
of areas currently occupied by the
species in that ecosystem, as well as
areas that may be currently unoccupied.
Due to the extremely remote and
inaccessible nature of the area, surveys
are relatively infrequent and may be
limited in scope; therefore, it is difficult
to say with certainty whether individual
representatives of a rare species may or
may not be present. A properly
functioning ecosystem provides the life-
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
history requirements of the species that
make up that ecosystem, and the
physical or biological features found in
such an ecosystem are the PCEs
essential for the conservation of the
species that occur there. In other words,
the occupied areas provide the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species occurring in
the ecosystems we analyzed, by
providing for the successful functioning
of the ecosystem on which the species
depend. However, due to the small
population sizes, few numbers of
individuals, and reduced or lost
geographic range of each of the 125
species for which critical habitat is
designated, we have determined that a
designation limited to the known
present range of each species would be
inadequate to achieve the conservation
of those species because the current
populations and range are insufficient to
meet recovery goals or to provide
sufficient resiliency against ongoing
threats to ensure the viability of the
species. The areas believed to be
unoccupied, and that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing, have
been determined to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of the species
because they provide the physical or
biological features necessary for the
expansion of existing wild populations
and reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical range of the
species. For 15 of the plant species
(Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra, C.
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis,
Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, Kokia
cookei, Nototrichium humile,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae,
Schiedea jacobii, Solanum
incompletum, and Tetramolopium
capillare), we are designating
unoccupied areas only, as these species
are not believed to be extant on
Molokai, Maui, or Kahoolawe.
Designating unoccupied critical habitat
for these species, which once occurred
on these islands but are no longer found
there, would promote conservation
actions to restore their historical,
geographical, and ecological
representation, which is essential for
their recovery. Critical habitat
boundaries for all species were
delineated to include the habitat
features necessary to provide for
functioning ecosystems on which they
depend; these areas are essential to the
conservation of these species since they
have been extirpated from these islands
and their recovery will be entirely
dependent upon their successful
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
reestablishment in suitable but
unoccupied habitat.
In some cases, we have identified
areas of critical habitat for species in
multiple ecosystem areas. With the
exception of Acaena exigua, Cyanea
glabra, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Eugenia
koolauensis, Gouania vitifolia,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea,
Kokia cookei, Nototrichium humile,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae,
Schiedea jacobii, Solanum
incompletum, and Tetramolopium
capillare, which are believed to be no
longer extant on Molokai, Maui, or
Kahoolawe, all of the critical habitat
units in these ecosystems contain some
areas that are currently unoccupied, and
that may have been unoccupied at the
time of listing, but have been
determined to be essential for the
conservation of the species. Because of
the small numbers of individuals or low
population sizes of each of the 125
species, each requires suitable habitat
and space for the expansion of existing
populations to achieve a level that could
approach recovery. For example,
although the plant Huperzia mannii is
found in multiple critical habitat units
across four ecosystem types, its entire
distribution is comprised of a total of
fewer than 200 wild individuals. The
unoccupied areas of each unit are
essential for the expansion of this
species to achieve viable population
numbers and maintain its historical
geographical and ecological
distribution. This same logic applies to
each of the Maui Nui species.
On Maui, there are two distinct
geographic areas separated by an
isthmus (east and west Maui mountains)
with geological and evolutionary age
differences. Sixty-three of the plant
species and the tree snail Newcombia
cumingi, for which we are designating
critical habitat on the islands of Maui
Nui, are historically known from only
east Maui or only west Maui. In the case
of those species endemic to either east
or west Maui, we are designating critical
habitat only in the geographic area of
historical occurrence on this island.
Thirty-eight plant species (Adenophorus
periens, Alectryon macrococcus var.
auwahiensis, Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Canavalia pubescens, Clermontia
lindseyana, C. peleana, C. samuelii,
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis,
C. duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. maritae, C.
mceldowneyi, Cyperus pennatiformis,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Flueggea
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17879
hanaense, G. multiflorum, Ischaemum
byrone, Melanthera kamolensis,
Melicope adscendens, M. balloui, M.
knudsenii, M. mucronulata, M. ovalis,
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea,
Nototrichium humile, Peperomia
subpetiolata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, P.
mannii, P. pilosa, Schiedea
haleakalensis, S. jacobii, Solanum
incompletum, and Vigna o-wahuensis)
are known only from the east Maui
mountains, and 26 plant species
(Acaena exigua, Bidens conjuncta,
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cyanea
lobata ssp. lobata, C. magnicalyx,
Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Dubautia
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Geranium
hillebrandii, Gouania hillebrandii, G.
vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens,
H. arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua coriacea, K. laxiflora, Lysimachia
lydgatei, Myrsine vaccinioides, Pteris
lydgatei, Remyi mauiensis, Sanicula
purpurea, Schenkia sebaeoides,
Schiedea salicaria, Stenogyne
kauaulaensis, Tetramolopium capillare,
and T. remyi), and the tree snail
Newcombia cumingi, are known only
from the west Maui mountains.
The critical habitat areas described
below constitute our best assessment of
the physical or biological features
essential for the recovery and
conservation of 125 Maui Nui species,
and the unoccupied areas needed for the
expansion or augmentation of reduced
populations or reestablishment of
populations. The approximate size of
each of the 82 plant critical habitat
units, the 82 forest bird critical habitat
units (41 units for each bird), and the
tree snail critical habitat unit, and the
status of their land ownership, are
identified in Tables 7A through 7F. The
ecosystems in which critical habitat for
each of the plant, forest bird, and tree
snail species is designated are identified
in Tables 8A through 8C, along with
areas excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions, below). All forest
bird and tree snail critical habitat units
overlap areas designated as plant critical
habitat.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries within this final rule, we
made every effort to avoid including
developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack the
physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the 125 Maui Nui
species. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17880
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands
will not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the action would affect the
physical or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the regulatory portion
of this final rule. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public on
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R1–ES–2015–0071, on our
Internet site (https://www.fws.gov/
pacificislands/), and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Units are designated based on
sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to
support the species’ life processes.
Some units contain all of the identified
elements of physical or biological
features and supported multiple life
processes. Some units contain only
some elements of the physical or
biological features necessary to support
the species’ particular use of that
habitat.
TABLE 7A—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR 60 PLANT SPECIES ON THE ISLAND OF MOLOKAI
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Landownership (acres)
Size of unit in
acres
Size of unit in
hectares
Molokai—Coastal:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
—Unit 7 .............................................
125
973
803
10
1
1,884
49
50
396
325
4
0.5
762
20
0
263
794
10
1
190
0
54
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
710
0
0
0
1,685
49
Total Coastal * ...........................
3,849
1,558
1,258
57
0
2,514
Molokai—Lowland Dry:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
24
589
10
238
0
589
0
0
0
0
24
0
Total Lowland Dry .....................
613
248
589
0
0
24
Molokai—Lowland Mesic:
—Unit 1 .............................................
8,770
3,549
3,489
0
0
5,281
Total Lowland Mesic ..................
8,770
3,549
3,489
0
0
5,281
Molokai—Lowland Wet:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
2,949
1,950
3,219
1,193
789
1,303
2,195
1,356
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
754
594
3,125
Total Lowland Wet .....................
8,118
3,285
3,645
0
0
4,473
Molokai—Montane Wet:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
3,397
910
803
1,375
368
325
1,545
871
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,851
39
726
Total Montane Wet ....................
5,110
2,068
2,493
0
0
2,616
Molokai—Montane Mesic:
—Unit 1 .............................................
816
330
257
0
0
559
Total Montane Mesic .................
816
330
257
0
0
559
Molokai—Wet Cliff:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
1,607
1,268
1,362
651
513
551
1,395
462
1,137
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
806
225
Total Wet Cliff ............................
4,237
1,715
2,994
0
0
1,243
Total all units ......................
31,513
12,753
14,725
57
0
16,710
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Critical habitat area
State
Federal
County
* Area discrepancy between unit and parcel due to parcel coastline data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Private
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17881
TABLE 7B—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR 91 PLANT SPECIES ON THE ISLAND OF MAUI
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
2
25
11
74
26
356
46
493
170
173
6
1
10
4
30
11
144
19
200
69
70
3
2
16
0
40
26
356
30
493
170
147
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
10
35
0
0
15
0
<1
26
0
Total Coastal .............................
1,382
561
1,286
0
0
95
Maui—Lowland Dry:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
13,537
1,851
188
1,266
3,658
240
5,478
749
76
512
1,480
97
11,465
1,851
0
1,266
3,615
3
2,069
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
188
0
43
237
Total Lowland Dry .....................
20,740
8,392
18,200
2,069
0
471
Maui—Lowland Mesic:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
1,882
1,147
477
762
464
193
1,147
1,034
477
494
0
0
0
0
0
241
113
0
Total Lowland Mesic ..................
3,506
1,419
2,658
494
0
354
Maui—Lowland Wet:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
—Unit 7 .............................................
—Unit 8 .............................................
16,079
65
1,247
864
30
136
898
230
6,507
26
505
350
12
55
364
93
6,616
65
1,247
864
30
136
898
230
2,038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,425
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Lowland Wet .....................
19,549
7,912
10,086
2,038
0
7,425
Maui—Montane Wet:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
—Unit 7 .............................................
2,110
14,583
2,228
1,833
387
1,399
80
854
5,901
902
742
156
566
32
1,313
4,075
0
180
222
1,113
80
0
875
2,228
1,653
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
798
9,633
0
0
0
286
0
Total Montane Wet ....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Maui—Coastal:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
—Unit 7 .............................................
—Unit 8 .............................................
—Unit 9 .............................................
—Unit 10 ...........................................
—Unit 11 ...........................................
22,620
9,153
6,983
4,921
0
10,717
Maui—Montane Mesic:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
10,972
124
174
72
170
4,440
50
70
29
69
6,593
124
174
72
170
3,672
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
707
0
0
0
0
Total Montane Mesic .................
11,512
4,658
7,133
3,672
0
707
Maui—Montane Dry:
—Unit 1 .............................................
3,524
1,426
2,962
563
0
0
Total Montane Dry .....................
3,524
1,426
2,962
563
0
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17882
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7B—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR 91 PLANT SPECIES ON THE ISLAND OF MAUI—Continued
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
Maui—Subalpine:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
15,975
9,886
6,465
4,001
10,785
0
3,568
9,836
0
0
1,622
50
Total Subalpine ..........................
25,861
10,465
10,785
13,404
0
1,672
Maui—Alpine:
—Unit 1 .............................................
1,797
727
475
911
0
411
Total Alpine ................................
1,797
727
475
911
0
411
Maui—Dry Cliff:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 5 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
755
688
200
315
1,298
279
305
279
81
127
525
113
0
0
0
0
1,298
279
755
688
200
315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Dry Cliff .............................
3,535
1,430
1,577
1,958
0
0
Maui—Wet Cliff:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
—Unit 4 .............................................
—Unit 6 .............................................
—Unit 7 .............................................
—Unit 8 .............................................
290
1,407
438
184
2,110
557
337
117
569
177
75
854
225
137
0
475
5
184
1,858
556
337
0
912
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
290
20
0
0
253
0
0
Total Wet Cliff ............................
5,323
2,154
3,415
1,345
0
563
Total all units ......................
119,349
48,297
65,560
31,375
0
22,415
TABLE 7C—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SIX PLANT SPECIES ON THE ISLAND OF KAHOOLAWE
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
1,516
12
189
613
5
76
1,516
12
189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Coastal .............................
1,717
694
1,717
0
0
0
Kahoolawe—Lowland Dry:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
1,220
3,205
494
1,297
1,220
3,205
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Lowland Dry .....................
4,425
1,791
4,425
0
0
0
Total all Units .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Kahoolawe—Coastal:
—Unit 1 .............................................
—Unit 2 .............................................
—Unit 3 .............................................
6,142
2,485
6,142
0
0
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17883
TABLE 7D—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TWO FOREST BIRD SPECIES (AKOHEKOHE AND KIWIKIU) ON THE ISLAND OF MAUI
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
Lowland Mesic:
Maui—Unit 1 .....................................
477
193
477
0
0
0
Total Lowland Mesic ..................
477
193
477
0
0
0
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
16,079
65
1,247
864
30
136
898
230
6,507
26
505
350
12
55
364
93
6,616
65
1,247
864
30
136
898
230
2,038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,425
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Lowland Wet .....................
19,549
7,912
10,086
2,038
0
7,425
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
2,110
14,583
2,228
1,833
387
1,399
80
854
5,901
902
742
156
566
32
1,313
4,075
0
180
222
1,113
80
0
875
2,228
1,653
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
798
9,633
0
0
0
286
0
Total Montane Wet ....................
22,620
9,153
6,983
4,921
0
10,717
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
10,972
124
174
72
170
4,440
50
70
29
69
6,593
124
174
72
170
3,672
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
707
0
0
0
0
Total Montane Mesic .................
11,512
4,658
7,133
3,672
0
707
Subalpine:
Maui—Unit 24 ...................................
Maui—Unit 25 ...................................
15,975
9,886
6,465
4,001
10,785
0
3,568
9,836
0
0
1,622
50
Total Subalpine ..........................
25,861
10,466
10,785
13,404
0
1,672
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
755
200
315
1,298
305
81
127
525
0
0
0
1,298
755
200
315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Dry Cliff .............................
2,568
1,038
1,298
1,270
0
0
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
290
1,407
438
184
2,110
557
117
569
177
75
854
225
0
475
5
184
1,858
556
0
912
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
290
20
0
0
253
0
Total Wet Cliff ............................
4,986
2,017
3,078
1,345
0
563
Total all Units .....................
87,573
35,437
39,840
26,650
0
21,084
Lowland Wet:
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Montane Wet:
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Montane Mesic:
Maui—Unit 18
Maui—Unit 19
Maui—Unit 20
Maui—Unit 21
Maui—Unit 22
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Dry Cliff:
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Wet Cliff:
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
Maui—Unit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17884
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7E—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TWO FOREST BIRD SPECIES (AKOHEKOHE AND KIWIKIU) ON THE ISLAND OF MOLOKAI
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
Lowland Mesic:
Molokai—Unit 37 ..............................
8,770
3,549
3,489
0
0
5,281
Total Lowland Mesic ..................
8,770
3,549
3,489
0
0
5,281
Lowland Wet:
Molokai—Unit 38 ..............................
Molokai—Unit 39 ..............................
2,949
1,950
1,193
789
2,195
1,356
0
0
0
0
754
594
Total Lowland Wet .....................
4,899
1,982
3,551
0
0
1,348
Montane Wet:
Molokai—Unit 40 ..............................
Molokai—Unit 41 ..............................
3,397
910
1,375
368
1,545
871
0
0
0
0
1,851
39
Total Montane Wet ....................
4,307
1,743
2,416
0
0
1,890
Montane Mesic:
Molokai—Unit 42 ..............................
Total Montane Mesic .................
Wet Cliff:
Molokai—Unit 43 ..............................
Molokai—Unit 44 ..............................
816
816
330
330
257
257
0
0
0
0
559
559
1,607
1,268
651
513
1,395
462
0
0
0
0
212
806
Total Wet Cliff ............................
2,875
1,164
1,857
0
0
1,018
Total all Units .....................
21,667
8,768
11,570
0
0
10,096
TABLE 7F—CRITICAL HABITAT FOR NEWCOMBIA CUMINGI ON THE ISLAND OF MAUI
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Size of unit in
acres
Critical habitat area
Landownership
(acres)
Size of unit in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
65
26
65
0
0
0
Total Lowland Wet .....................
65
26
65
0
0
0
Total all Units .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Lowland Wet:
Maui—Unit 1 .....................................
65
26
65
0
0
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
.................
Coastal
21:46 Mar 29, 2016
..................
EMA .........
Adenophorus periens ..................
..................
LA ............
Lowland
dry
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
.................
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha
WMA ........
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
MO ..........
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
MO ..........
LA ............
.................
Brighamia rockii ...........................
Calamagrostis hillebrandii ...........
Canavalia molokaiensis ...............
Canavalia pubescens ..................
Cenchrus agrimonioides ..............
.................
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
.................
Bonamia menziesii ......................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Clermontia lindseyana .................
.................
Bidens wiebkei ............................
.................
ssp.
ssp.
Clermontia
oblongifolia
brevipes.
Clermontia
oblongifolia
mauiensis.
30MRR2
Clermontia peleana * ...................
Clermontia samuelii .....................
Colubrina oppositifolia .................
Ctenitis squamigera .....................
Cyanea asplenifolia .....................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA, MO
..................
EMA, LA ..
..................
..................
.................
.................
.................
..................
WMA, LA
.................
.................
..................
.................
Asplenium
peruvianum
var.
insulare.
Bidens
campylotheca
ssp.
pentamera.
Bidens
campylotheca
ssp.
waihoiensis.
Bidens conjuncta .........................
..................
.................
.................
Acaena exigua* ...........................
Alectryon
macrococcus
var.
auwahiensis.
Alectryon
macrococcus
var.
macrococcus.
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum.
Asplenium dielerectum ................
.................
PLANTS
Abutilon eremitopetalum ..............
Species
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA .........
WMA ........
..................
..................
LA ............
MO ...........
..................
LA ............
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
LA, MO ....
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA, MO
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
mesic
EMA,
WMA.
WMA ........
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA.
EMA .........
EMA .........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
WMA ........
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
..................
WMA, MO
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
wet
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
WMA ........
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA, LA,
MO.
..................
WMA ........
..................
Montane
wet
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA, MO
EMA .........
EMA, MO
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
Montane
mesic
Ecosystem
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
Montane
dry
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Sub-alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Alpine
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
WMA ........
..................
EMA, LA ..
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
LA ............
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Dry cliff
..................
WMA, LA
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
WMA ........
..................
..................
WMA ........
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Wet cliff
8,872
(3,590)
802 (325)
8,846
(3,580)
10,414
(4,214)
32,267
(13,058)
3,139,
(1,270)
1,325
(536)
9,571
(3,873)
21,265
(8,605)
7,269
(2,942)
1,820
(736)
28,688
(11,610)
10,705
(4,332)
3,139
(1,270)
9,711
(3,930)
9,254
(3,745)
25,746
(10,419)
10,897
(4,410)
31,677
(12,819)
18,569
(7,515)
28,654
(11,596)
9,017
(3,649)
20,414
(8,261)
50,343
(20,373)
3,157
(1,277)
30,503
(12,344)
2,061
(834)
Excluded
from
critical
habitat
ac (ha)
21,430 (8,673)
40,030 (16,200)
18,466 (7,473)
16,079 (6,507)
37,219 (15,062)
40,689 (16,466)
26,235 (10,617)
10,972 (4,440)
20,739 (8,393)
16,841 (6,816)
24,976 (10,107)
1,479 (599)
9,470 (3,832)
30,806 (12,467)
17,895 (7,241)
59,101 (23,917)
39,538
(16,001)
7,953 (3,219)
44,915 (18,177)
57,974 (23,461)
37,668 (15,244)
40,588 (16,425)
27,032 (10,940)
20,974 (8,415)
26,251 (10,623)
1,479 (599)
0 (0)
Total critical
habitat
designated
ac (ha)
TABLE 8A—PLANT SPECIES FOR WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT IS DESIGNATED IN EACH ECOSYSTEM, AND AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17885
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Coastal
Lowland
dry
..................
.................
.................
Cyanea duvalliorum .....................
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
..................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Cyanea kunthiana .......................
Cyanea lobata ssp. baldwinii ......
Cyanea lobata ssp. lobata ..........
Cyanea magnicalyx .....................
Cyanea mannii ............................
Cyanea maritae ...........................
Cyanea mceldowneyi ..................
.................
.................
..................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
EMA ........
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Cyanea munroi ............................
Cyanea obtusa ............................
..................
.................
Cyanea
grimesiana
ssp.
grimesiana*.
Cyanea
hamatiflora
ssp.
hamatiflora.
Cyanea horrida ............................
Cyanea procera ...........................
Cyanea profuga ...........................
Cyanea solanacea .......................
Cyperus fauriei ............................
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Cyperus pennatiformis ................
Cyperus trachysanthos* ..............
Cyrtandra ferripilosa ....................
30MRR2
Cyrtandra filipes ..........................
Cyrtandra munroi .........................
Cyrtandra oxybapha ....................
Diplazium molokaiense ...............
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA, MO ....
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
.................
Cyanea glabra* ............................
..................
.................
Cyanea gibsonii ...........................
..................
..................
.................
Cyanea
copelandii
ssp.
haleakalaensis.
Cyanea dunbariae .......................
Species
..................
LA, MO ....
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA .........
Lowland
mesic
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
WMA, MO
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
WMA ........
EMA,
WMA.
..................
WMA ........
..................
EMA .........
MO ...........
WMA ........
..................
EMA .........
MO ...........
EMA .........
Lowland
wet
..................
EMA .........
WMA ........
LA ............
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
MO ...........
..................
EMA,
WMA.
LA ............
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
LA ............
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
Montane
wet
..................
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
MO ...........
WMA ........
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
Montane
mesic
Ecosystem
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Montane
dry
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Sub-alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Alpine
EMA,
WMA,
LA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Dry cliff
WMA ........
..................
..................
WMA, LA
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA, MO ....
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
..................
EMA .........
..................
MO ...........
WMA ........
LA ............
..................
..................
EMA .........
Wet cliff
9,211
(3,728)
16,116
(6,522)
15,484
(6,266)
27,318
(11,055)
248 (101)
17,275
(6,991)
17,790
(7,199)
2,621
(1,060)
8,846
(3,580)
16,116
(6,522)
974 (394)
9,144
(3,700)
2,621
(1,060)
1,807
(731)
2,621
(1,060)
11,906
(4,818)
85 (35)
10,705
(4,332)
15,313
(6,197)
17,663
(7,148)
18,484
(7,480)
10,408
(4,212)
37,690
(15,253)
9,022
(3,651)
1,202
(486)
8,846
(3,580)
1,209
(489)
32,588
(13,188)
12 (5)
Excluded
from
critical
habitat
ac (ha)
7,886 (3,192)
48,427 (19,598)
12,451 (5,039)
11,356 (4,596)
28,244 (11,430)
32,112 (12,995)
1,034 (418)
613 (248)
9,586 (3,879)
22,814 (9,232)
13,880 (5,617)
14,696 (5,947)
4,237 (1,715)
14,870 (6,018)
48,191 (19,502)
37,219 (15,062)
14,696 (5,947)
7,014 (2,839)
0 (0)
6,473 (2,620)
53,140 (21,505)
34,431 (13,934)
48,191 (19,502)
12,355 (5,000)
38,586 (15,615)
0 (0)
37,219 (15,062)
17,704 (7,165)
41,420 (16,762)
Total critical
habitat
designated
ac (ha)
TABLE 8A—PLANT SPECIES FOR WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT IS DESIGNATED IN EACH ECOSYSTEM, AND AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE
ACT—Continued
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17886
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
.................
.................
.................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
.................
.................
Gouania vitifolia* .........................
Hesperomannia arborescens ......
Hesperomannia arbuscula ..........
Frm 00099
WMA ........
..................
WMA,
KAH.
..................
..................
..................
.................
Fmt 4701
.................
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi ...........
.................
KAH .........
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
MO ..........
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Kadua coriacea* ..........................
.................
Isodendrion pyrifolium* ................
Kadua laxiflora .............................
Kanaloa kahoolawensis ...............
Kokia cookei* ...............................
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis ..
Sfmt 4700
Labordia triflora ...........................
Lysimachia lydgatei .....................
Lysimachia maxima .....................
Marsilea villosa ............................
Melanthera kamolensis ...............
Melicope adscendens ..................
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Melicope balloui ...........................
30MRR2
Melicope knudsenii ......................
Melicope mucronulata .................
Melicope munroi ..........................
Melicope ovalis ............................
Melicope reflexa ..........................
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea ..
Myrsine vaccinioides ...................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
WMA ........
KAH .........
MO ...........
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA, MO,
KAH.
..................
PO 00000
LA, MO ....
EMA, MO
.................
Gouania hillebrandii .....................
Ischaemum byrone ......................
.................
Geranium multiflorum ..................
.................
.................
Geranium hillebrandii ..................
..................
..................
.................
Geranium hanaense ....................
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA .........
MO ..........
.................
Geranium arboreum ....................
Huperzia mannii ..........................
Jkt 238001
Hibiscus
arnottianus
ssp.
immaculatus.
Hibiscus brackenridgei ................
.................
Eugenia koolauensis* ..................
Festuca molokaiensis ..................
Flueggea neowawraea ................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
LA, MO ....
..................
LA ............
MO ...........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
EMA .........
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
WMA, LA
..................
LA ............
WMA ........
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
MO ...........
LA ............
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
WMA ........
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA.
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
WMA ........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
LA ............
WMA, LA
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
WMA, LA,
MO.
WMA ........
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
27,839
11,266)
1,010
(409)
18,710
(7,571)
11,778
(4,767)
1,874
(759)
32,511
(13,157)
0 (0)
0 (0)
12,988
(5,256)
0 (0)
11,600
(4,695)
1,419
(574)
924 (374)
8,685
(3,515)
14,322
(5,796)
8,846
(3,580)
1,464
(592)
11,351
(4,593)
1,598(647)
9,017
(3,649)
1,807
(731)
802 (325)
3,139
(1,270)
23,075
(9,338)
0 (0)
388 (157)
9,074
(3,672)
11,989
(4,852)
8,044
(3,255)
3,654
(1,479)
18,926
(7,659)
2,263
(916)
9,211
(3,728)
19,667
(7,959)
20,196
(8,173)
937 (379)
16,079 (6,507)
1,479 (599)
21,998 (8,902)
8,770 (3,549)
39,538 (16,001)
29,952 (12,121)
3,524 (1,426)
37,219 (15,062)
24,509 (9,918)
3,851 (1,558)
16,841 (6,816)
8,770 (3,549)
12,324
(4,988)ROW≤
13,228 (5,353)
6,142 (2,486)
613(248)
0 (0)
22,519 (9,114)
3,898 (1,578)
0 (0)
21,703 (8,783)
4,885 (1,976)
55,562 (22,485)
29,629 (11,990)
8,088 (3,272)
16,831 (6,812)
20,703 (8,378)
7,886 (3,192)
17,094 (6,918)
59,931 (24,253)
2,019 (817)
21,141 (8,555)
40,358 (16,332)
613 (248)
8,770 (3,549)
25,612 (10,365)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17887
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Coastal
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
.................
EMA, MO
.................
Peperomia subpetiolata ...............
Peucedanum sandwicense .........
Phyllostegia bracteata* ................
.................
.................
Nototrichium humile* ...................
PO 00000
.................
Phyllostegia hispida .....................
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
.................
Pittosporum halophilum ...............
Plantago princeps ........................
Platanthera holochila ...................
.................
MO ..........
.................
Phyllostegia pilosa .......................
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
.................
.................
WMA, MO
Remya mauiensis ........................
Sanicula purpurea .......................
var.
Santalum
haleakalae
lanaiense.
Schenkia sebaeoides ..................
.................
.................
Portulaca sclerocarpa ..................
Pteris lidgatei ...............................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
WMA, LA,
MO,
KAH.
.................
.................
Schiedea haleakalensis ...............
LA ............
.................
Pleomele fernaldii ........................
.................
Phyllostegia mannii .....................
.................
Phyllostegia haliakalae* ..............
.................
Neraudia sericea .........................
Species
Schiedea jacobii* .........................
Schiedea laui ...............................
Schiedea lydgatei ........................
Schiedea salicaria .......................
Schiedea sarmentosa ..................
Sesbania tomentosa ....................
Silene alexandri ...........................
Silene lanceolata .........................
Lowland
mesic
30MRR2
..................
EMA,
WMA,
LA, MO,
KAH.
..................
LA ............
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
EMA,
WMA.
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA,
MO.
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
MO ...........
WMA,
LA, KAH.
EMA ......... ..................
Lowland
dry
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA ........
LA ............
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
EMA .........
WMA ........
WMA, MO
..................
..................
..................
Lowland
wet
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA .........
..................
..................
LA ............
WMA ........
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
..................
..................
EMA, MO
EMA, MO
MO ...........
EMA,
WMA.
EMA .........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
Montane
wet
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
..................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
EMA, MO
Montane
mesic
Ecosystem
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Montane
dry
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Sub-alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Alpine
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA
Dry cliff
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
WMA, LA
..................
WMA ........
..................
WMA, MO
LA ............
..................
EMA,
WMA.
WMA ........
..................
..................
MO ...........
EMA, LA ..
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
Wet cliff
388 (157)
11,093
(4,489)
11,834
(4,789)
3,613
(1,462)
8,044
(3,255)
1,419
(574)
388 (157)
1,874
(759)
388 (157)
23,668
(9,578)
24,279
(9,825)
886 (359)
18,706
(7,570)
21,393
(8,657)
3,139
(1,270)
53,000
(21,449)
8,685
(3,515)
8,044
(3,255)
9,074
(3,672)
29,943
(12,117)
11,200
(4,533)
1,431
(579)
17,120
(6,928)
9,851
(3,986)
924 (374)
10,551
(4,270)
21,813
(8,827)
31,616
(12,795)
Excluded
from
critical
habitat
ac (ha)
8,770 (3,549)
8,770 (3,549)
8,770 (3,549)
51,447 (16,375)
8,770 (3,549)
3,898 (1,578)
5,110 (2,068)
21,141 (8,555)
27,819 (11,258)
4,200 (1,699)
58,342 (23,611)
1,479 (599)
17,418 (7,049)
0 (0)
20,703 (8,378)
0 (0)
35,616 (14,413)
3,851 (1,558)
21,096 (8,538)
35,021 (14,172)
54,111 (21,897)
17,465 (7,068)
48,308 (19,550)
65,241 (26,402)
16,472 (6,665)
21,141 (8,555)
16,841 (6,816)
58,282 (19,142)
Total critical
habitat
designated
ac (ha)
TABLE 8A—PLANT SPECIES FOR WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT IS DESIGNATED IN EACH ECOSYSTEM, AND AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE
ACT—Continued
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17888
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
.................
.................
Spermolepis hawaiiensis .............
Stenogyne bifida ..........................
2,633
(1,065)
515 (209)
12,132
(4,909)
10,705
(4,332)
12,579
(5,091)
924 (374)
22,351
(9,045)
2,044
(827)
24,179
(9,785)
25,331
(10,251)
..................
31,402
(12,708)
33,638
(13,613)
27,666
(11,197).
27,730
(11,222).
12,328
(4,989).
3,524
(1,426).
1,464
(592).
25,861
(10,466).
3,256
(1,318).
1,797
(727).
15 (6) .......
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
3,535
(1,431).
2,238
(906).
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
9,560
(3,869).
10,354
(4,190).
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
............................
............................
81,362 (32,926)
51,661 (20,906)
0 (0)
3,851(1,558)
26,928 (6,453)
3,898 (1,578)
0 (0)
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
.................
.................
Kiwikiu .........................................................
30MRR2
Total Area Designated Critical Habitat .......
.................
.................
.................
.................
Lowland
dry
9,247 .......
(3,742) .....
388 ..........
(157) ........
WMA, MO
WMA, MO
Lowland
mesic
24,447 .....
(9,894) .....
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
8,866 .......
(3,588) .....
Lowland
wet
26,927 .....
(10,897) ...
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
12,602 .....
(5,100) .....
Montane
wet
12,328 .....
(4,989) .....
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
8,598 .......
(3,480) .....
Montane
mesic
.................
.................
.................
.................
Montane
dry
25,861 .....
(10,466) ...
3,256 .......
(1,318) .....
EMA ........
EMA ........
Subalpine
.................
.................
.................
.................
Alpine
2,566 .......
(1,039) .....
595 ..........
(241) ........
EMA,
WMA.
EMA,
WMA.
Dry cliff
7,860
(3,181).
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
EMA,
WMA,
MO.
9,394 .......
(3,801).
Wet cliff
43,699
(17,684)
43,699
(17,684)
Excluded
from
critical
habitat
ac (ha)
109,238
(44,207)
109,238
(44,207)
Total
critical
habitat
designated
ac (ha)
EMA = East Maui.
WMA = West Maui.
MO = Molokai.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently
unoccupied by those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as food gathering and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.
.................
Area, Excluded ac (ha) ...............................
.................
Coastal
FOREST BIRD
Akohekohe ..................................................
Species
Ecosystem
TABLE 8B—FOREST BIRD SPECIES FOR WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT IS DESIGNATED IN EACH ECOSYSTEM, AND AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2)
12,277
(4,968).
12,850
(5,200).
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
EMA = East Maui, WMA = West Maui, LA = Lanai, MO = Molokai, KAH = Kahoolawe.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently
unoccupied by those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as seed dispersal and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.
* This species may no longer occur in the wild on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, or Kahoolawe.
PO 00000
25,778
(10,432).
9,472
(3,834).
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
6,950
(2,812).
13,294
(5,380).
EMA,
WMA.
8,598
(3,480).
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Total Area Designated CH, ac
(ha).
21,265
(8,605).
MO ...........
EMA .........
LA ............
..................
..................
..................
..................
2,101
(850).
WMA, MO
EMA,
WMA.
LA, MO ....
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Areas Excluded by Ecosystem,
ac (ha).
EMA .........
..................
..................
..................
LA, MO ....
..................
..................
.................
Jkt 238001
..................
..................
..................
LA, KAH ...
..................
..................
Fmt 4701
..................
Frm 00101
..................
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense .............
540 (219)
13,361 (5,407)
27,051 (10,947)
30,326 (12,272)
18,723 (7,577)
.................
..................
WMA ........
MO ...........
..................
..................
Wikstroemia villosa ......................
..................
WMA ........
..................
..................
LA ............
.................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Viola lanaiensis ...........................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
MO ..........
EMA, KAH
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Tetramolopium rockii ...................
Vigna o-wahuensis ......................
WMA ........
..................
MO ...........
MO ...........
..................
WMA, LA
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
.................
..................
..................
MO ...........
..................
..................
LA ............
..................
..................
MO ...........
LA, MO ....
EMA, LA ..
.................
21:46 Mar 29, 2016
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum*.
Tetramolopium remyi ...................
..................
WMA ........
EMA,
WMA,
LA.
..................
EMA, LA ..
.................
.................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Stenogyne kauaulaensis .............
Tetramolopium capillare* .............
.................
Solanum incompletum* ...............
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
17889
VerDate Sep<11>2014
.................
Coastal
21:53 Mar 29, 2016
.................
Partulina semicarinata .........................
Partulina variabilis ...............................
.................
.................
.................
Lowland
dry
.................
.................
.................
Lowland
mesic
LA ............
LA ............
WMA .......
Lowland
wet
LA ............
LA ............
.................
Montane
wet
.................
.................
.................
Montane
mesic
.................
.................
.................
Montane
dry
.................
.................
.................
Subalpine
.................
.................
.................
Alpine
.................
.................
.................
Dry cliff
LA ............
LA ............
.................
Wet cliff
534
(216)
1,815
(735)
1,815
(735)
Excluded
from
critical
habitat
ac (ha)
65
(26)
0
(0)
0
(0)
Total
critical
habitat
designated
ac (ha)
WMA = West Maui.
LA = Lanai.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently
unoccupied by those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as food gathering and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.
.................
TREE SNAIL
Newcombia cumingi ............................
Species
Ecosystem
TABLE 8C—TREE SNAIL SPECIES FOR WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT IS DESIGNATED IN EACH ECOSYSTEM, AND AREAS EXCLUDED UNDER 4(B)(2)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17890
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 157,002 ac (63,537
ha) as critical habitat in 11 ecosystem
types for 125 species. The critical
habitat is composed of 82 critical habitat
units for the plant species, 41 critical
habitat units for each of the 2 forest
birds (82 total), and one critical habitat
unit for the Newcomb’s tree snail (see
Tables 7A–7F, above, for details). The
critical habitat includes land under
State, County of Maui, Federal
(Haleakala National Park; Kalaupapa
National Historical Park (NHP),
Department of Homeland Security—
Coast Guard), and private ownership.
The critical habitat units we describe
below constitute our current best
assessment of those areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for 125 of
the 135 Maui Nui species of plants and
animals. Critical habitat was proposed
but is not designated for 10 species that
occur on Lanai (the plants Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Cyanea gibsonii,
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Pleomele
fernaldii, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum, and Viola lanaiensis; and
the tree snails Partulina semicarinata
and P. variabilis). Although the areas
proposed are still considered essential
for the conservation of these species, we
have determined under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act that the benefit of excluding
these areas outweighs the benefit of
including them in critical habitat, for
the reasons discussed below (see the
Exclusions section of this document).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units
Critical habitat for the 125 plant
species, the 2 forest birds, and the
Newcomb’s tree snail Newcombia
cumingi are published in separate
sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Critical habitat is set
forth at 50 CFR 17.99(c) and (d) for
plants on Molokai, 50 CFR 17.99(e)(1)
and (f) for plants on Maui, and 50 CFR
17.99(e)(2) and (f) for plants on
Kahoolawe; at 50 CFR 17.95(b) for the
two forest birds; and at 50 CFR 17.95(f)
for the tree snail species. However, the
designated critical habitat for plants,
birds, and tree snail overlap each other
in many areas of Molokai and Maui. For
example, ‘‘Maui-Lowland Wet—Unit 1’’
and the forest bird units ‘‘Palmeria
dolei—Unit 2—Lowland Wet’’ and
‘‘Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 2—
Lowland Wet’’ correspond to the same
geographic area. Therefore, because the
unit boundaries are the same, we are
describing them only once to avoid
redundancy and reduce publication
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
costs for this final rule, as indicated by
‘‘(and)’’ following the unit name.
Maui—UCoastal—Unit 1 consists of 2
ac (1 ha) on Keopuka Rock on the
northern coast of east Maui. This unit is
State-owned, and is classified as a State
Seabird Sanctuary. It is occupied by the
plant Peucedanum sandwicense and
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This
unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
this species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Maui-Coastal—Unit 1 is not known to
be occupied by Brighamia rockii,
Cyperus pennatiformis, Ischaemum
byrone, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 2 consists of 16
ac (6 ha) of State land, and 9 ac (4 ha)
of privately owned land, from
Wahinepee Stream to Moiki Point on
the northern coast of east Maui. This
unit includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Maui—Coastal—Unit 2 is not
currently occupied by Brighamia rockii,
Cyperus pennatiformis, Ischaemum
byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, or
Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined
this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
physical or biological features necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within the historical ranges
of the species. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, these species require
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could achieve recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 3 consists of 10
ac (4 ha) of privately owned land at
Pauwalu Point on the northern coast of
east Maui. This unit is occupied by the
plant Ischaemum byrone and includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17891
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of this
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Coastal—
Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by
Brighamia rockii, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Peucedanum
sandwicense, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we
have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of
these coastal species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 4 consists of 40
ac (16 ha) of State land, and 35 ac (14
ha) of privately owned land, from
Papiha Point to Honolulu Nui Bay on
the northeastern coast of east Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plant Cyperus
pennatiformis and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Coastal—
Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by
Brighamia rockii, Ischaemum byrone,
Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna owahuensis, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 5 consists of 26
ac (11 ha) of State land from Keakulikuli
Point to Pailoa Bay on the northeastern
coast of east Maui. This unit is occupied
by the plant Ischaemum byrone and
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17892
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
this species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Maui—Coastal—Unit 5 is not known to
be occupied by Brighamia rockii,
Cyperus pennatiformis, Peucedanum
sandwicense, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we
have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of
these coastal species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 6 consists of 356
ac (144 ha) of State land at Kamanamana
on the southern coast of East Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plant Vigna owahuensis and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Coastal—
Unit 6 is not known to be occupied by
Brighamia rockii, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, or
Peucedanum sandwicense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 7 consists of 30
ac (12 ha) of State land, and 15 ac (6 ha)
of privately owned land, from Kailio
Point to Waiuha Bay, on the southern
coast of east Maui. This unit includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Maui—Coastal—Unit 7 is not currently
occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone,
Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna owahuensis, we have determined this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within the historical ranges
of the species. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 8 consists of 493
ac (199 ha) of State land from Kiakeana
Point to Manawainui on the southern
coast of east Maui. This unit includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Maui—Coastal—Unit 8 is not currently
occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone,
Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna owahuensis, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within the historical ranges
of the species. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 9 consists of 170
ac (69 ha) of State land and 0.3 ac (0.1
ha) of privately owned land, from
Poelua Bay to Mokolea Point on the
northwestern coast of west Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plants Schenkia
sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This
unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
these species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Maui—Coastal—Unit 9 is not known to
be occupied by Brighamia rockii, we
have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of this
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within its historical
range. Due to the small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes, this
species requires suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction to
achieve population levels that could
approach recovery.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Maui—Coastal—Unit 10 consists of
147 ac (60 ha) of State land and 26 ac
(10 ha) of privately owned land, from
Kahakuloa Head to Waihee Point on the
northeastern coast of west Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plant Schenkia
sebaeoides, and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Coastal—
Unit 10 is not known to be occupied by
Brighamia rockii or Sesbania tomentosa,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within its historical range.
Due to the small numbers of individuals
or low population sizes, this species
requires suitable habitat and space for
expansion or reintroduction to achieve
population levels that could approach
recovery.
Maui—Coastal—Unit 11 consists of 6
ac (3 ha) of State land on Mokeehia
Island on the northeastern coast of west
Maui. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Coastal—Unit
11 is not currently occupied by
Brighamia rockii, Schenkia sebaeoides,
or Sesbania tomentosa, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 1 consists
of 11,465 ac (4,640 ha) of State land,
2,069 ac (837 ha) of federally owned
land, and 3 ac (1 ha) of privately owned
land, from Kanaio to Kahualau Gulch on
the southern slopes of east Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plants Bonamia
menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides,
Flueggea neowawraea, Melicope
adscendens, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
and includes the mixed herbland and
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by Alectryon macrococcus,
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Canavalia pubescens, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Melanthera
kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata,
Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile,
Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum
incompletum, or Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland dry
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 2 consists
of 1,851 ac (749 ha) of State land at
Keokea on the southern slopes of east
Maui. This unit is occupied by the
plants Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia
pubescens, and Hibiscus brackenridgei,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by Alectryon macrococcus,
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera,
Flueggea neowawraea, Melanthera
kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata,
Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 3 consists
of 188 ac (76 ha) of privately owned
land, at Keauhou on the southern slopes
of east Maui. This unit is occupied by
the plant Canavalia pubescens, and
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera,
Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Melanthera kamolensis,
Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia
sericea, Nototrichium humile, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum,
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4 consists
of 1,266 ac (512 ha) of State land
(including the Department of Land and
Natural Resources) at Ahihi-Kinau
Natural Area Reserve on the southern
slopes of east Maui. This unit includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 4 is not
currently occupied by Bidens micrantha
ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii,
Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Ctenitis squamigera, Flueggea
neowawraea, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17893
mucronulata, Neraudia sericea,
Nototrichium humile, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum,
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 5 consists
of 3,615 ac (1,463 ha) of State land, and
43 ac (17 ha) of privately owned land,
from Panaewa to Manawainui on the
western and southern slopes of west
Maui. This unit is occupied by the
plants Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Gouania hillebrandii,
Kadua coriacea, Remya mauiensis,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and
Tetramolopium capillare, and includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 5 is not known to be
occupied by Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyanea obtusa, Hesperomannia
arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Neraudia sericea,
Schiedea salicaria, Sesbania tomentosa,
or T. remyi, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland dry
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 6 consists
of 3 ac (1 ha) of State land, and 237 ac
(96 ha) of privately owned land, from
Paleaahu Gulch to Puu Hona on the
southern slopes of west Maui. This unit
is occupied by the plants Hibiscus
brackenridgei and Schiedea salicaria,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17894
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 6 is not known to be
occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea obtusa, Gouania
hillebrandii, Hesperomannia arbuscula,
Kadua coriacea, Lysimachia lydgatei,
Neraudia sericea, Remya mauiensis,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
Sesbania tomentosa, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare,
or T. remyi, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland dry
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1
consists of 1,147 ac (464 ha) of State
land, 241 ac (97 ha) of privately owned
land, and 494 ac (200 ha) of federally
owned land (Haleakala National Park),
from Manawainui Valley to Kukuiula on
the eastern slopes of east Maui. This
unit is occupied by the plants Cyanea
asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, and Huperzia mannii,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by Ctenitis squamigera or
Solanum incompletum, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland mesic species because it
provides the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 2
consists of 1,034 ac (419 ha) of State
land, and 113 ac (46 ha) of privately
owned land, from Honokohau to
Launiupoko on the western slopes of
west Maui. This unit is occupied by the
plants Ctenitis squamigera, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland mesic ecosystem
(see Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Mesic—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, or
Colubrina oppositifolia, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland mesic species because it
provides the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within its historical range. Due to its
small numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, this species requires
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 1—Lowland Mesic
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 1—
Lowland Mesic
This area consists of 477 ac (193 ha)
of State land at Ukumehame on the
southern slopes of west Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit
3 is not currently occupied by the plants
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis
squamigera, Remya mauiensis,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland mesic species because it
provides the PCEs for the
reestablishment of wild populations
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 2—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 2—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 6,616 ac (2,677
ha) of State land, 7,425 ac (3,005 ha) of
privately owned land, and 2,038 ac (825
ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), from Haiku Uka to
Kipahulu Valley on the northern and
eastern slopes of east Maui. These units
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plants
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea
asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C.
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C.
kunthiana, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi,
Huperzia mannii, Melicope balloui, and
M. ovalis. These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. peleana,
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea,
Phyllostegia haliakalae, or Wikstroemia
villosa, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 3—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 3—
Lowland Wet (and)
Newcombia cumingi—Unit 1—Lowland
Wet
This area consists of 65 ac (26 ha) of
State land at Moomoku, on the
northwestern slopes of west Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plant
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense.
Although Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 2
is not currently occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, or Wikstroemia villosa, by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), or by the
Newcomb’s tree snail (Newcombia
cumingi), we have determined this area
to be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these lowland wet species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within the historical ranges
of the species. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 3 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 4—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 4—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 1,247 ac (505 ha)
of State land at Honanana Gulch on the
northeastern slopes of west Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
They are occupied by the plants Bidens
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
conjuncta, Cyanea asplenifolia, and
Pteris lidgatei. These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C.
kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx,
Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium
molokaiense, Hesperomannia
arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia
mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua
laxiflora, Peucedanum sandwicense,
Phyllostegia bracteata, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 5—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 5—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 864 ac (350 ha)
of State land at Kahakuloa Valley on the
northeastern slopes of west Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
They are occupied by the plants Bidens
conjuncta and Cyanea asplenifolia.
These units also contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 4 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens conjuncta, B. micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17895
munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 6—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 6—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 30 ac (12 ha) of
State land at Iao Valley on the eastern
side of west Maui. These units include
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland wet
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 5 is not
known to be occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17896
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 6 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 7—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 7—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 136 ac (55 ha) of
State land at Honokowai and Wahikuli
valleys on the western slopes of west
Maui. These units include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland wet ecosystem
(see Table 5). These units are occupied
by the plant Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense. These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 6 is not currently occupied
by the plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
conjuncta, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C.
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes,
C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 7 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 8—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 8—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 898 ac (364 ha)
of State land at Olowalu Valley, on the
southern slopes of west Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plant
Alectryon macrococcus. These units
also contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of this
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Lowland
Wet—Unit 7 is not currently occupied
by the plants Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens conjuncta, B. micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C.
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes,
C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 8 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 9—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 9—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 230 ac (93 ha) of
State land at upper Ukumehame Gulch,
on the southern slopes of west Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 8
is not currently occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
munroi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 10—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 10—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 1,313 ac (531 ha)
of State land and 798 ac (323 ha) of
privately owned land, at Haiku Uka on
the northern slopes of east Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plants
Cyanea duvalliorum, C. maritae, C.
mceldowneyi, Huperzia mannii,
Melicope balloui, and Phyllostegia
pilosa, and by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys). These
units also contain unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
these species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 1 is not
known to be occupied by the plants
Adenophorus periens, Asplenium
peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
C. samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, C. glabra, C. hamatiflora
ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C.
kunthiana, Cyrtandra ferripilosa,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
hanaense, G. multiflorum, Melicope
ovalis, Peperomia subpetiolata,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P.
mannii, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea
jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 11—Montane Wet
(and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 11—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 4,075 ac (1,649
ha) of State land, 9,633 ac (3,898 ha) of
privately owned land, and 875 ac (354
ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), from Haiku Uka to
Puukaukanu and upper Waihoi Valley,
on the northern and northeastern slopes
of east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the montane wet
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are
occupied by the plants Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera,
Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea copelandii
ssp. haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C.
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida,
C. kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi,
Geranium hanaense, G. multiflorum,
and Wikstroemia villosa, and by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys). These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Adenophorus
periens, Asplenium peruvianum var.
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea glabra, C.
maritae, Cyrtandra ferripilosa,
Diplazium molokaiense, Huperzia
mannii, Melicope balloui, M. ovalis,
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P.
pilosa, Platanthera holochila, and
Schiedea jacobii, we have determined
this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 12—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 12—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 2,228 ac (902 ha)
of federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park) in Kipahulu Valley, on
the northeastern slopes of east Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plants
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C.
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C.
maritae, and Melicope ovalis, and by the
forest bird, kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys). These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Adenophorus
periens, Asplenium peruvianum var.
insulare, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, C. samuelii, Cyanea
duvalliorum, C. glabra, C. horrida, C.
kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra
ferripilosa, Diplazium molokaiense,
Geranium hanaense, G. multiflorum,
Huperzia mannii, Melicope balloui,
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P.
pilosa, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea
jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by the
forest bird, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei), we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these montane wet species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 13—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 13—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 180 ac (73 ha) of
State land and 1,653 ac (669 ha) of
federally owned land (Haleakala
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17897
National Park), in Kaapahu Valley on
the northeastern slopes of east Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units are occupied by the plants
Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea copelandii
ssp. haleakalaensis, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C.
maritae, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, and
Huperzia mannii. These units also
contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 4 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Adenophorus
periens, Asplenium peruvianum var.
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea duvalliorum, C.
glabra, C. mceldowneyi, Diplazium
molokaiense, Geranium hanaense, G.
multiflorum, Melicope balloui, M.
ovalis, Peperomia subpetiolata,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P.
mannii, P. pilosa, Platanthera holochila,
Schiedea jacobii, or Wikstroemia
villosa, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 14—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 14—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 222 ac (90 ha) of
State land, and 165 ac (67 ha) of
federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), near Kaumakani on the
eastern slopes of east Maui. These units
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units area occupied by the plant
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera.
These units also contain unoccupied
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17898
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 5 is not currently occupied
by the plants Adenophorus periens,
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
C. samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C.
glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora,
C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. maritae, C.
mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra ferripilosa,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
hanaense, G. multiflorum, Huperzia
mannii, Melicope balloui, M. ovalis,
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P.
pilosa, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea
jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these montane wet
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within the historical
ranges of the species. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 6 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 15—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 15—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 1,113 ac (451 ha)
of State land, and 286 ac (116 ha) of
privately owned land, at the summit
and surrounding areas on west Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
They are occupied by the plants Bidens
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii,
Cyanea kunthiana, Geranium
hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides, and
Sanicula purpurea. These units also
contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 6 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Acaena exigua,
Cyrtandra oxybapha, Huperzia mannii,
Phyllostegia bracteata, or Platanthera
holochila, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 7 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 16—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 16—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 80 ac (32 ha) of
State land near Hanaula and Pohakea
Gulch on the southeastern slopes of
west Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the montane wet
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are
occupied by the plants Cyrtandra
oxybapha and Platanthera holochila,
and contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 7 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Acaena exigua,
Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis
hillebrandii, Cyanea kunthiana,
Geranium hillebrandii, Huperzia
mannii, Myrsine vaccinioides,
Phyllostegia bracteata, or Sanicula
purpurea, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 18—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 18—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 6,593 ac (2,668
ha) of State land, 707 ac (286 ha) of
privately owned land, and 3,672 ac
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1,486 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park), from
Kealahou to Puualae, nearly
circumscribing the summit of Haleakala
on east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the montane mesic
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are
occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum
var. insulare, Clermontia lindseyana,
Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra
ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, G.
multiflorum, Huperzia mannii,
Melicope adscendens, and Neraudia
sericea. These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Mesic—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Cyanea glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. kunthiana, C.
mceldowneyi, Phyllostegia bracteata, P.
mannii, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, Wikstroemia villosa, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these montane mesic
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 19—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 19—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 124 ac (50 ha) of
State land at Helu and the upper reaches
of Puehuehunui on the southern slopes
of west Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the montane mesic
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are
occupied by the plants Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea magnicalyx,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Diplazium molokaiense, Lysimachia
lydgatei, Remya mauiensis, and
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense.
These units also contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Mesic—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Geranium
hillebrandii, Huperzia mannii,
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these montane mesic
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 3 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 20—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 20—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 174 ac (70 ha) of
State land at Lihau on the southwestern
slopes of west Maui. These units
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
They are occupied by the plant
Geranium hillebrandii, and contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Mesic—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea magnicalyx,
Diplazium molokaiense, Huperzia
mannii, Lysimachia lydgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these montane mesic
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 21—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 21—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of
State land at Halepohaku on the
southern slopes of west Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit
4 is not known to be occupied by the
plants Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
magnicalyx, Diplazium molokaiense,
Geranium hillebrandii, Huperzia
mannii, Lysimachia lydgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these montane mesic
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 22—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 22—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 170 ac (69 ha) of
State land at the upper reaches of
Manawainui Gulch on the southeastern
slopes of west Maui. These units
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
They are occupied by the plants Remya
mauiensis and Santalum haleakalae
var. lanaiense, and contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Montane
Mesic—Unit 5 is not known to be
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17899
occupied by the plants Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea magnicalyx,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
hillebrandii, Huperzia mannii,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Stenogyne
kauaulaensis, or Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane mesic species because it
provides the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Montane Dry—Unit 1 consists
of 2,962 ac (1,199 ha) of State land, and
563 ac (228 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park), from Kanaio
to Naholoku and Kaupo Gap along the
southern slopes of east Maui. This unit
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Maui—Montane Dry—Unit 1
is not known to be occupied by the
plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Geranium arboreum, Melicope
knudsenii, M. mucronulata, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 24—Subalpine
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 24—
Subalpine
This area consists of 10,785 ac (4,365
ha) of State land, 1,622 ac (656 ha) of
privately owned land, and 3,568 ac
(1,444 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park), from Kanaio
north to Puu Nianiau on east Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17900
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
physical or biological features in the
subalpine ecosystem (see Table 5). They
are occupied by the plants Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha and Geranium
arboreum, and contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—
Subalpine—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare,
Geranium multiflorum, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Schiedea haleakalensis, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these subalpine species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Subalpine—Unit 2 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 25—Subalpine
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 25—
Subalpine
This area consists of 50 ac (20 ha) of
privately owned land, and 9,836 ac
(3,981 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park), from the
summit north to Koolau Gap and east to
Kalapawili Ridge on east Maui. These
units include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
subalpine ecosystem (see Table 5). They
are occupied by the plants
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum, Geranium
multiflorum, and Schiedea
haleakalensis, and by the forest bird, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei). These units
also contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—
Subalpine—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Asplenium
peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Geranium
arboreum, Phyllostegia bracteata, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest bird, the kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these subalpine species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Alpine—Unit 1 consists of 475
ac (192 ha) of State land, 411 ac (166 ha)
of privately owned land, and 911 ac
(369 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park), at the summit
of Haleakala on east Maui. This unit
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and the
subcanopy native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the alpine ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit is occupied by the
plant Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum, and contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Due to its small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 26—Dry Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 26—
Dry Cliff
This area consists of 755 ac (305 ha)
of federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), from Pakaoao to Koolau
Gap on east Maui. These units include
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Dry Cliff—
Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by
the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense
ssp. macrocephalum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum,
Plantago princeps, or Schiedea
haleakalensis, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
dry cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 2 consists of
688 ac (279 ha) of federally owned land
(Haleakala National Park) from
Haupaakea Peak to Kaupo Gap on east
Maui. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). It is occupied by the plants
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum, Geranium
multiflorum, Plantago princeps, and
Schiedea haleakalensis, and contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Dry
Cliff—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, or Diplazium
molokaiense, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these dry cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 27—Dry Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 27—
Dry Cliff
This area consists of 200 ac (81 ha) of
federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park) near Papaanui on east
Maui. These units include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). It is occupied by the plant
Plantago princeps, and contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Dry
Cliff—Unit 3 is not currently occupied
by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum, or
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 28—
Dry Cliff
This area consists of 315 ac (127 ha)
federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), along Kalapawili Ridge
on east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Dry Cliff—
Unit 4 is not currently occupied by the
plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum, Bidens campylotheca
ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Diplazium molokaiense,
Geranium multiflorum, Plantago
princeps, or Schiedea haleakalensis, or
by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
dry cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Table 5). They are occupied by the plant
Tetramolopium capillare, and contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Dry
Cliff—Unit 5 is not currently occupied
by the plants Bonamia menziesii,
Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arbuscula, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, or Neraudia
sericea, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
dry cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 6 consists of
279 ac (113 ha) of State land along the
east wall of Ukumehame Gulch on west
Maui. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Dry Cliff—
Unit 6 is not currently occupied by the
plants Bonamia menziesii, Diplazium
molokaiense, Hesperomannia
arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua laxiflora, Neraudia sericea, or
Tetramolopium capillare, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
dry cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 5 (and)
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 29—Dry Cliff
(and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 30—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 29—
Dry Cliff
This area consists of 1,298 ac (525 ha)
of State land, from Helu and across
Olowalu to Ukumehame Gulch, on west
Maui. These units include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 30—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 290 ac (117 ha)
of privately owned land along the wall
of Keanae Valley on the northern slopes
of east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Schiedea haleakalensis, or by the forest
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei)
and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these dry cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 4 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 28—Dry Cliff
(and)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17901
Table 5). Although Maui—Wet Cliff—
Unit 1 is not currently occupied by the
plants Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, Cyanea horrida,
Melicope ovalis, Phyllostegia bracteata,
P. haliakalae, or Plantago princeps, or
by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
wet cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 31—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 31—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 475 ac (192 ha)
of State land, 20 ac (8 ha) of privately
owned land, and 912 ac (369 ha) of
federally owned land (Haleakala
National Park), from Kalapawili Ridge
along Kipahulu Valley and north to
Puuhoolio, on the northeastern slopes of
east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). They are occupied by the
plants Bidens campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, Melicope ovalis,
Phyllostegia bracteata, and Plantago
princeps. These units also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Cyanea
horrida, or Phyllostegia haliakalae, or
by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
wet cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17902
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 32—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 32—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of
State land and 433 ac (175 ha) federally
owned land (Haleakala National Park)
along the south rim of Kipahulu Valley
on east Maui. These units include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Wet Cliff—
Unit 3 is not currently occupied by the
plants Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalaensis, C. horrida, Melicope
ovalis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P.
haliakalae, or Plantago princeps, or by
the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
wet cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 4 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 33—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 33—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 184 ac (75 ha) of
State land along the north wall of
Waihoi Valley, on the northeastern
slopes of east Maui. These units include
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). They are occupied by the plant
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera
and B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
and contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 4 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Cyanea
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C.
horrida, Melicope ovalis, Phyllostegia
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
bracteata, P. haliakalae, or Plantago
princeps, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
wet cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 6 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 35—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 35—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 1,858 ac (752 ha)
of State land, and 253 ac (102 ha) of
privately owned land, at the summit
ridges of west Maui. These units include
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). They are occupied by the
plants Alectryon macrococcus, B.
conjuncta, Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyrtandra munroi, Remya mauiensis,
and Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense. These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 6 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Bonamia
menziesii, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, Dubautia
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania
vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens,
H. arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, or
Tetramolopium capillare, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these wet cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 7 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 36—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 36—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 556 ac (225 ha)
of State land along Honokowai ridge on
the northwestern side of west Maui.
These units include the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
the subcanopy and understory native
plant species identified as physical or
biological features in the wet cliff
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are
occupied by the plants Cyrtandra filipes
and C. munroi, and contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 7 is not known to be
occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. conjuncta, Bonamia
menziesii, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx,
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis,
Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia
arborescens, H. arbuscula, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia
lydgatei, Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Tetramolopium capillare,
or by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
wet cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 8 consists of
337 ac (137 ha) of State land along
Kahakuloa ridge on the north side of
west Maui. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Maui—Wet Cliff—
Unit 8 is not known to be occupied by
the plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
conjuncta, Bonamia menziesii, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
munroi, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, or Tetramolopium capillare,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of these wet cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Kahoolawe—Coastal—Unit 1 consists
of 1,516 ac (613 ha) of State land from
Kaneloa to Lae o Kaule, including
Aleale, along the southern and eastern
coast of Kahoolawe. It is occupied by
the plant Kanaloa kahoolawensis and
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This
unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
this species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Kahoolawe—Coastal—Unit 1 is not
known to be occupied by the plants
Sesbania tomentosa or Vigna owahuensis, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the physical or
biological features necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Kahoolawe—Coastal—Unit 2 consists
of 12 ac (5 ha) of State land on Puukoae,
an islet off the southern coast of
Kahoolawe. It is occupied by the plant
Sesbania tomentosa and includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of this
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Kahoolawe—
Coastal—Unit 2 is not known to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
occupied by Kanaloa kahoolawensis or
Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined
this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Kahoolawe—Coastal—Unit 3 consists
of 189 ac (76 ha) of State land from
Laepaki to Honokanaia along the
western coast of Kahoolawe. This unit
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Kahoolawe—Coastal—Unit 3
is not known to be occupied by Kanaloa
kahoolawensis, Sesbania tomentosa, or
Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined
this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of these
coastal species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
Kahoolawe—Lowland Dry—Unit 1
consists of 1,220 ac (494 ha) of State
land, north of Waihonu Gulch on west
Kahoolawe. This unit includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Kahoolawe—Lowland Dry—Unit 1 is
not known to be occupied by Gouania
hillebrandii, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Neraudia
sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, or Vigna owahuensis, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland dry
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Kahoolawe—Lowland Dry—Unit 2
consists of 3,205 ac (1,297 ha) of State
land from Lua o Kealialuna to Puu o
Moaulaiki and Luamakika on the
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17903
eastern side of Kahoolawe. This unit
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Kahoolawe—Lowland Dry—
Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by
Gouania hillebrandii, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Kanaloa kahoolawensis,
Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa,
or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 1 consists of
70 ac (28 ha) of privately owned land,
and 54 ac (22 ha) of federally owned
land (U.S. Coast Guard) at Laau Point,
from Kahaiawa to Keawakalani, along
the western coast of Molokai. This unit
is occupied by the plant Marsilea
villosa, and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia
rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
H. brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides,
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium
rockii, we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 2 consists of
263 ac (106 ha) of State land, and 710
ac (287 ha) of privately owned land,
from Ilio Point to Kaa Gulch, along the
northwestern coast of Molokai. This
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17904
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
unit is occupied by the plant Marsilea
villosa and includes the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This
unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
this species by providing the PCEs
necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 2 is not known
to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei,
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.
immaculatus, H. brackenridgei,
Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Pittosporum halophilum,
Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania
tomentosa, or Tetramolopium rockii, we
have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of
these coastal species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 3 consists of
794 ac (321 ha) of State land, and 3 ac
(1 ha) of federally owned land
(Kalaupapa National Historical Park),
from Kahiu Point to Wainene, along the
north-central coast of Molokai. This unit
is occupied by the plants Pittosporum
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides, and
Tetramolopium rockii, and includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia
rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
H. brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Marsilea villosa, Peucedanum
sandwicense, or Sesbania tomentosa,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 4 consists of
10 ac (4 ha) on Mokapu Island on the
northern coast of Molokai. This area is
State-owned, and is classified as a State
Seabird Sanctuary. This unit is
occupied by the plants Peucedanum
sandwicense and Pittosporum
halophilum, and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the coastal ecosystem (see
Table 5). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 4 is not known to be
occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia
rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
H. brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Marsilea villosa, Schenkia sebaeoides,
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium
rockii, we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 5 consists of
1 ac (0.5 ha) on Huelo islet on the
northern coast of Molokai. This area is
State-owned, and is classified as a State
Seabird Sanctuary. This unit is
occupied by the plants Brighamia rockii,
Peucedanum sandwicense, and
Pittosporum halophilum, and includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 5 is not known to be
occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.
immaculatus, H. brackenridgei,
Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa,
Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania
tomentosa, or Tetramolopium rockii, we
have determined this area to be essential
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for the conservation and recovery of
these coastal species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 6 consists of
190 ac (77 ha) of State land, and 1,685
ac (682 ha) of privately owned land,
from Kaholaiki Bay to Halawa Bay, on
the northeastern coast of Molokai. This
unit is occupied by the plants Bidens
wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
and Ischaemum byrone, and includes
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Coastal—Unit 6 is not known to be
occupied by Brighamia rockii, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Marsilea villosa,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides,
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium
rockii, we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 7 consists of
49 ac (20 ha) of privately owned land
from Alanuipuhipaka Ridge to
Kalanikaula, on the northeastern coast
of Molokai. This unit includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the coastal
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Molokai—Coastal—Unit 7 is not known
to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei,
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.
immaculatus, H. brackenridgei,
Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides,
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
rockii, we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and
recovery of these coastal species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Lowland Dry—Unit 1
consists of 24 ac (10 ha) of privately
owned land, in a small gulch northwest
of Mahana, in west-central Molokai.
This unit includes the mixed herbland
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5).
Although Molokai—Lowland Dry—Unit
1 is not known to be occupied by
Bonamia menziesii, Cyperus
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Kokia cookei, or
Sesbania tomentosa, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Lowland Dry—Unit 2
consists of 589 ac (238 ha) of State land
at Kamiloloa on the southern slopes of
Molokai. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem
(see Table 5). Although Molokai—
Lowland Dry—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by Bonamia menziesii,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Eugenia
koolauensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Kokia cookei, or Sesbania tomentosa,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of these lowland dry species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Molokai—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 37—Lowland
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 37—
Lowland Mesic
This area consists of 3,489 ac (1,412
ha) of State land, and 5,281 ac (2,137 ha)
of privately owned land, from Waianui
Gulch to Mapulehu, in central Molokai.
These units are occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea dunbariae, C.
mannii, C. profuga, Cyperus fauriei,
Cyrtandra filipes, Gouania hillebrandii,
Labordia triflora, Neraudia sericea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
Schiedea lydgatei, S. sarmentosa, Silene
alexandri, S. lanceolata, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, and include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland mesic ecosystem
(see Table 5). These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Lowland Mesic—Unit 1 is not known to
be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea procera, C.
solanacea, Diplazium molokaiense,
Festuca molokaiensis, Flueggea
neowawraea, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua laxiflora, Melicope mucronulata,
M. munroi, M. reflexa, Phyllostegia
haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa,
Sesbania tomentosa, Stenogyne bifida,
or Vigna o-wahuensis, or the forest
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei)
and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland mesic
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Lowland Wet—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 38—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 38—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 2,195 ac (888 ha)
of State land, and 754 ac (305 ha) of
privately owned land (partly within The
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17905
Nature Conservancy’s Pelekunu
Preserve), from Pelekunu Valley to
Wailau Valley, in north-central Molokai.
These units are occupied by the plant
Cyrtandra filipes, and include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland wet ecosystem
(see Table 5). These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Lowland Wet—Unit 1 is not known to
be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, C.
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C.
solanacea, Lysimachia maxima,
Melicope reflexa, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Phyllostegia hispida, P.
mannii, Plantago princeps, Stenogyne
bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or
by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Lowland Wet—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 39—Lowland Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 39—
Lowland Wet
This area consists of 1,356 ac (549 ha)
of State land and 594 ac (241 ha) of
privately owned land, from Kahanui to
Pelekunu Valley, in north-central
Molokai. These units are occupied by
the plant Lysimachia maxima, and
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units also contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Lowland Wet—Unit 2 is not known to
be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17906
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, C.
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C.
solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Melicope
reflexa, Peucedanum sandwicense,
Phyllostegia hispida, P. mannii,
Plantago princeps, Stenogyne bifida, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland wet
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Lowland Wet—Unit 3
consists of 94 ac (38 ha) of State land,
and 3,125 ac (1,265 ha) of privately
owned land, from Waiahookalo gulch to
Moaula stream and Puniuohua, on
eastern Molokai. This unit includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland wet
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although
Molokai—Lowland Wet—Unit 3 is not
known to be occupied by Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, C.
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C.
solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes,
Lysimachia maxima, Melicope reflexa,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
hispida, P. mannii, Plantago princeps,
Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these lowland wet
species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of
wild populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Molokai—Montane Wet—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 40—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 40—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 1,545 ac (625 ha)
of State land, and 1,851 ac (749 ha) of
privately owned land, from the
headwaters of Waialelia Stream and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
above Pelekunu Valley, eastward along
the summit area to Mapulehu, in northcentral Molokai. These units are
occupied by the plants Bidens wiebkei,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes,
Cyanea mannii, C. profuga, Phyllostegia
hispida, and Pteris lidgatei, and include
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the montane wet
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units
also contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Montane Wet—Unit 1 is not known to
be occupied by Adenophorus periens,
Cyanea procera, C. solanacea,
Hesperomannia arborescens,
Lysimachia maxima, Melicope reflexa,
Phyllostegia mannii, P. pilosa,
Platanthera holochila, Schiedea laui,
Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Montane Wet—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 41—Montane Wet
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 41—
Montane Wet
This area consists of 871 ac (353 ha)
of State land, and 39 ac (16 ha) of
privately owned land, from Honukaupu
to Olokui (between Pelekunu and
Wailau valleys), in north-central
Molokai. These units include the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the montane wet ecosystem
(see Table 5). Although Molokai—
Montane Wet—Unit 2 is not known to
be occupied by Adenophorus periens,
Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea mannii, C.
procera, C. profuga, C. solanacea,
Hesperomannia arborescens,
Lysimachia maxima, Melicope reflexa,
Phyllostegia hispida, P. mannii, P.
pilosa, Platanthera holochila, Pteris
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lidgatei, Schiedea laui, Stenogyne
bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or
by the forest birds, the akohekohe
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Montane Wet—Unit 3
consists of 77 ac (31 ha) of State land,
and 726 ac (294 ha) of privately owned
land, above the east rim of Wailau
Valley on eastern Molokai. This unit is
occupied by the plant Melicope reflexa,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Montane Wet—Unit 3 is not known to
be occupied by Adenophorus periens,
Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea mannii, C.
procera, C. profuga, C. solanacea,
Hesperomannia arborescens,
Lysimachia maxima, Phyllostegia
hispida, P. mannii, P. pilosa,
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei,
Schiedea laui, Stenogyne bifida, or
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
montane wet species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Montane Mesic—Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 42—Montane
Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 42—
Montane Mesic
This area consists of 257 ac (104 ha)
of State land, and 559 ac (226 ha) of
privately owned land from Kamiloloa to
Makolelau in central Molokai. These
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
units are occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens wiebkei,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and
include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5).
These units also contain unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—
Montane Mesic—Unit 1 is not known to
be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum,
Cyanea dunbariae, C. mannii, C.
procera, C. solanacea, Cyperus fauriei,
Kadua laxiflora, Melicope mucronulata,
Neraudia sericea, Plantago princeps, or
Stenogyne bifida, or by the forest birds,
the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we
have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of
these montane mesic species because it
provides the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction are essential to achieving
population levels necessary for
recovery.
Molokai—Wet Cliff—Unit 1 (and)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Palmeria dolei—Unit 43—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 43—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 1,395 ac (565 ha)
of State land, and 212 ac (86 ha) of
privately owned land, and encircles the
plateau between Pelekunu and Wailau
valleys, in north-central Molokai. These
units are occupied by the plants
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. brevipes, Cyanea munroi, and
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
and include the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and the
subcanopy and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the wet cliff
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units
also contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of these
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations Although Molokai—Wet
Cliff—Unit 1 is not known to be
occupied by Cyanea grimesiana ssp.
grimesiana, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Phyllostegia hispida, Pteris
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
lidgatei, or Stenogyne bifida, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these wet cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Wet Cliff—Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei—Unit 44—Wet Cliff
(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 44—
Wet Cliff
This area consists of 462 ac (187 ha)
of State land, and 806 ac (326 ha) of
privately owned land (partly within The
Nature Conservancy’s Pelekunu
Preserve), along the rim of Pelekunu
Valley from Kipapa Ridge to Mapulehu,
in central Molokai. These units are
occupied by the plants Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. brevipes and
Phyllostegia hispida, and include the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). These units also contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Molokai—Wet
Cliff—Unit 2 is not known to be
occupied by Brighamia rockii,
Canavalia molokaiensis, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. munroi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus
arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, Pteris
lidgatei, or Stenogyne bifida, or by the
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor
xanthophrys), we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of these wet cliff species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
suitable habitat and space for expansion
or reintroduction are essential to
achieving population levels necessary
for recovery.
Molokai—Wet Cliff—Unit 3 consists
of 1,137 ac (460 ha) of State land, and
225 ac (91 ha) of privately owned land,
along the rim of Wailau Valley from
Mapulehu to Kahiwa Gulch, in eastern
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17907
Molokai. This unit includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and the subcanopy and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see
Table 5). Although Molokai—Wet
Cliff—Unit 3 is not known to be
occupied by Brighamia rockii,
Canavalia molokaiensis, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. munroi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus
arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
Phyllostegia hispida, Pteris lidgatei, or
Stenogyne bifida, we have determined
this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of these wet
cliff species because it provides the
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment
of wild populations within their
historical range. Due to their small
numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction
are essential to achieving population
levels necessary for recovery.
IX. Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d
434, 442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do
not rely on this regulatory definition
when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on
the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat
would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17908
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, local, or
private lands that require a Federal
permit (such as a permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers under section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, local, or private lands that are
not federally funded or authorized, do
not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we may issue:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate formal
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or retain those physical or
biological features that relate to the
ability of the area to periodically
support the species. Activities that may
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat are those that alter the physical
or biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of the critical habitat network for
the 135 species identified in this final
rule. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support the life
history needs of the species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for the 125
species. These activities include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Federal actions that would
appreciably degrade or destroy the
physical or biological features for the
species including, but not limited to, the
following: Overgrazing; maintaining or
increasing feral ungulate levels; clearing
or cutting native live trees and shrubs
(e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing,
construction, road building, mining,
herbicide application); and taking
actions that pose a risk of fire.
(2) Federal actions that would alter
watershed characteristics in ways that
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
would appreciably reduce groundwater
recharge or alter natural, wetland,
aquatic, or vegetative communities.
Such actions include new water
diversion or impoundment, excess
groundwater pumping, and
manipulation of vegetation through
activities such as the ones mentioned in
(1), above.
(3) Recreational activities that may
appreciably degrade vegetation.
(4) Mining sand or other minerals.
(5) Introducing or encouraging the
spread of nonnative plant species.
(6) Importing nonnative species for
research, agriculture, and aquaculture,
and releasing biological control agents.
X. Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that:
‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as
critical habitat any lands or other
geographic areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense, or
designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources
management plan [INRMP] prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
(DOD) lands with a completed INRMP
within the critical habitat designation.
XI. Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate or make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impacts of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species.
In considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Secretary may exercise her discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
When identifying the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider
factors such as the additional regulatory
benefits that area would receive from
the protection from adverse
modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the
educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species; and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When identifying the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in the
continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships that will
result in future conservation. The
Secretary places great weight on
demonstrated partnerships, as in many
cases they can lead to the
implementation of conservation actions
that provide benefits to the species and
their habitat beyond those that are
achievable through the designation of
critical habitat and section 7
consultations, particularly on private
lands. As most endangered or
threatened species in Hawaii occur on
private and other non-Federal lands,
such conservation partnerships are of
heightened importance on the islands of
Hawaii.
In the case of the 125 Maui Nui
species, the benefits of designating
critical habitat include educational
benefits resulting from identification of
the features essential to the conservation
these species and the delineation of
areas important for their recovery.
Further, there may be additional
benefits realized by providing
landowners, stakeholders, and project
proponents greater certainty about
which specific areas are important for
the Maui Nui species. Thus, critical
habitat designation increases public
awareness of the presence the Maui Nui
species and the importance of habitat
protection and, in cases where a Federal
nexus exists, increases habitat
protection for these species due to the
protection from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate whether to include
or exclude lands from critical habitat
where there is a voluntary conservation
partnership, we evaluate the evidence of
a cooperative relationship, the
likelihood that it will result in
meaningful conservation for the species
at issue, and the possibility it will
encourage others to enter into similar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
partnerships. Other factors we may
consider include, but are not limited to,
whether any management plan that may
be under consideration is finalized; how
it provides for the conservation of the
essential physical or biological features;
whether there is a reasonable
expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions
contained in a management plan will be
implemented into the future; whether
the conservation strategies in the plan
are likely to be effective; and whether
the plan contains a monitoring program
or adaptive management to ensure that
the conservation measures are effective
and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
Management plans or agreements,
which may maintain the level of
protection for the species or provide
greater conservation benefits than
would be realized due solely to the
regulatory effect of critical habitat, may
serve to reduce or eliminate the benefits
of designating an area as critical habitat.
After identifying the benefits of
inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
we carefully weigh the two sides to
evaluate whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If our analysis indicates that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, we then determine
whether exclusion of the particular area
would result in the extinction of the
species. If exclusion of an area from
critical habitat will result in extinction,
it will not be excluded from the
designation.
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments
received, we evaluated whether certain
lands in the proposed critical habitat
were appropriate for exclusion from this
final designation pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding a
total of 84,891 ac (34,355 ha) of lands
on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai that meet
the definition of critical habitat from the
final critical habitat rule under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, based on conservation
partnerships, land and resource
management plans, or ‘‘other relevant
factors.’’ On the islands of Maui and
Molokai, approximately 59,478 ac
(24,070 ha) are excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. All lands within
proposed critical habitat on Lanai (14
proposed plant units and 10 proposed
tree snail units; 25,413 ac (10,284 ha))
are excluded from final designation
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act for
the reasons described below. No lands
on Kahoolawe are excluded from the
final critical habitat designation. The
Secretary has excluded lands under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act upon a
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17909
determination that the benefits of
excluding such areas outweigh the
benefits of including them in critical
habitat, and that the exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation and related factors (IEc
2013). The draft analysis, dated January
14, 2013, was made available for public
review from January 31, 2013, through
March 4, 2013 (78 FR 6785; January 31,
2013), and was also available during the
final comment period, which ran from
June 10, 2015, through June 25, 2015 (80
FR 32922). Following the close of the
comment period, a final analysis of the
potential economic effects of the
designation was developed taking into
consideration the public comments and
any new information received (Final
Economic Analysis (FEA) 2015).
The intent of the FEA is to quantify
the economic impacts of all potential
conservation efforts for the Maui Nui
species; some of these costs will likely
be incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (such costs are
considered ‘‘baseline’’ costs). The
economic impact of the final critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place
for the species (e.g., under the Federal
listing and other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts are those
not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental
costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and
beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we consider in the final
designation of critical habitat. The
economic analysis uses the historical
record to inform its assessment of
potential future impacts of critical
habitat and forecasts both baseline and
incremental impacts likely to occur
during the 10-year period following the
designation of critical habitat. This
period was determined to be the
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17910
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate period for analysis because
limited planning information was
available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 10year timeframe.
The FEA also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government
agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost
economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial
development projects and activities,
such as economic impacts on small
entities and the energy industry.
Decision-makers can use this
information to assess whether the effects
of the designation might unduly burden
a particular group or economic sector.
The primary purpose of the economic
analysis is to estimate the potential
incremental economic impacts
associated with the designation of
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species.
This information is intended to assist
the Service in considering whether to
exclude any particular areas from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The FEA
analyzes economic impacts of the
conservation efforts for the Maui Nui
species associated with the following
categories of activity: Residential and
commercial development projects,
energy projects, and grazing and farming
activities. The FEA estimates
approximately $100,000 in present
value incremental impacts over a period
of 10 years associated with development
and energy projects, or roughly $20,000
in annualized impacts. A further $5,000
in total potential impacts were
estimated for energy projects in areas
considered for exclusion, or roughly
$600 in annualized impacts (IEc 2015,
p. ES–7). However, the FEA concluded
that the direct effect of designation of
critical habitat on any of these activities
(i.e., the regulation of these activities
through section 7 consultation to avoid
adverse modification of critical habitat)
is likely to be limited. The costs
estimated reflect the cost of additional
effort under section 7 consultation and
the potential costs of project
modifications as a result of critical
habitat.
The FEA additionally considered the
potential indirect effects of the
designation, including, for example,
perceptional effects on land values, or
the potential for third-party lawsuits.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the
probability of any such effects
occurring, and if so, the magnitude of
any such effects, quantification of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
potential indirect effects of the
designation was not possible. The FEA
acknowledges, however, that these
uncertainties result in an underestimate
of the quantified impacts of the
designation (IEc 2015, p. 5–23).
After reviewing the economic analysis
the Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for the
Maui Nui species based on economic
impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting
documents may be obtained by
contacting the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the DOD where a
national security impact might exist. In
preparing this final rule, we have
determined that the lands within the
designation of critical habitat for the
Maui Nui species are not owned or
managed by the DOD, therefore we
anticipate no impact on national
security. Consequently, the Secretary is
not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation
based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts to national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any HCPs or other management plans
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat.
The establishment and
encouragement of strong conservation
partnerships with non-Federal
landowners is especially important in
the State of Hawaii, where there are
relatively few lands under Federal
ownership; we cannot achieve the
conservation and recovery of listed
species in Hawaii without the help and
cooperation of non-Federal landowners.
In some cases we are excluding areas
where landowners are already actively
participating in the restoration or
management of habitats essential to
listed species, or taking steps to protect
and increase numbers of individuals or
populations of listed species that occur
on their properties. In other cases, we
are excluding areas to support existing
partnerships and encourage new ones
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that will provide important
conservation benefits to the Maui Nui
species.
More than 60 percent of the United
States is privately owned (Lubowski et
al. 2006, p. 35), and at least 80 percent
of endangered or threatened species
occur either partially or solely on
private lands (Crouse et al. 2002, p.
720). In the State of Hawaii, 84 percent
of landownership is non-Federal (U.S.
General Services Administration, in
Western States Tourism Policy Council,
2009). Stein et al. (2008, p. 340) found
that only about 12 percent of listed
species were found almost exclusively
on Federal lands (90 to 100 percent of
their known occurrences restricted to
Federal lands) and that 50 percent of
listed species are not known to occur on
Federal lands at all. Given the
distribution of listed species with
respect to landownership, conservation
of listed species in many parts of the
United States is dependent upon
working partnerships with a wide
variety of entities and the voluntary
cooperation of many non-Federal
landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p.
1,407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and
promoting voluntary cooperation of
landowners is essential to
understanding the status of species on
non-Federal lands and necessary to
implement recovery actions, such as the
reintroduction of listed species, habitat
restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive
satisfaction from contributing to
endangered species recovery.
Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners, safe harbor
agreements, other conservation
agreements, easements, and State and
local regulations enhance species
conservation by extending species
protections beyond those available
through section 7 consultations. We
encourage non-Federal landowners to
enter into conservation agreements
based on a view that we can achieve
greater species conservation on nonFederal lands through such partnerships
than we can through regulatory methods
alone (USFWS and NOAA 1996c (61 FR
63854, December 2, 1996)).
Many private landowners, however,
are wary of the possible consequences of
attracting endangered species to their
property. Mounting evidence suggests
that some regulatory actions by the
government, while well intentioned and
required by law, can (under certain
circumstances) have unintended
negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands
(Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5–6; Bean
2002, pp. 2–3; James 2002, pp. 270–271;
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Koch 2002, pp. 2–3). Many landowners
fear a decline in their property value
due to real or perceived restrictions on
land-use options where endangered or
threatened species are found.
Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability. This perception results in
anti-conservation incentives because
maintaining habitats that harbor
endangered species represents a risk to
future economic opportunities (Main et
al. 1999, pp. 1,264–1,265; Brook et al.
2003, pp. 1,644–1,648).
Because so many important
conservation areas for the Maui Nui
species occur on lands managed by nonFederal entities, collaborative
relationships are essential for their
recovery. The Maui Nui species and
their habitat are expected to benefit
substantially from voluntary land
management actions that implement
appropriate and effective conservation
strategies, or that add to our bank of
knowledge about the species and their
ecological needs. The conservation
benefits of critical habitat, on the other
hand, are primarily regulatory or
prohibitive in nature. Where consistent
with the discretion provided by the Act,
the Service believes it is both desirable
and necessary to implement policies
that provide positive incentives to nonFederal landowners and land managers
to voluntarily conserve natural
resources and to remove or reduce
disincentives to conservation (Wilcove
et al. 1996, pp. 1–14; Bean 2002, p. 2).
Thus, we believe it is imperative for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
recovery of the Maui Nui species to
support ongoing positive management
efforts with non-Federal conservation
partners, and to provide positive
incentives for other non-Federal land
managers who might be considering
implementing voluntary conservation
activities but have concerns about
incurring incidental regulatory,
administrative, or economic impacts.
Many landowners perceive critical
habitat as an unnecessary and
duplicative regulatory burden,
particularly if those landowners are
already developing and implementing
conservation and management plans
that benefit listed species on their lands.
In certain cases, we believe the
exclusion of non-Federal lands that are
under positive conservation
management is likely to strengthen the
partnership between the Service and the
landowner, which may encourage other
conservation partnerships with that
landowner in the future. As an added
benefit, by modeling positive
conservation partnerships that may
result in exclusion from critical habitat,
such exclusion may also help encourage
the formation of new partnerships with
other landowners, with consequent
benefits to the listed species. For all of
these reasons, we place great weight on
the value of conservation partnerships
with non-Federal landowners when
considering the potential benefits of
inclusion versus exclusion of areas in
critical habitat.
We are excluding a total of
approximately 84,891 ac (34,355 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17911
lands on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai that
meet the definition of critical habitat
from the final critical habitat rule under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are
excluding these non-Federal lands
because the development and
implementation of management plans,
and ability to access private lands
necessary for surveys or monitoring
designed to promote the conservation of
these federally listed plant species and
their habitat, as well as provide for other
native species of concern, are important
outcomes of these conservation
partnerships which reduce the benefits
of overlying a designation of critical
habitat. Importantly, such exclusions
also are likely to result in the
continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of important
conservation partnerships that will
contribute to the long-term conservation
of the Maui Nui species. The Secretary
has determined that the benefits of
excluding these areas outweigh the
benefits of including them in critical
habitat, and that such exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the species.
The specific areas excluded are detailed
in Table 8. As a result of our evaluation
of whether the benefits of exclusion
outweigh those of inclusion in critical
habitat, as detailed below, we have
excluded approximately 59,479 ac
(24,070 ha) on the islands of Maui and
Molokai, and 25,413 ac (10,284 ha) on
the island of Lanai (resulting in the
exclusion of all lands proposed as
critical habitat on Lanai). No lands on
Kahoolawe were excluded.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17912
VerDate Sep<11>2014
LANDOWNER FOR THE ISLANDS OF MAUl, MOLOKAI, AND LANAI
Jkt 238001
Unit Name
Area Excluded
Land Management Plan or Conservation
Land Manager
PO 00000
Landowner or
from Critical
Plan
Frm 00124
Habitat, in Acres
(Hectares)
Fmt 4701
Maui-Coastal-Unit 7
Kaupo Ranch
71 (29)
Leeward Haleak:ala Watershed Restoration
Sfmt 4725
Partnership Management Plan, East Maui
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Southern Haleak:ala Forest Restoration Project
Maui-Coastal-Unit 9
Maui Land&
30MRR2
Pineapple Company
205 (83)
Puu Kuk:ui Watershed Preserve Management
Plan, West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership, Tree Snail Habitat Protection
Agreement
ER30MR16.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
TABLE 9-AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT AND
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2,672 (1,081)
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Haleakala Ranch;
2,539 (1,028)
Partnership Management Plan, HCP, Partners
Nuu Mauka Ranch;
Jkt 238001
Ulupalakua Ranch;
1,221
(494)
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements; East Maui
621
(251)
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Kaupo Ranch
PO 00000
7,053 (2,854)
Native Watershed Forest Restoration
Frm 00125
Conservation Plan, Southern Haleakala Forest
Restoration Project
Fmt 4701
Maui-Lowland Dry-Unit 2
Haleakala Ranch
732 (296)
East Maui Watershed Partnership
Sfmt 4725
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Wildlife Agreements
Maui-Lowland Dry-Unit 3
Ulupalakua Ranch
901 (365)
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Partnership Management Plan, HCP, Partners
30MRR2
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
Maui-Lowland Dry-Unit 5
Wailuku Water
Company;
704 (285)
75 (31)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Maui-Lowland Dry-Unit 1
17913
ER30MR16.001</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17914
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Schools; Makila
Jkt 238001
Land Company;
911 (369)
Wildlife Agreements
0.1 (0.05)
1,690 (685)
KahomaLand
PO 00000
Company
Frm 00126
Maui-Lowland Dry-Unit 6
Wailuku Water
184 (74)
Fmt 4701
Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Agreements
Sfmt 4725
Maui-Lowland Mesic-Unit 1
Kaupo Ranch
6 (2)
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Partnership Management Plan, East Maui
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project
30MRR2
TNC; Maui Land &
255 (103)
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan; Puu
Pineapple Company;
548 (222)
Kukui Watershed Preserve Management Plan,
Kamehameha
ER30MR16.002</GPH>
Maui-Lowland Mesic-Unit 2
193 (78)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership,
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Kamehameha
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
689 (279)
Tree Snail Habitat Protection Agreement;
Land Company;
44 (18)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
Jkt 238001
KahomaLand
1,729 (700)
Company
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 1
East Maui Irrigation
(and)
Company
802 (325)
East Maui Watershed Partnership
Management Plan & Haiku Uka Watershed
Fmt 4701
Palmeria dolei-Unit 2-
Protection Project
Lowland Wet (and)
Sfmt 4725
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
2-Lowland Wet
30MRR2
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 2
Maui Land&
(and)
Pineapple Company
4,997 (2,022)
Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve Management
Plan, West Maui Mountains Watershed
Palmeria dolei-Unit 3-
Partnership, Tree Snail Habitat Protection
Lowland Wet (and)
Agreement
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Schools; Mak:ila
17915
ER30MR16.003</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17916
VerDate Sep<11>2014
3-Lowland Wet (and)
Jkt 238001
Newcombia cumingi-Unit 1Lowland Wet
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 3
Maui Land&
(and)
Pineapple Company
Puu Kuk:ui Watershed Preserve Management
Plan, West Maui Mountains Watershed
Sfmt 4725
Palmeria dolei-Unit 4-
Partnership, Tree Snail Habitat Protection
Lowland Wet (and)
Agreement
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
4-Lowland Wet
30MRR2
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 4
County, Department
(and)
ofWater Supply
Palmeria dolei-Unit 5-
ER30MR16.004</GPH>
180 (73)
301 (122)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Agreements
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Jkt 238001
5-Lowland Wet
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 5
Wailuku Water
(and)
Company
2,082 (843)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Fmt 4701
Palmeria dolei-Unit 6-
Wildlife Agreements
Lowland Wet (and)
Sfmt 4725
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
6-Lowland Wet
Maui-Lowland Wet-Unit 6
30MRR2
(and)
Palmeria dolei-Unit 7Lowland Wet (and)
TNC
503 (204)
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Lowland Wet (and)
17917
ER30MR16.005</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17918
VerDate Sep<11>2014
7-Lowland Wet
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Maui-Montane Wet-Unit 1
TNC; Haleak:ala
(and)
Ranch; East Maui
Palmeria dolei-Unit 10-
Irrigation Company
Fmt 4701
Montane Wet (and)
1,463
(592)
Kapunak:ea Preserve Operational Plan; East
204
(82)
Maui Watershed Partnership Management
4,273 (1,729)
5,940 (2,403)
Plan, Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Sfmt 4725
10-Montane Wet
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Maui-Montane Wet-Unit 2
TNC; East Maui
(and)
Irrigation Company
30MRR2
Palmeria dolei-Unit 11Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
ER30MR16.006</GPH>
766(310)
Kapunak:ea Preserve Operational Plan; East
1,338 (541)
Maui Watershed Partnership Management
2,104 (851)
Plan & Haiku Uka Watershed Protection
Project
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Maui-Montane Wet-Unit 6
Maui Land&
(and)
Pineapple Company;
359 (145)
Kukui Watershed Preserve Management Plan,
Palmeria dolei-Unit 15-
TNC; Wailuku
39 (16)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership,
Montane Wet (and)
Water Company;
471 (191)
Tree Snail Habitat Protection Agreement,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
County, Department
656 (265)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
15-Montane Wet
of Water Supply;
35 (14)
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Sfmt 4725
Kamehameha
1,005 (407)
2,565 (1,038)
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan, Puu
Wildlife Agreements
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Schools; Makila
Land Company
30MRR2
Maui-Montane Wet-Unit 7
Wailuku Water
(and)
Company
Palmeria dolei-Unit 16Montane Wet (and)
528 (214)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Agreements
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
11-Montane Wet
17919
ER30MR16.007</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17920
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16-Montane Wet
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Maui-Montane Wet-Unit 8
Wailuku Water
(and)
Company
46 (19)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Frm 00132
Palmeria dolei-Unit 17-
Wildlife Agreements
Fmt 4701
Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Sfmt 4725
17-Montane Wet
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Maui-Montane Mesic-Unit 1
TNC; Ulupalakua
1,372
(555)
Kapunak:ea Preserve Operational Plan;
(and)
Ranch; Haleak:ala
2,183
(883)
Leeward Haleak:ala Watershed Restoration
30MRR2
Palmeria dolei-Unit 18-
Ranch; East Maui
3,232 (1,308)
Montane Mesic (and)
Irrigation Company;
164
(67)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Nuu Mauk:a Ranch
318
(129)
ER30MR16.008</GPH>
Partnership Management Plan, HCP, Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements; East Maui
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
7,269 (2,942)
Native Watershed Forest Restoration
Conservation Plan, Southern Haleak:ala Forest
Jkt 238001
Restoration Project
PO 00000
Maui-Montane Mesic-Unit 2
Mak:ila Land
(and)
Company
242 (98)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Frm 00133
Palmeria dolei-Unit 19-
Wildlife Agreements
Fmt 4701
Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Sfmt 4725
19-Montane Mesic
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Maui-Montane Mesic-Unit 3
Mak:ila Land
(and)
Company
30MRR2
Palmeria dolei-Unit 20Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
44 (18)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Agreements
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
18-Montane Mesic
17921
ER30MR16.009</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17922
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
Maui-Montane Mesic-Unit 5
Wailuku Water
(and)
Company
134 (54)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
PO 00000
Palmeria dolei-Unit 22-
Wildlife Agreements
Frm 00134
Montane Mesic (and)
Fmt 4701
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
22-Montane Mesic
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Maui-Montane Mesic-Unit 6
Wailuku Water
(and)
Company
Palmeria dolei-Unit 23-
30MRR2
Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
23-Montane Mesic
ER30MR16.010</GPH>
94 (38)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Agreements
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
20-Montane Mesic
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration
177 (72)
Partnership Management Plan, HCP, Partners
Nuu Mauka Ranch;
482 (195)
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements; East Maui
Kaupo Ranch
PO 00000
571 (231)
Haleakala Ranch;
Jkt 238001
Ulupalakua Ranch;
233 (94)
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Frm 00135
1,463 (592)
Native Watershed Forest Restoration
Fmt 4701
Conservation Plan, Southern Haleakala Forest
Restoration Project
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Maui-Subalpine-Unit 1 (and)
TNC; Ulupalakua
111 (45)
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan;
Palmeria dolei-Unit 24-
Ranch; Haleakala
210 (85)
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Subalpine (and)
Ranch; Nuu Mauka
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Ranch
30MRR2
24-Subalpine
1,817 (736)
Partnership Management Plan, HCP, Partners
73 (29)
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements; East Maui
2,211 (895)
Watershed Partnership Management Plan,
Native Watershed Forest Restoration
Conservation Plan, Southern Haleakala Forest
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Maui-Montane Dry-Unit 1
17923
ER30MR16.011</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17924
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
Maui-Subalpine-Unit 2 (and)
TNC; East Maui
975 (394)
Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management
Palmeria dolei-Unit 25-
Irrigation Company
70 (28)
Plan; East Maui Watershed Partnership
Subalpine (and)
1,045 (422)
PO 00000
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Protection Project
Frm 00136
25-Subalpine
Fmt 4701
Maui-Alpine-Unit 1
Haleakala Ranch
15 (6)
East Maui Watershed Partnership
Sfmt 4725
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Wildlife Agreements
Maui-Dry Cliff-Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei-Unit 26-Dry
30MRR2
Cliff(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
26-Dry Cliff
ER30MR16.012</GPH>
Management Plan & Haiku Uka Watershed
TNC
264 (107)
Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management
Plan
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Restoration Project
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
TNC
93 (38)
Jkt 238001
Palmeria dolei-Unit 27-Dry
Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management
Plan
Cliff(and)
PO 00000
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Frm 00137
27-Dry Cliff
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Maui-Dry Cliff-Unit 5 (and)
Makila Land
Palmeria dolei-Unit 29-Dry
238 (96)
Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Cliff(and)
Wildlife Agreements
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
29-Dry Cliff
30MRR2
Maui-Dry Cliff-Unit 7
Wailuku Water
Company
808 (327)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Maui-Dry Cliff-Unit 3 (and)
17925
ER30MR16.013</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17926
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
Maui-Wet Cliff-Unit 1 (and)
TNC; East Maui
96 (39)
Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management
Palmeria dolei-Unit 30-Wet
Irrigation Company
74 (30)
Plan; East Maui Watershed Partnership
170 (69)
Management Plan & Haiku Uka Watershed
Cliff(and)
PO 00000
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Protection Project
Frm 00138
30-Wet Cliff
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Maui-Wet Cliff-Unit 5 (and)
Maui Land&
Palmeria dolei-Unit 34-
1,996 (808)
Pineapple Company
Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve Management
Plan, Tree Snail Habitat Protection
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Lowland Wet (and)
Agreement
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
34-Lowland Wet
30MRR2
Maui-Wet Cliff-Unit 6 (and)
2,791 (1,129)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
Palmeria dolei-Unit 35-
ER30MR16.014</GPH>
Wailuku Water
Company; County,
2,917 (1,181)
Management Plan, Partners for Fish and
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Wildlife Agreements
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
Department of
293
(119)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
Water Supply;
2
(1)
35-Lowland Wet
Kamehameha
990
(401)
Schools; Kahoma
Wildlife Agreements
6,993 (2,831)
PO 00000
Land Company;
Frm 00139
Makila Land
Company
Fmt 4701
Maui-Wet Cliff-Unit 7 (and)
Sfmt 4725
Palmeria dolei-Unit 36-Wet
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Cliff(and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
36-Wet Cliff
TNC
222 (90)
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Lowland Wet (and)
17927
ER30MR16.015</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17928
VerDate Sep<11>2014
TNC
924 (374)
Moomomi Preserve Long-Range
Management Plan
Jkt 238001
Molokai-Lowland Mesic-Unit
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
TNC
388 (157)
Kamakou Preserve Management Plan
TNC
1,419 (574)
Kamakou Preserve Management Plan
1 (and)
Palmeria dolei-Unit 37Lowland Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
37-Lowland Mesic
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Molokai-Montane Wet-Unit 1
(and)
Palmeria dolei-Unit 40-
30MRR2
Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
40-Montane Wet
ER30MR16.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Molokai-Coastal-Unit 2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
TNC
813 (329)
Kamakou Preserve Management Plan
TNC
12 (5)
Kamakou Preserve Management Plan
1 (and)
Palmeria dolei-Unit 42-
Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
42-Montane Mesic
Molokai-Wet Cliff-Unit 2
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
Palmeria dolei-Unit 44-Wet
30MRR2
Pseudonestor xanthophrys-Unit
(and)
Cliff(and)
44-Wet Cliff
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Molokai-Montane Mesic-Unit
17929
ER30MR16.017</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17930
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Lanai Resorts, LLC
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
PO 00000
Lanai-Coastal-Unit 2
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
Jkt 238001
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
2 (1)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai-Coastal-Unit 3
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
510 (206)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai-Lowland Dry-Unit 1
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
9,766 (3,952)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
30MRR2
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai-Lowland Dry-Unit 2
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
and Castle & Cooke
ER30MR16.018</GPH>
374 (151)
939 (380)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Lanai-Coastal-Unit 1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Lanai-Lowland Mesic-Unit 1
Lanai Resorts, LLC
Lanai Conservation Agreement
11,172 (4,521)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
PO 00000
Lanai-Lowland Wet-Unit 1
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
Jkt 238001
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
374 (152)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
and Castle & Cooke
Properties, Inc.
Lanai-Lowland Wet-Unit 2
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
232 (94)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
and Castle & Cooke
Properties, Inc.
Lanai-Montane Wet-Unit 1
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
248 (101)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Lanai-Dry Cliff-Unit 1
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
30MRR2
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
and Castle & Cooke
83 (34)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Properties, Inc.
17931
ER30MR16.019</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17932
Jkt 238001
Lanai-Dry Cliff-Unit 2
Lanai Resorts, LLC
Lanai Conservation Agreement
354 (143)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30MRR2
exclusion in each case. Maps of each
area excluded are provided in our
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
followed by a summary of our analysis
of the benefits of inclusion versus
PO 00000
and Castle & Cooke
Properties, Inc.
Lanai-Dry Cliff-Unit 3
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
398 (161)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
and Castle & Cooke
Properties, Inc.
Lanai-Wet Cliff-Unit 1
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
731 (296)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
and Castle & Cooke
Properties, Inc.
Lanai-Wet Cliff-Unit 2
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Lanai Resorts, LLC
230 (93)
Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership,
and Castle & Cooke
Lanai MOU, Lanai Natural Resources Plan,
Properties, Inc.
Lanai Conservation Agreement
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Here we present an overview of each
of the areas considered for exclusion,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ER30MR16.020</GPH>
Properties, Inc.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
supporting document ‘‘Supplemental
Information for the Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe
for 135 Species,’’ available at https://
www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES).
The Nature Conservancy
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan,
Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range
Management Plan, Kamakou Preserve
Management Plan, and Moomomi
Preserve Long-Range Management Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
from critical habitat lands owned or
managed by The Nature Conservancy,
totaling 10,056 ac (4,062 ha) on the
islands of Maui and Molokai. The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a proven
conservation partner, as demonstrated,
in part, by their ongoing management
programs, documented in long-range
management plans and yearly
operational plans for TNC’s Kapunakea
Preserve on west Maui and Waikamoi
Preserve on east Maui, and Kamakou
Preserve and Moomomi Preserve on
Molokai. These preserves were
established by grants of perpetual
conservation easements from the private
landowners to TNC, or are owned by
TNC, and are permanently dedicated to
conservation. The Nature Conservancy’s
management and protection of these
areas currently provide significant
conservation benefits to 36 plant and 2
forest bird species that are reported from
one or more of the preserves and their
habitat. These areas also provide for the
conservation and recovery of 69 other
plant species. For the reasons described
below, we have determined that the
benefits of excluding these lands owned
or managed by The Nature Conservancy
outweigh the benefits of including them
in critical habitat. The land is
distributed among several critical
habitat units, as discussed below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Maui
Kapunakea Preserve encompasses
1,340 ac (542 ha) on west Maui. This
preserve was established through a
perpetual conservation easement with
Pioneer Mill Company, Ltd. (succeeded
by Kaanapali Land Management Corp.),
in 1992, to protect the natural,
ecological, and wildlife features of one
of the highest quality native areas on
west Maui (TNCH 2008, p. 5). Eleven
plant species included in this rule
(Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia
menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C.
lobata, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi,
Platanthera holochila, and Santalum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
haleakalae var. lanaiense) are reported
from the preserve. Kapunakea Preserve
falls within four critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 2,
Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 6, Maui—
Montane Wet—Unit 6, and Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 7), and six units for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria
dolei—Unit 7—Lowland Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 7—
Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
15—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 36—Wet Cliff,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 36—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Bidens. conjuncta,
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea. kunthiana,
Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Geranium
hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides,
Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. This area
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 29 plant
species, including Acaena exigua,
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx,
Cyrtandra oxybapha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei,
Tetramolopium capillare, and
Wikstroemia villosa, as well as the birds
akohekohe and kiwikiu.
Waikamoi Preserve encompasses
5,141 ac (2,080 ha) along the northern
boundary of Haleakala National Park on
east Maui. The preserve was established
in 1983, through a perpetual
conservation easement with Haleakala
Ranch Company, to protect one of the
largest intact native rain forests in
Hawaii (TNCH 2006a, p. 3). Eight plant
species included in this rule
(Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare,
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera,
Cyanea horrida, C. kunthiana,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
arboreum, G. multiflorum, and
Phyllostegia pilosa), and the akohekohe
and kiwikiu, are reported from the
preserve. Waikamoi Preserve falls
within 8 critical habitat units for plants
(Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 1, Maui—
Montane Wet—Unit 2, Maui—Montane
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17933
Mesic—Unit 1, Maui—Subalpine—Unit
1, Maui—Subalpine—Unit 2, Maui—Dry
Cliff—Unit 1, Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 3,
and Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 1), and 16
units for the akohekohe and kiwikiu
(Palmeria dolei—Unit 10—Montane
Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
10—Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
11—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 11—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 18—Montane
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
18—Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 24—Subalpine, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 24—Subalpine,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 25—Subalpine,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 25—
Subalpine, Palmeria dolei—Unit 26—
Dry Cliff, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—
Unit 26—Dry Cliff, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 27—Dry Cliff, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 27—Dry Cliff,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 30—Wet Cliff, and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 30—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense
ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium
dielerectum, A. peruvianum var.
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Clermontia lindseyana, C. samuelii,
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalensis, C.
duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C.
maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. obtusa,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
arboreum, G. hanaense, G. multiflorum,
Huperzia mannii, Melicope adscendens,
M. balloui, Neraudia sericea,
Phyllostegia pilosa, Schiedea
haleakalensis, and Wikstroemia villosa,
and the akohekohe and kiwikiu. This
area contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 16 other
plant species (Adenophorus periens,
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
Cyanea glabra, Melicope ovalis,
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum
incompletum, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense).
Molokai
Kamakou Preserve is located in the
east Molokai mountains and
encompasses 2,633 ac (1,066 ha). This
preserve was established in 1982,
through a perpetual conservation
easement with Molokai Ranch, to
protect endemic forest bird habitat and
is the primary source area for ground
and surface water on the island (TNCH
2006b, p. 2). Nineteen plant species
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17934
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
included in this rule (Adenophorus
periens, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes,
Cyanea mannii, C. procera, C.
solanacea, Cyperus fauriei, Lysimachia
maxima, Melicope mucronulata,
Phyllostegia hispida, P. mannii,
Platanthera holochila, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea
laui, Stenogyne bifida, Vigna owahuensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense) are reported from the
preserve. Kamakou Preserve falls within
four critical habitat units for plants
(Molokai—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1,
Molokai—Montane Wet—Unit 1,
Molokai—Montane Mesic—Unit 1, and
Molokai—Wet Cliff—Unit 2) and eight
units for the akohekohe and kiwikiu
(Palmeria dolei—Unit 37—Lowland
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
37—Lowland Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 40—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 40—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 42—Montane
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
42—Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 44—Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 44—Wet Cliff).
These units are occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens wiebkei,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea dunbariae,
C. mannii, C. profuga, Cyperus fauriei,
Cyrtandra filipes, Gouania hillebrandii,
Labordia triflora, Neraudia sericea,
Phyllostegia hispida, Pteris lidgatei,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, S.
lydgatei, S. sarmentosa, Silene
alexandri, S. lanceolata, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense. This area contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential for
the conservation of 29 other plant
species (Adenophorus periens,
Asplenium dielerectum, Bonamia
menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
molokaiensis, Cyanea grimesiana ssp.
grimesiana, C. munroi, C. procera, C.
solanacea, Diplazium molokaiense,
Eugenia koolauensis, Festuca
molokaiensis, Flueggea neowawraea,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus
arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Lysimachia maxima, Melicope
mucronulata, M. reflexa, Phyllostegia
haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Schiedea laui, and Sesbania
tomentosa, Stenogyne bifida, and Vigna
o-wahuensis), as well as the birds
akohekohe and kiwikiu.
Moomomi Preserve encompasses 924
ac (374 ha) along the northwest shore of
Molokai that are owned by TNC. This
preserve was established in 1988, to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
protect the most intact coastal
ecosystem in Hawaii, with nesting
seabirds, nesting green sea turtles, and
a variety of native coastal plants (TNCH
2005, pp. 2–3). One plant species
included in this rule, Tetramolopium
rockii, is reported from the preserve.
Moomomi Preserve falls within one
critical habitat unit, Molokai—Coastal—
Unit 2. This unit is occupied by
Marsilea villosa. This area contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of 11 other plant
species (Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia
rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis,
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus,
H. brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum
halophilum Schenkia sebaeoides, and
Sesbania tomentosa).
All four preserves were established by
grants of perpetual conservation
easements from the private landowners
to TNC, or are owned by TNC, and are
included in the State’s Natural Area
Partnership (NAP) programs, which
provide matching funds for the
management of private lands dedicated
to conservation (TNCH 2005, pp. 2–3;
TNCH 2006a, p. 3; TNCH 2006b, p. 2;
TNCH 2008, p. 50). These partnerships
with the State began in 1983 (with
Haleakala Ranch) for Waikamoi, and
were followed in 1992 (with Kaanapali
Land Management Corporation) for
Kapunakea, in 1995 (with Molokai
Ranch) for Kamakou, and in 1995 for
Moomomi (TNC-owned). Under the
NAP program, the State of Hawaii
provides matching funds on a two-forone basis for management of private
lands dedicated to conservation. In
order to qualify for this program, the
land must be dedicated in perpetuity
through transfer of fee title or a
conservation easement to the State or a
cooperating entity. The land must be
managed by the cooperating entity or a
qualified landowner according to a
detailed management plan approved by
the Board of Land and Natural
Resources. Once approved, the 6-year
partnership agreement between the
State and the managing entity is
automatically renewed each year so that
there are always 6 years remaining in
the term, although the management plan
is updated and funding amounts are
reauthorized by the board at least every
6 years. By April 1 of any year, the
managing partner may notify the State
that it does not intend to renew the
agreement; however, in such case, the
partnership agreement remains in effect
for the balance of the existing 6-year
term, and the conservation easement
remains in full effect in perpetuity. The
conservation easement may be revoked
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by the landowner only if State funding
is terminated without the concurrence
of the landowner and cooperating
entity. Prior to terminating funding, the
State must conduct one or more public
hearings. The NAP program is funded
through real estate conveyance taxes
placed in a Natural Area Reserve Fund.
Participants in the NAP program must
provide annual reports to the DLNR,
and the DLNR makes annual inspections
of the work in the reserve areas (see
State of Hawaii 1999, H.R.S. 195–D;
State of Hawaii 1996, H.A.R. 13–210).
Management programs within the
preserves are documented in long-range
management plans and yearly
operational plans. These plans detail
management measures that protect,
restore, and enhance rare plants and
animals and their habitats within the
preserves and in adjacent areas. These
management measures address factors
that pose threats to the Maui Nui
species in this final rule, including
control of nonnative species of
ungulates, rodents, and weeds. In
addition, habitat restoration and
monitoring are also included in these
plans.
The primary management goals for
each of the four TNC preserves are to:
(1) Prevent degradation of native forest
and shrubland by reducing feral
ungulate damage; (2) improve or
maintain the integrity of native
ecosystems in selected areas of the
preserve by reducing the effects of
nonnative plants; (3) conduct small
mammal control and reduce their
negative impacts where possible; (4)
monitor and track the biological and
physical resources in the preserve and
evaluate changes in these resources over
time, and encourage biological and
environmental research; (5) prevent
extinction of rare species in the
preserve; (6) build public understanding
and support for the preservation of
natural areas, and enlist volunteer
assistance for preserve management;
and (7) protect the resources from fires
in and around the preserve (applicable
to preserves in high fire-risk areas)
(TNCH 2005, 148 pp. + appendices;
TNCH 2006a, 23 pp. + appendices;
TNCH 2006b, 21 pp. + appendices;
TNCH 2008, 30 pp.).
The goal of TNC’s ungulate program
(see (1), above) is to bring feral ungulate
populations to zero within the preserves
as rapidly as possible, and to prevent
domestic livestock from entering a
preserve. Specific management actions
to address feral ungulate impacts
include the construction of fences,
including strategic fences (fences placed
in proximity to natural barriers such as
cliffs); annual monitoring of ungulate
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
presence in transects; monthly
boundary fence inspections; and trained
staff and volunteer hunting. As axis deer
also pose a threat to the preserves, TNC
is a member of the Maui Axis Deer
Group (MADG), and TNC meets
regularly with MADG to seek
management solutions. Ungulate
management actions also include
working with community hunters in
conjunction with watershed
partnerships for each island. By
monitoring ungulate activity within
each of the preserves, the staff is able to
assess the success of the hunting
program. If increased hunting pressure
does not reduce feral ungulate activity
in a preserve, preserve staff work with
the hunting group to identify and
implement alternative methods (TNCH
2005, pp. 7–8; TNCH 2006a, pp. 7–10;
TNCH 2006b, pp. 8–9; TNCH 2008, pp.
9–10).
The nonnative plant control program
(see (2), above) for each of the four TNC
preserves focuses on controlling habitatmodifying nonnative plants (weeds) in
intact native communities and
preventing the introduction of
additional nonnative plants. Based on
the degree of threat to native
ecosystems, weed priority lists have
been compiled for each of the preserves,
and control and monitoring of the
highest priority species are ongoing.
Weeds are controlled manually,
chemically, or through a combination of
both. Preventive measures (prevention
protocol) are required by all who enter
each of the preserves. This protocol
includes such things as brushing
footgear before entering the preserve to
remove seeds of nonnative plants.
Weeds are monitored along transects
annually. Weed priority maps are
maintained semi-annually. Staff
participate as members of the
Melastome Action Committee and the
Maui and Molokai Invasive Species
committees (MISC and MoMISC), and
cooperate with the State Division of
Conservation and Resources
Enforcement (DOCARE) in marijuana
control, as needed (TNCH 2005, pp. 8–
9; TNCH 2006a, pp. 11–13; TNCH
2006b, pp. 10–12; TNCH 2008, pp. 11–
13).
The Nature Conservancy controls or
prevents entry of nonnative mammals
such as rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis
catus), mongoose (Herpestes
auropunctatus), and dogs (Canis
familiaris), on their preserves (see (3),
above). These mammals have negative
impacts on reproduction and
persistence of native plants and
animals. Independent studies and
research regarding the effects of small
nonnative mammals on native
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
ecosystems on all four preserves is
encouraged by TNC. Small mammal
trapping is conducted in Moomomi
Preserve to protect ground-nesting
native seabirds from predation (TNCH
2005, p. 6). While the most effective
control methods for rats on TNC
preserves are still under investigation,
an intensive rat baiting program is in
place at Kamakou Preserve to control
rats, which prey upon native snails and
plants (TNCH 2006a, pp. 2, 6; TNCH
2009b, p. 21). The Nature Conservancy’s
predator control program is directed by
adaptive management (TNCH 2010a, pp.
3–5).
Natural resource monitoring and
research address the need to track the
biological and physical resources of the
preserves and evaluate changes in these
resources to guide management
programs, and contribute to prevention
of extinction of rare species (see (4) and
(5), above). Vegetation is monitored
throughout each preserve to document
long-term ecological changes, and rare
plant species are monitored to assess
population status. The Nature
Conservancy provides logistical and
other support to PEPP, including
implementing threat abatement
measures on their preserves (TNCH
2010a, p. 13). Bird surveys are
conducted every 5 years to document
the relative abundance of all bird
species in the preserves (TNCH 2010b,
p. 16). Portions of the four preserves are
adjacent to other areas managed to
protect natural resources. Agreements
with those land managers are used to
coordinate management efforts, and to
share staff, equipment, and expertise to
maximize management efficiency. The
Nature Conservancy takes an active part
in planning and coordinating
conservation actions with, and is a
member of, the East Maui Watershed
Partnership (EMWP), the West Maui
Mountains Watershed Partnership
(WMMWP), and the East Molokai
Watershed Partnership (EMOWP)
(TNCH 2006a, p. 3; TNCH 2008, p. 21;
TNCH 2010a, p. 2).
The Nature Conservancy’s goal to
increase conservation and advocacy for
native ecosystems in Hawaii is also
implemented through their public
outreach program (see (6), above). The
Nature Conservancy provides sites and
volunteer work for youth groups such as
Ho’ikaika and AmeriCorps, and summer
internships for youth and young adults
(Alu Like, State Summer Youth
Employment Program, Molokai
Environmental Preservation
Organization, and the Natural Resources
Academy), providing students with
hands-on experience in natural resource
conservation. Other community groups,
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17935
such as the Molokai Advisory Council,
Molokai Hunting Working Group, and
Kamalo Conservation Advisors, are
encouraged to participate in the
decision-making process for TNC’s
natural resources programs. The Nature
Conservancy staff present slide shows
and talks as requested by community
and school groups, and lead guided
hikes in their preserves for public
schools and targeted community
members. The Nature Conservancy
produces a quarterly newsletter
distributed on Molokai to inform the
local community regarding conservation
activities and opportunities (TNCH
2006b, pp. 18–19; TNCH 2008, p. 20).
Fire management is an important goal
for two Molokai preserves: Kamakou
Preserve on Molokai and Kapunakea
Preserve on west Maui (TNCH 2006b, p.
15; TNCH 2008, p. 22) (see (7), above).
Wildfire management plans are updated
annually. Staff is provided with fire
suppression training, roads are
maintained for access and as fire breaks,
and equipment is supplied as needed to
allow immediate response to fire threats
(TNCH 2005, p. 13).
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
these TNC preserves. We believe that
there is a low likelihood of a Federal
nexus to provide a benefit to the species
from designation of critical habitat. In
addition, all of the management actions
detailed above will either lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the species, or lead to emergence of
suitable habitat where it is not present,
thereby benefitting the conservation of
the 105 plant and 2 forest bird species
and their habitat.
Maui Land and Pineapple Company,
Inc.
Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve
Management Plan, West Maui
Mountains Watershed Partnership, and
Tree Snail Habitat Protection Agreement
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
8,931 ac (3,614 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned and managed by Maui
Land and Pineapple Company (ML & P).
Maui Land and Pineapple Company is
a proven conservation partner with an
established track record of voluntary
protection and management of listed
species as demonstrated, in part, by
their ongoing management program for
the Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve (Puu
Kukui WP), their participation in the
WMMWP, and the tree snail habitat
protection agreement for ML & P’s Puu
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17936
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Kukui WP on west Maui. Puu Kukui
WP, established in 1988, is permanently
dedicated to conservation. The actions
of ML & P provide for the conservation
of 44 plants, 2 forest birds, and
Newcomb’s tree snail that occur on their
lands and their habitat. For the reasons
described below, we have determined
that the benefits of excluding lands
owned by Maui Land and Pineapple
Company outweigh the benefits of
including them in critical habitat.
Puu Kukui WP is the largest privately
owned watershed preserve in the State,
and encompasses over 8,600 ac (3,480
ha) of ML & P’s lands on west Maui. The
forest, shrubland, and bogs within the
preserve serve as a significant water
source for west Maui residents and
industries. Fourteen plant species
(Bidens conjuncta, Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. kunthiana, C.
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes,
C. munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens,
H. arbuscula, Myrsine vaccinioides,
Sanicula purpurea, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Sesbania
tomentosa), and the Newcomb’s tree
snail, occur in this area. The area falls
within seven critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Coastal—9, Maui—
Lowland Mesic—2, Maui—Lowland
Wet—2, Maui—Lowland Wet—3,
Maui—Montane Wet—6, Maui—Wet
Cliff—5, and Maui—Wet Cliff—7), eight
critical habitat units for birds (Palmeria
dolei—Unit 3—Lowland Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 3—
Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit 4—
Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 4—Lowland Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 15—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
34—Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 34—Wet Cliff), and
one critical habitat for the Newcomb’s
tree snail (Newcombia cumingi—Unit
1—Lowland Wet). These units are
occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Bidens. conjuncta,
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
kunthiana, Cyrtandra munroi,
Geranium hillebrandii, Myrsine
vaccinioides, Pteris lidgatei, Remya
mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania
tomentosa, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, and by the Newcomb’s tree
snail. This area contains habitat that is
unoccupied but essential to the
conservation of 28 other plant species
(Acaena exigua, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea glabra,
C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra
filipes, C. oxybapha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Tetramolopium capillare,
and Wikstroemia villosa), and to the
akohekohe and kiwikiu.
Maui Land and Pineapple Company
understands the importance of this
water resource to the community, and
recognizes that active management is
needed for its protection and
conservation, as evidenced by their
implementation of an ongoing
management program to preserve and
protect the Puu Kukui WP. The ML & P
Company has proactively managed the
Puu Kukui WP since 1988, and joined
the State of Hawaii’s NAP program in
July 1992. The NAP program contract
has been continually renewed since that
time, and has recently been authorized
to continue through Fiscal Year 2018
(ML & P 2010, p. 5; DLNR 2011, in litt.).
The primary management goals as
outlined in the current Puu Kukui WP
management plan for the NAP program,
fiscal years 2012–2018 are to: (1)
Eliminate ungulate activity in all Puu
Kukui WP management units; (2) reduce
the range of habitat-modifying weeds
and prevent introduction of nonnative
plants; (3) track biological and physical
resources in the watershed and evaluate
changes in these resources over time,
including the identification of new
threats to the watershed, and provide
logistical support to approved research
projects that will improve management
understanding of the watershed’s
resources; (4) prevent the extinction of
rare species in the watershed; (5) expose
the community to projects focusing on
preserving and enhancing native plant
and animal communities; (6) assist the
long-term management of the native
ecosystems of west Maui by the
WMMWP; and (7) provide adequate
manpower and equipment to meet the
goals and objectives of the plan. Over 20
years of feral ungulate management has
shown that the use of snares and fences
has been an effective means of ungulate
control, with 60 percent of the preserve
not seeing pig activity for 5 or more
years. Accessible fences and those with
direct ungulate pressure are maintained
quarterly. The nonnative plant control
program focuses on areas with rare
native species, and the maintenance of
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the most pristine areas, keeping them as
weed-free as possible with manual and
mechanical control. The ML & P
Company also supports rare plant
monitoring and propagule collection by
the PEPP. Natural resource monitoring
and research address the need to track
biological and physical resources in
order to guide management programs.
Vegetation is monitored through
permanent photo points; nonnative
species are monitored along permanent
transects; and rare, endemic, and
indigenous species are also monitored.
The ML & P Company has received
funding in eight separate agreements
(over $400,000) with the Service to
survey for rare plants on their lands and
to build feral ungulate control fences for
the protection of listed plants.
Additionally, logistical and other
support for native bird and invertebrate
studies by independent researchers and
interagency cooperative agreements is
provided.
In our June 11, 2012, proposed rule,
we proposed critical habitat in a portion
of Puu Kukui WP (534 ac (236 ha)),
where the remaining nine wild
individuals of Newcomb’s tree snail
occur (Newcombia cumingi—Unit 1—
Lowland Wet). This area is overlapped
by critical habitat plant unit Maui—
Lowland Wet—Unit 2 for plant species.
The remaining 65 ac (26 ha) of this unit
overlaps State lands. Puu Kukui WP is
permanently dedicated to conservation,
and the positive management by ML &
P of this area has demonstrated their
understanding of the important of this
resource to the community, as well as
recognition that active management is
needed for its protection and
conservation. The Service has worked
closely with ML & P, and recently
established a cooperative agreement for
fencing and management for the
conservation of this tree snail species;
the agreement is in place for 5 years
(Service 2012, in litt.). The scope of
work for this agreement includes snail
surveys; design, placement, and
construction of an exclosure fence (to
exclude rats and mice) based on fences
used to protect Oahu tree snails
(Achatinella spp.) on Oahu; periodic
monitoring; predator control (rats and
mice) within the fenced area; and
habitat restoration. ML & P has been
actively working to develop a solid
fence design and plan for installation;
the construction of the fence is
scheduled to begin in September 2015.
Based on our past experience with ML
& P and positive conservation
partnership to date, we expect the
conservation measures provided in this
agreement will be continued into the
foreseeable future. The Service
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
anticipates continuing to work with ML
& P for the protection and conservation
of Newcomb’s tree snail on Puu Kukui
WP.
The ML & P Company is a member
and participant of the WMMWP,
established in 1998. Management
priorities for the watershed partnership
on west Maui include feral animal
control, weed control, human activities
management, public education and
awareness, water and watershed
monitoring, and management
coordination improvements. The
partnership’s management actions
benefit habitat conservation by: (1)
Enabling land managers to construct
fences and remove feral ungulates
across land ownership boundaries; (2)
allowing for more comprehensive
conservation planning; (3) expanding
the partners’ ability to protect forest
lands quickly and efficiently; (4) making
more efficient use of resources and staff;
(5) allowing for greater unity in
attaining public funding; and (6)
providing greater access to other
funding opportunities. The WMMWP
provides annual progress reports
regarding the success of management
actions and benefits provided to species
and watershed habitat.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
ML & P lands. We believe that there is
a low likelihood of a Federal nexus to
provide a benefit to the species from
designation of critical habitat. In
addition, all of the management actions
detailed above will either lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the Maui Nui species, or lead to
emergence of suitable habitat where it is
not present, thereby benefitting the
conservation of the 44 plants, the 2
forest bird species, the tree snail, and
their habitat.
Ulupalakua Ranch
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Leeward Haleakala Watershed
Restoration Partnership Management
Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
6,535 ac (2,645 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are under management by
Ulupalakua Ranch. Ulupalakua Ranch is
a proven partner, as evidenced, in part,
by their history of conservation actions
including the Auwahi and Puu Makua
restoration agreements and ongoing
management of Ulupalakua Ranch lands
on east Maui, which provide for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
conservation of 46 plants and the 2
forest birds and their habitat. For the
reasons described below, we conclude
that the benefits of excluding the lands
owned by Ulupalakua Ranch outweigh
the benefits of designating them as
critical habitat.
Eight plant species included in this
rule (Alectryon macrococcus, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Flueggea neowawraea,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Melicope
adscendens, M. knudsenii, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiensis, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) are reported
from Ulupalakua Ranch lands. The area
falls within six critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Coastal—Unit 6, Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1, Maui—Lowland
Dry—Unit 3, Maui—Montane Mesic—
Unit 1, Maui—Montane Dry—Unit 1,
and Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1), and
four units for the akohekohe and
kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei—Unit 18—
Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 18—Montane Mesic,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 24—Subalpine,
and Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
24—Subalpine). These units are
occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum
var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii,
Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana,
Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra
ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Flueggea neowawraea,
Geranium arboreum, G. multiflorum,
Huperzia mannii, Melicope adscendens,
Neraudia sericea, Santalum haleakalae
var. lanaiense, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis.
This area contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of
23 other endangered plant species
(Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera,
Brighamia rockii, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyanea glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. kunthiana, C.
mceldowneyi, Cyperus pennatiformis,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum
byrone, Melanthera kamolensis,
Melicope mucronulata, Nototrichium
humile, Peucedanum sandwicense,
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. mannii,
Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, and
Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense), and to the akohekohe and
kiwikiu.
Ulupalakua Ranch is involved in
several important voluntary
conservation agreements with the
Service and is currently carrying out
activities on their lands for the
conservation of rare and endangered
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17937
species and their habitats. In 1997 and
1998, respectively, Ulupalakua Ranch
entered into the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Auwahi and Puu Makua
agreements to protect and restore
dryland forest, including construction of
ungulate exclosure fences, a greenhouse
to propagate rare plants for outplanting,
an access road, and propagation and
outplanting of native plants.
Preservation of habitat in Auwahi and
Puu Makua benefits the 48 listed plant
and animal species discussed above.
Over the last 14 years, the Service has
provided funding for 3 projects in the
Auwahi area (Auwahi I, II, and III).
Labor, material, and technical assistance
is provided by Ulupalakua Ranch, U.S.
Geological Survey-Biological Resources
Division (USGS–BRD), and volunteers.
The Auwahi I project area encompasses
10 ac (4 ha) on the southwest slope of
Haleakala. Ulupalakua Ranch and its
partners built an ungulate exclosure
fence; outplanted native plants,
including the listed endangered plants
Alectryon macrococcus var.
auwahiensis and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense; and removed all nonnative
plants and feral ungulates within the
fenced exclosure. The Auwahi II project
area encompasses 23 ac (9 ha) adjacent
to Auwahi I, and the Auwahi III project
area encompasses an additional 181 ac
(73 ha) (Van Dyke 2011, in litt.).
Ulupalakua Ranch and its partners built
additional ungulate exclosure fences,
propagated and outplanted native
plants, and removed nonnative plants
and feral ungulates within the fenced
exclosures (Van Dyke 2011, in litt.).
Within 5 years of fence construction and
nonnative species management
activities, these three areas have been
transformed from nonnative grasslands
to a native species-dominated, selfsustaining, dryland forest.
Community volunteer participation is
a key element to the success of these
projects, and monthly volunteer trips
often exceed 50 participants from a pool
of 700 interested Maui residents,
including school groups, Hawaiian
native dance groups, canoe clubs, and
other special interest groups.
In 1998, Ulupalakua Ranch entered a
10-year partnership with Ducks
Unlimited (a private conservation
organization) and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Wetland
Reserve Program (WRP) to create four
wetland complexes (completed in 2001)
suitable for two endangered birds, the
Hawaiian goose or nene and Hawaiian
duck or koloa (Anas wyvilliana) (NRCS
2001, pp. 1–2). While the endangered
nene and koloa are not addressed in this
rule, the establishment of wetland
complexes for these endangered birds
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17938
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrates the willingness of
Ulupalakua Ranch to protect and
conserve native plants and animals on
their lands, and their value as a
conservation partner.
Ulupalakua Ranch is an active
member of the LHWRP, a coalition
formed in 2003 by 11 private and public
landowners and supporting agencies
(LHWRP 2011, in litt). The partnership
oversees and manages more than 43,000
ac (17,400 ha) of land on the leeward
slopes of Haleakala crater, from
Makawao to Kaupo, between 3,500 and
6,500 ft (1,067 and 1,980 m) elevation.
The partnership’s goals are to: (1)
Restore native koa forests to provide
increased water quantity and quality, (2)
conserve unique endemic plants and
animals, (3) protect important Hawaiian
cultural resources, and (4) allow
diversification of Maui’s rural economy.
The reestablishment of native koa forest
will restore habitat for the 46 plants and
2 forest birds. The LHWRP also provides
public outreach regarding the
importance of watershed and other
natural resources protection by
supporting volunteers who participate
in tree planting, nonnative plant
removal, and seed collection activities.
Between 1999 and 2007, the Service
and the DOFAW Natural Area Reserves
Fund provided funding for habitat
restoration at Puu Makua. Ulupalakua
Ranch and its partners, which include
USGS–BRD, the LHWRP, and
volunteers, built a 100-ac (40-ha)
ungulate exclosure, removed feral
ungulates and controlled nonnative
plants within the fenced exclosure, and
outplanted native plants. This project
provides public outreach through
ongoing volunteer participation to
control nonnative plants and outplant
native plants.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there were three
informal section 7 consultations
conducted regarding projects on
Ulupalakua Ranch lands receiving
Federal funding. One project, funded
through NRCS, was for the development
of a riparian conservation plan and
riparian restoration, and we concurred
that this project was not likely adversely
affect the listed Hawaiian hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), and would
not affect any plant critical habitat that
was adjacent to the project area. One
project, funded through the Emergency
Conservation Program, FSA, included
actions for restoration of fences, and we
concurred that the project was not likely
adversely affect the listed Hawaiian
hoary bat or the listed Blackburn’s
sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni). The
last project, funded through NRCS, was
for a second riparian conservation plan,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
and we concurred it was not likely to
adversely affect any listed species. We
did conduct one formal consultation in
2008 on Ulupalakua Ranch lands on the
construction of a communications tower
funded by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). The consultation
resulted in recommended mitigation
measures for the listed Hawaiian hoary
bat and Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma
phaeopygia sandwichensis), and
determined the project was not likely to
adversely affect the Maui silversword.
The project was not within critical
habitat for the Maui silversword.
Because all three of the informal
consultations resulted in a not likely to
adversely affect determination, we
believe that, although there is a
likelihood of a Federal nexus, little if
any conservation benefit to the species
would result from designation of critical
habitat. With regard to the one formal
consultation, we have no information to
suggest that any similar project is likely
to occur in this area again, thus we
anticipate little if any additional
conservation benefit as a result of future
section 7 consultation as a result of
critical habitat on these lands. In
addition, all of the agreements and
partnerships discussed above will either
lead to maintenance or enhancement of
habitat for the species, or lead to
emergence of suitable habitat where it is
not present, thereby benefitting the
conservation of the 46 plants and the 2
forest bird species, and their habitat.
Haleakala Ranch Company
East Maui Watershed Partnership
Management Plan and Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
8,716 ac (3,527 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are under management by
Haleakala Ranch. Haleakala Ranch is a
proven conservation partner, as
evidenced, in part, by a history of
voluntary management actions and
agreements that provide for the
conservation of 55 plants and the 2
forest birds and their habitat. For the
reasons described below, we conclude
that the benefits of excluding Haleakala
Ranch lands on east Maui outweigh the
benefits of including these lands in
critical habitat.
Four plant species included in this
rule (Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.
macrocephalum, Canavalia pubescens,
Geranium arboreum, and Hibiscus
brackenridgei) and the akohekohe and
kiwikiu are reported from this area. The
area falls within seven critical habitat
units for plants (Maui—Lowland Dry—
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unit 1, Maui—Lowland Dry— Unit 2,
Maui—Montane Wet— Unit 1, Maui—
Montane Mesic— Unit 1, Maui—
Montane Dry— Unit 1, Maui—
Subalpine— Unit 1, and Maui—
Alpine— Unit 1), and six units for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria
dolei—Unit 10—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 10—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
18—Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 18—Montane Mesic,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 24—Subalpine,
and Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
24—Subalpine). These units are
occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum
var. insulare, Bidens. micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii,
Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana,
Cyanea. duvalliorum, C. horrida, C.
maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. obtusa,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha,
Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G.
multiflorum, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Huperzia mannii, Melicope adscendens,
M. balloui, Neraudia sericea,
Phyllostegia pilosa, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, and
Spermolepis hawaiiensis,, and by the
birds akohekohe and kiwikiu. This area
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to Adenophorus periens,
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis,
C. samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea copelandii
ssp. haleakalaensis, C. glabra, C.
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C.
kunthiana, Geranium hanaense,
Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope
knudsenii, M. mucronulata, M. ovalis,
Nototrichium humile, Peperomia
subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P.
mannii, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea
haleakalensis, S. jacobii, Sesbania
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum,
Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense.
Haleakala Ranch is involved in
several important voluntary
conservation agreements with the
Service and is currently carrying out
activities on its lands for the
conservation of rare and endangered
species and their habitats. Haleakala
Ranch is a member of the EMWP, which
was formed in 1991, as a model for
large-scale forest protection in Hawaii.
The members agree to pool resources
and implement a watershed
management program to protect 100,000
ac (40,469 ha) of forest across east Maui
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(EMWP 2009). The management
program includes: (1) Control of feral
pigs by public hunting in the privately
owned lower watershed areas; (2)
control of the invasive plant Miconia;
and (3) construction of ungulate
exclosure fences to protect 12,000 ac
(4,856 ha) of lowland and montane wet
forest (Tri-Isle Resource Conservation
and Development Council, Inc. 2011). In
partnership with the Division of
Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW),
Haleakala Ranch controls feral
ungulates (e.g., axis deer and goats) on
their lands in lowland dry habitat at
Waiopae, on the south coast of east
Maui. In addition to feral ungulate
control, Haleakala Ranch and DOFAW
control invasive plants that threaten
wild populations of two endangered
plants, Alectryon macrococcus and
Melanthera kamolensis.
In 1999, Haleakala Ranch entered into
an agreement with the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife, USGS–BRD, and DHHL,
for habitat protection at Puu o Kali, on
the west slope of Haleakala. This
agreement funded management actions
to conserve and protect native dryland
forest, including construction of a fence
to exclude nonnative axis deer and feral
goats, nonnative plant control, and
propagation and outplanting of native
plants. The project area was accessed
through cooperation of the landowner,
Haleakala Ranch. Currently, 236 ac (96
ha) are protected within the fenced area,
and all axis deer and goats were
removed from the fenced area. The
continued protection of this area and
maintenance of the fenced area is
assured into the foreseeable future
through the combined efforts of
multiple partners, including the State,
DHHL, and private landowners.
In 2001, the Service and NRCS
provided funding for management
actions to conserve and protect the
endangered plant Geranium arboreum
and subalpine habitat on Puu Pahu on
the northwestern slopes of Haleakala
(USFWS 2007b). These management
actions include construction of ungulate
exclosure fences and removal of
ungulates within the fenced area. The
first increment of the fence is completed
and encloses approximately 670 ac (271
ha) (Higashino 2011, in litt.). Upon
project completion, the fenced area will
adjoin the fenced area of Haleakala
National Park at 7,500 ft (2,290 m), and
will exclude ungulates and allow for
their removal from an area larger than
670 ac (271 ha) (USFWS 2007b).
In 1983, Haleakala Ranch granted a
permanent conservation easement on
5,140 ac (2,080 ha) of ranch lands to
TNC for Waikamoi Preserve. The
establishment of this preserve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
demonstrates the willingness of
Haleakala Ranch to protect and conserve
native plants and animals on their
lands. In addition, in 2009, Haleakala
Ranch entered into a safe harbor
agreement (SHA) with the Hawaii DLNR
and the Service, to establish a
population of the endangered Hawaiian
goose on their lands at Waiopae. While
the endangered nene is not a species
addressed in this final rule, the
establishment of a SHA for this
endangered bird demonstrates the
willingness of Haleakala Ranch to
protect and conserve native plants and
animals on their lands, and is further
evidence of their value as a proven
conservation partner.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there was one informal
section 7 consultation conducted
regarding a project on Haleakala Ranch
lands receiving Federal funding through
the East Maui Watershed Partnership,
for ungulate and weed control within a
fenced area at Puu Pahu. We concurred
that their actions would not have any
adverse effects to any listed species
within the project area. Because there
was only one informal consultation,
which resulted in a not likely to
adversely affect determination, we
believe that there is a likelihood of a
Federal nexus; however, there would be
little conservation benefit resulting from
designation of critical habitat. All of
these agreements, partnerships, and
management actions will either lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the species, or lead to emergence of
suitable habitat where it is not present,
thereby benefitting the conservation of
the 55 plants and the 2 forest bird
species, and their habitat.
East Maui Irrigation Company, Ltd.
East Maui Watershed Partnership
Management Plan, Haiku Uka
Watershed Protection Project
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
6,721 ac (2,720 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are managed by East Maui Irrigation
Company, Ltd. (EMI). East Maui
Irrigation Company is a proven
conservation partner, as demonstrated,
in part, by their ongoing management
and restoration agreements for EMI
lands at Haiku Uka on east Maui, and
their participation in the EMWP, which
provide for the conservation of 47 plants
and the 2 forest birds and their habitat.
For the reasons discussed below, we
have determined that the benefits of
excluding EMI lands outweigh the
benefits of including them in critical
habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17939
Nine plant species included in this
rule (Asplenium peruvianum var.
insulare, Cyanea copelandii ssp.
haleakalensis, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C.
mceldowneyi, Diplazium molokaiense,
Geranium multiflorum, and Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense), and the
akohekohe and kiwikiu are reported
from EMI lands. The area falls within 6
critical habitat units for plants (Maui—
Lowland Wet— Unit 1, Maui—Montane
Wet— Unit 1, Maui—Montane Wet—
Unit 2, Maui—Montane Mesic— Unit 1,
Maui—Subalpine— Unit 2, and Maui—
Wet Cliff— Unit 1), and 12 critical
habitat units for the akohekohe and
kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei—Unit 2—
Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 2–Lowland Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 10—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 10—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
11—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 11—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 18—Montane
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
18—Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 25—Subalpine, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 25—Subalpine,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 30—Wet Cliff, and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 30—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense
ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium
dielerectum, A. peruvianum var.
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
waihoiensis, Clermontia lindseyana,, C.
samuelii, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
copelandii ssp. haleakalensis, C.
duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp.
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C.
maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. obtusa,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha,
Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium
arboreum, G. multiflorum, Huperzia
mannii, Melicope adscendens, M.
balloui, M. ovalis, Neraudia sericea,
Phyllostegia pilosa, and Schiedea
haleakalensis, and by the birds
akohekohe and kiwikiu. This area
contains unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 20 other
plant species (Adenophorus periens,
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. peleana,
Cyanea glabra, Geranium hanaense,
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea,
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum
incompletum, Wikstroemia villosa, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17940
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
East Maui Irrigation Company, Ltd., a
subsidiary of Alexander and Baldwin,
owns and operates a ditch system that
diverts more than 60 billion gallons per
year of surface water from east Maui to
central Maui for agricultural, domestic,
and other uses. In 1991, EMI, along with
the major landowners and land
managers (TNC, Maui County, DLNR,
and private ranches) of the windward
slope of east Maui (encompassing
approximately 100,000 ac (40,500 ha)),
formed the EMWP. The EMWP prepared
a management plan in 1993, to protect
the biological and water resources
within the partnership lands (EMWP
2009, App. B). The plan identified five
priority management activities: (1)
Watershed resource monitoring, (2) feral
animal control, (3) invasive weed
control, (4) management infrastructure,
and (5) public education and awareness
programs.
In 1993, EMI and DLNR entered into
a right-of-entry agreement to permit the
use of EMI roads by public hunters in
the area of Haiku Uka, with the
intention of increasing hunting
activities to control feral pigs, goats, and
axis deer in the Koolau FR. In 1996,
constituents of the EMWP prepared an
ungulate exclusion fencing strategy to
preserve and protect 12,000 ac (4,856
ha) of land (called the core area) on the
east Maui slope between Hanawi NAR
and Koolau Gap, including the Haiku
Uka area, and TNC’s Waikamoi Preserve
(EMWP 2009, p. 3). Approximately
7,000 ac (2,833 ha) of the core area
consists of State forest reserve and EMI
lands, and approximately 5,000 ac
(2,024 ha) are within TNC’s Waikamoi
Preserve. In 2005 and 2006, the Service
and others provided funding for the
construction of an ungulate exclusion
fence at 3,600 ft (1,100 m) elevation and
for improving hunter access to EMWP
lands. The fence extends from Hanawi
Natural Area Reserve west to Koolau
Gap, and protects approximately 7,000
ac (2,833 ha) of native forest, including
forest in Haiku Uka. The Waikamoi
Preserve and Haleakala National Park
fences provide the upper boundary of
the fenced area (TNC 2006l). The fence
was completed in 2006, and the
enclosed area of 7,000 ac (2,833 ha) is
divided into five units (Honomanu,
Koolau Gap, Waluanui, Wailuaiki, and
Kopiliua), which are managed through
the cooperation of landowners,
including EMI, and other partners
(EMWP 2009, pp. 3–17). Fencing is one
of the most effective strategies currently
available to address the threat of
ungulates, but it is also costly and
difficult to install in the steep,
mountainous terrain of Hawaii. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
completion of almost 7 mi (11 km) of
fencing around an area of 7,000 ac
(2,833 ha) for ungulate management
represents a significant contribution to
the conservation of the Maui Nui
species.
The 1993 EMWP management plan
was revised in 2006, and included
recommendations for improving threat
assessment and feral pig control, and
developing more cost-effective methods
for natural resource assessments. In
2008 and 2009, the Service provided
funding for feral pig reduction and fence
monitoring on EMI lands in Haiku Uka
(USFWS 2008; Van Dyke 2011, in litt.).
The 2006 EMWP management plan
was revised in 2009, to provide longterm protection of the east Maui
watershed resources such as ground and
surface water, native plants and animals
and their habitat, hunting opportunities,
commercial harvests, cultural resources,
and ecotourism. The 2009 EMWP
management plan provides detailed
management objectives for protection of
the east Maui watershed resources, and
recommends that the effectiveness of
ongoing management actions be
evaluated and modified, as needed, after
5 years (EMWP 2009, pp. 3–17, +
appendices). The 2009 EMWP
management plan describes specific
management actions for the protection
of the EMWP lands, including Haiku
Uka. These management actions include
ungulate (i.e., feral pigs) control through
hunting, fencing, fence maintenance,
and research on effective feral animal
control actions; weed control by
controlling existing weeds, preventing
the introduction of new weeds, and
supporting research on weed control;
development of a management program
for rare and endangered species that
includes surveys, species monitoring,
propagation and outplanting of rare
plants and release of rare birds, as well
as implementing threat abatement
actions; monitoring changes in
vegetation (both native and nonnative),
native forest birds, stream animals,
stream flow, and rainfall; monitoring
changes in cultural resources, and
maintaining and expanding public
support for the east Maui watershed;
and maintaining existing and
developing new funding sources
(EMWP 2009, pp. 13–17).
As of 2009, the majority of feral
ungulates (i.e., feral pigs) were removed
from the five management units
(described above). In addition, there are
few to no feral pigs in Haiku Uka due
to their control by hunting and the
construction of exclusion fences (Jokiel
2009, pers. comm.). While native forest
dominates Haiku Uka, weed control is
ongoing, particularly within disturbance
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
corridors where new weed species are
likely to be introduced (e.g., camps,
trails, and helicopter landing zones).
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
EMI lands. We believe that there is a
low likelihood of a Federal nexus to
provide a benefit to the species from
designation of critical habitat. EMI has
allowed access to their lands to
encourage public hunting for the control
of feral pigs, goats, and axis deer that
pose significant threats to the Maui Nui
species. They are founders and active
members of the EMWP, and have made
significant contributions to the
protection of the 47 plants and the 2
forest birds on their lands by assisting
in the maintenance of exclosure fences
and participating in watershed resource
monitoring and invasive weed control.
EMI allowed the construction of a
significant ungulate exclosure fence
extending from Hanawi Natural Area
Reserve west to Koolau Gap, resulting in
substantial conservation benefits to the
Maui Nui species and their habitat. All
of these management actions will either
lead to maintenance or enhancement of
habitat for the species, or lead to
emergence of suitable habitat where it is
not present, thereby benefitting the
conservation of the 47 plants and the 2
forest bird species, and their habitat.
Nuu Mauka Ranch
Native Watershed Forest Restoration at
Nuu Mauka Conservation Plan, Leeward
Haleakala Watershed Restoration
Partnership Management Plan, and
Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration
Project
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
2,094 ac (848 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned by Nuu Mauka Ranch.
The ongoing management under the
Native Watershed Forest Restoration
Conservation Plan, LHWRP
management plan, and the Southern
Haleakala Forest restoration project
agreement for Nuu Mauka Ranch lands
on east Maui provide for the
conservation of 46 plants and the 2
forest birds and their habitat, and
demonstrate the positive benefits of the
conservation partnership that has been
established with Nuu Mauka Ranch. For
the reasons described below, we have
determined that the benefits of
excluding these lands outweigh the
benefits of including them in critical
habitat.
The area falls within four critical
habitat units for plants (Maui—Lowland
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Dry—Unit 1, Maui—Montane Dry—Unit
1, Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 1, and
Maui—Subalpine—Unit 1), and four
units for two forest birds, the akohekohe
and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei—Unit 18—
Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 18—Montane Mesic,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 24—Subalpine,
and Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
24—Subalpine). These units are
occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum,
Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum
var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia
lindseyana, Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa,
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha,
Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G.
multiflorum, Huperzia mannii,
Melicope adscendens, Neraudia sericea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Spermolepis hawaiiensis. These
areas contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 25 other
endangered plant species (Alectryon
macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
pubescens, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C.
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C.
kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Ischaemum byrone, Melanthera
kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata,
Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, P.
mannii, Schiedea haleakalensis,
Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum
incompletum, Vigna o-wahuensis,
Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense), and to the akohekohe and
kiwikiu. None of these species currently
occurs on Nuu Mauka Ranch lands.
Nuu Mauka Ranch is involved in
several important voluntary
conservation agreements with the
Service and other agencies and is
currently carrying out activities on their
lands for the conservation of rare and
endangered species and their habitats.
In 2008, the Ranch worked with the
USGS-Pacific Island Ecosystem
Research Center and NRCS to develop
cost-effective, substrate-appropriate
restoration methodologies for
establishment of native koa forests in
degraded pasturelands (Nuu Mauka
Ranch and LHWRP 2012, p. 7). Nuu
Mauka Ranch is a current partner of the
LHWRP, with the main goal of
protection and restoration of leeward
Haleakala’s upland watershed (see
‘‘Ulupalakua Ranch,’’ above, for further
discussion). In 2012, Nuu Mauka Ranch
obtained a conservation district use
permit for a watershed protection
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
project. The ultimate goal of this project
is to improve water quality and
groundwater recharge through the
restoration of degraded agricultural land
to a native forest community (Nuu
Mauka Ranch and LHWRP 2012, 11
pp.). Nuu Mauka Ranch has contributed
approximately $500,000 of their own
funds, and received additional funding
through the Service and NRCS, for
construction of a 7.6-mile long deerproof fence to prevent access by deer
and goats into a 1,023-ac (414 ha) upper
elevation watershed area on the south
slopes of leeward Haleakala (Southern
Haleakala Forest Restoration Project)
(Nuu Mauka Ranch and LHWRP 2012,
11 pp.). Nuu Mauka Ranch has also
prepared a conservation plan, ‘‘Native
Watershed Forest Restoration at Nuu
Mauka’’ (2012), and has appended it to
the LHWRP management plan.
Restoration activities outlined in the
plan include mechanical and chemical
control of invasive plant species
including Grevillea robusta (silk oak),
Schinus terebinthifolius (Christmas
berry), Tecoma stans (yellow elder), and
Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian tree
fern), which are known threats to the 48
species and their habitat. Currently,
Nuu Mauka Ranch conducts removal of
feral ungulates from all fenced areas,
along with fence monitoring and followup monitoring to assess erosion rates.
Also, with fencing and ungulate
removal completed, the plan includes
continued restoration activities, such as
replanting and seed scattering of
common native plant species.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
Nuu Mauka Ranch lands, therefore in
general we believe that there is a low
likelihood of a Federal nexus to provide
a benefit to the species from designation
of critical habitat. However, as Federal
funding has contributed to conservation
projects on Nuu Mauka Ranch lands in
the past (fence construction for
exclusion of ungulates), it is possible
that in the future such a conservation
project may trigger consultation under
Section 7. As consultation for a project
designed to provide conservation
benefit is most likely to result in a not
likely to adversely affect determination,
and the benefit accruing from the
funded conservation project would be
likely relatively greater than the
regulatory benefit of critical habitat, the
incremental benefit of critical habitat is
reduced under such circumstances.
Overall, these conservation actions, the
Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration
Project, and Nuu Mauka Ranch’s
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17941
conservation plan will lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the species, or lead to emergence of
suitable habitat where it is not present,
thereby benefitting the conservation of
the 46 plants and the 2 forest bird
species, and their habitat.
Kaupo Ranch
Leeward Haleakala Watershed
Restoration Partnership Management
Plan and Southern Haleakala Forest
Restoration Project
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
931 ac (377 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned or managed by Kaupo
Ranch. Kaupo Ranch has undertaken
voluntary conservation measures on
their lands, demonstrating their value as
a partner through participation in the
LHWRP management plans and the
Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration
Project for Kaupo Ranch lands on east
Maui. These actions provide positive
conservation benefits for 26 plant
species and their habitat. We have
determined that the benefits of
excluding Kaupo Ranch lands from
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including them, for the reasons
discussed below.
Kaupo Ranch lands fall within three
critical habitat units for plants (Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 1, Maui—Montane
Dry—Unit 1, and Maui—Coastal—Unit
7). These units are occupied by the
plants Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Flueggea neowawraea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Spermolepis hawaiiensis. These
areas contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 21 other
endangered plant species (Alectryon
macrococcus, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia
pubescens, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyperus
pennatiformis, Geranium arboretum,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum
byrone, Melanthera kamolensis,
Melicope adscendens, M. knudsenii, M.
mucronulata, Neraudia sericea,
Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Sesbania tomentosa,
Solanum incompletum, Vigna
o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense). None of these species
currently occurs on Kaupo Ranch lands.
Kaupo Ranch is a current partner of
the LHWRP, with the main goal of
protection and restoration of leeward
Haleakala’s upland watershed (LHWRP
2006, 65 pp.). Kaupo Ranch has been a
long time cooperator with HNP,
providing access to the park’s Kaupo
Gap hiking trail across their private
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
17942
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
lands (Kean 2012, pers. comm.). This
trail extends from the park’s boundary
near the summit of Haleakala through
Kaupo Ranch lands to the coast. The
Ranch was also a cooperator with the
Service in the creation of Nuu Makai
Wetland Reserve, contributing 87 ac (35
ha) of their ranch lands in the coastal
area to support landscape-scale wetland
protection (The Conservation Registry
and USFWS 2012, in litt.). In addition,
Kaupo Ranch participated in the
construction of an ungulate exclusion
fence on the upper portion of their
lands, bordering HNP, that protects 50
ac (20 ha) of native montane dry forest
habitat (Southern Haleakala Forest
Restoration Project) and acts as a buffer
to the lower boundary of the montane
mesic ecosystem that provides habitat
for forest birds (DLNR 2012, in litt.).
Additional conservation actions in this
fenced area include weed control and
outplanting of native plants. While
these actions do not directly address the
Maui Nui species in this final rule, they
demonstrate the willingness of Kaupo
Ranch to protect and conserve native
habitat on their lands and to provide
outreach and support to the neighboring
national park, and their value as a
partner in conservation.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there was one informal
consultation conducted regarding a
project receiving Federal funding
through NRCS’s Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) on Kaupo
Ranch lands for brush management and
prescribed grazing to improve ranching
operations; however, we concurred that
the project would not likely adversely
affect the listed Hawaiian hoary bat or
the listed Hawaiian goose. We believe
that there is a low likelihood of a
Federal nexus that would provide a
benefit to the species from designation
of critical habitat, because past history
indicates that any action likely to trigger
consultation would likely be designed
to benefit the species, and would not
result in additional conservation
measures. In contrast, conservation
actions taken through the LHWRP
management plan, cooperation with
Haleakala National Park to provide
additional public access, creation and
protection of a wetland, and
construction of an ungulate-exclusion
fence to protect dry forest habitat, along
with other conservation actions by
Kaupo Ranch discussed above, will
either lead to maintenance or
enhancement of habitat for the species,
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat
where it is not present, thereby
benefitting the conservation of the 25
plants and their habitat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Wailuku Water Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership Management Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
7,410 ac (2,999 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned or managed by Wailuku
Water Company on west Maui, and
under management as part of the West
Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership
(WMMWP). We believe that the ongoing
conservation actions through the
WMMWP management plan and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements for Wailuku Water
Company lands on west Maui provide
important conservation benefits for 51
plants and 2 forest birds and their
habitat. We have concluded that the
benefits of excluding these lands
outweigh the benefit of including them
in critical habitat, for the reasons
discussed below.
The Wailuku Water Company lands
fall within 10 critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 5,
Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 6, Maui—
Lowland Wet—Unit 5, Maui—Montane
Wet—Unit 6, Maui—Montane Wet—
Unit 7, Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 8,
Maui—Montane Mesic—Unit 5, Maui—
Montane Mesic—Unit 6, Maui—Dry
Cliff—Unit 7, and Maui—Wet Cliff—
Unit 6) and 12 critical habitat units for
the two forest birds, the akohekohe and
kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei—Unit 6—
Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 6—Lowland Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 15—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
16—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 16—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 22—Montane
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
22—Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 23—Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 23—Montane Mesic,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 35—Wet Cliff, and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 35—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea kunthiana,
Cyrtandra munroi, C. oxybapha,
Geranium hillebrandii, Gouania
hillebrandii, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Kadua coriacea, Myrsine vaccinioides,
Platanthera holochila, Remya
mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
Schiedea salicaria, Spermolepis
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
hawaiiensis, and Tetramolopium
capillare. These areas contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of 29 other endangered
plant species (Acaena exigua, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia
menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Cyanea asplenifolia, C.
glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, C.
obtusa, Cyrtandra filipes, Diplazium
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Neraudia sericea,
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Plantago princeps, Pteris
lidgatei, Sesbania tomentosa, Stenogyne
kauaulaensis, Tetramolopium remyi,
Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense), and the akohekohe and
kiwikiu. The plant species Alectryon
macrococcus, Cyanea kunthiana, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra oxybapha,
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Plantago
princeps, Platanthera holochila, Remya
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense, and Schiedea salicaria are
reported from Wailuku Water Company
lands on west Maui.
Wailuku Water Company is one of the
founding members and a funder of the
WMMWP, created in 1998. This
partnership serves to protect over
47,000 ac (19,000 ha) of forest and
watershed vegetation on the summit and
slopes of the west Maui mountains
(WMMWP 2013). Management priorities
of the watershed partnership are: (1)
Feral animal control, (2) nonnative plant
control, (3) human activities
management, (4) public education and
awareness, (5) water and watershed
monitoring, and (6) management
coordination (WMMWP 2013). Four
principal streams, Waihee, Waiehu, Iao,
and Waikapu, are part of the watershed
area owned by the Wailuku Water
Company on west Maui, which
primarily provide water for agricultural
use (WMMWP 2013). Conservation
actions described in the WMMWP
management plan are partly funded by
Service grants through the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program, with at least
three grants recently funding projects on
Wailuku Water Company lands
(WMMWP 2010, 2011, 2012). Wailuku
Water Company’s conservation
commitments include the following
conservation actions: (1) Strategic
fencing and removal of ungulates, (2)
regular monitoring for ungulates after
fencing, (3) monitoring of habitat
recovery through photopoints and
vegetation succession analyses, and (4)
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
continued surveys for rare taxa prior to
fence installations. In 2009, four
strategic fences were installed in
Waiehu on Wailuku Water Company
lands through a Service Partnership
agreement. Funding for animal control
checks has been provided, and these
checks follow a regular schedule.
Decontamination protocols are followed
for all equipment used in the field to
prevent introduction of nonnative plant
species (WMMWP 2010). Wailuku
Water Company allows surveys for rare
taxa on their lands. Additional
conservation actions in this area include
weed control and outplanting of native
plants (WMMWP 2010).
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there was one informal
consultation conducted regarding a
habitat protection project receiving
Federal funding through the Service’s
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program
on Wailuku Water Company land;
however, we concurred that the project
would not likely adversely affect listed
plant species. We thus believe there is
a low likelihood of a Federal nexus to
provide a benefit to the species from
designation of critical habitat. The
WMMWP management plan and the
commitments by Wailuku Water
Company to implement the
conservation actions listed above will
either lead to maintenance or
enhancement of habitat for the species,
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat
where it is not present, thereby
benefitting the conservation of the 51
plants, the 2 forest birds, and their
habitat. Through their actions, Wailuku
Water Company has enabled the
implementation of important
conservation activities on their lands,
including fencing and removal of
ungulates, and weed control and
outplanting of native plants. Survey
access for rare taxa on private lands
allows for the collection of important
data regarding these species that would
otherwise not be available. These
actions demonstrate the willingness of
Wailuku Water Company to protect and
conserve native habitat and the west
Maui watershed on their lands, and
their value as a partner in conservation.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
County of Maui, Department of Water
Supply (DWS)
West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership Management Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
3,690 ac (1,493 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned by the County of Maui
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
DWS on west Maui, and under
management as part of the WMMWP.
The County of Maui DWS has
demonstrated their value as a
conservation partner as a founding
partner and funder of the WMMWP,
which provides for important
conservation actions that benefit the
Maui Nui species through
implementation of the WMMWP
management plan on west Maui. The
management plans and projects
supported by the County of Maui DWS
provide for the conservation of 39 plants
and the 2 forest birds and their habitat
on their lands. For the reasons
discussed below, we have determined
that the benefits of excluding County of
Maui DWS lands outweigh the benefits
of including them in critical habitat.
The County of Maui DWS lands fall
within three critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Wet—Unit 4,
Maui—Montane Wet—Unit 6, and
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 6) and six
critical habitat units for the two forest
birds, the akohekohe and kiwikiu
(Palmeria dolei—Unit 5—Lowland Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 5—
Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
15—Montane Wet, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 35—Wet Cliff, and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 35—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis
hillebrandii, Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. kunthiana,
Cyrtandra. munroi, Geranium
hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides,
Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea,
and Santalum haleakalae var.
lanaiense. These areas contain
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of 27 other endangered
plant species (Acaena exigua,
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia
menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes,
Cyrtandra oxybapha, Diplazium
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum
sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei,
Tetramolopium capillare, and
Wikstroemia villosa), and for the
akohekohe and kiwikiu. The plant
species Bidens conjuncta, Cyrtandra
filipes, Hesperomannia arborescens,
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17943
and Platanthera holochila are reported
from Maui County lands on west Maui.
Our records indicate that between
2010 until 2015 there was one informal
consultation conducted regarding a
project receiving Federal funding
through the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
on Maui County lands for habitat
protection; however, we concurred that
the project would not likely adversely
affect listed plant species. We believe
that there is a low likelihood of a
Federal nexus to provide a benefit to the
species from designation of critical
habitat. Maui County DWS provides
water to approximately 35,000
customers on Maui and Molokai
combined (Maui County 2012). The
DWS is a founding partner and funder
of the WMMWP, with the main goal of
protection and restoration of west
Maui’s upland watershed. The Maui
County DWS provides financial support
to both the Maui and Molokai watershed
partnerships, and to other organizations,
private landowners, Federal, and State
agencies (Maui County 2012).
Conservation actions by Maui County
DWS conducted through the WMMWP
are also partly funded by Service grants
through the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011,
2012; USFWS 2010). Maui County
DWS’s conservation commitments
include the following conservation
actions: (1) Strategic fencing and
removal of ungulates and removal of
invasive nonnative plants; (2) regular
monitoring to detect changes in
management programs; (3) reducing the
threat of fire; and (4) gaining community
support for conservation programs. In
addition, the DWS received funding for
installation of an ungulate exclusion
fence on the upper portion of their lands
on west Maui that protects native
habitat and acts as a buffer to the lower
boundary of the habitat for plants and
the two forest birds. The DWS also
received funding in 2010 for feral
animal removal from their lands
(USFWS 2010). Other conservation
actions in this fenced area include weed
control and outplanting of native plants.
The WMMWP management plan and
the commitments by Maui County DWS
to implement the conservation actions
listed above will either lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the species, or lead to emergence of
suitable habitat where it is not present,
thereby benefitting the conservation of
the 39 plants, the 2 forest birds, and
their habitat. These actions demonstrate
the willingness of Maui County DWS to
protect and conserve native habitat and
the west Maui watershed on their lands,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17944
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and their value as a conservation
partner.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Kamehameha Schools
West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership Management Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
1,217 ac (492 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned or managed by
Kamehameha Schools on west Maui,
and under management as part of the
WMMWP. Kamehameha Schools is an
established conservation partner, and
has participated in the development,
implementation, and funding of
management plans and projects that
benefit the Maui Nui species and other
listed species throughout the Hawaiian
islands. In this case, the ongoing
conservation actions through the
WMMWP management plan for
Kamehameha Schools lands on west
Maui provide for the conservation of 43
plants and 2 forest birds and their
habitat. We have determined that the
benefits of excluding Kamehameha
Schools lands outweigh the benefits of
including them in critical habitat for the
reasons discussed below.
The Kamehameha Schools lands fall
within four critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 5,
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 2, Maui—
Montane Wet—Unit 6, and Maui—Wet
Cliff—Unit 6) and four critical habitat
units for the two forest birds, the
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria
dolei—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 15—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
35—Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 35—Wet Cliff).
These units are occupied by the plants
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. conjuncta, Calamagrostis
hillebrandii, Cenchrus agrimonioides,
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea kunthiana,
C. munroi, Geranium hillebrandii,
Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua coriacea,
Myrsine vaccinioides, Remya mauiensis,
Sanicula purpurea, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania
tomentosa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium capillare, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. These areas
contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 24 other
endangered plant species (Acaena
exigua, Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea
glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, C.
obtusa, Cyrtandra filipes, C. oxybapha,
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia
lydgatei, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia
bracteata, Plantago princeps,
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei,
Schiedea salicaria, Sesbania tomentosa,
and Tetramolopium remyi), and the
akohekohe and kiwikiu. Alectryon
macrococcus is reported from
Kamehameha Schools’ lands on west
Maui.
Kamehameha Schools was established
in 1887, through the will of Princess
Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop. The trust is
used primarily to operate a college
preparatory program; however, part of
Kamehameha School’s mission is to
protect Hawaii’s environment through
recognition of the significant cultural
value of the land and its unique flora
and fauna. Kamehameha Schools has
established a policy to guide the
sustainable stewardship of its lands
including natural resources, water
resources, and ancestral places
(Kamehameha Schools 2013).
Kamehameha Schools is a founder and
funder of the WMMWP, and also
participates in the watershed
partnerships for Oahu, Molokai, Kauai,
and the island of Hawaii (WMMWP
2013). Conservation actions conducted
by the WMMWP are partly funded by
Service grants through the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program (WMMWP
2010, 2011, 2012). Kamehameha
Schools’ conservation commitments
include the following conservation
actions: (1) Strategic fencing and
removal of ungulates; (2) regular
monitoring for ungulates after fencing;
(3) monitoring of habitat recovery; and
(4) continued surveys for rare taxa prior
to new fence installations. In addition,
Kamehameha Schools participated in
the construction of strategic ungulate
exclusion fences on the upper
elevations of their lands on west Maui,
which protect native habitat and act as
a buffer to the lower boundary of the
lowland mesic, montane wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems. Other conservation
actions in this area include weed
control and outplanting of native plants.
Kamehameha Schools is also
conducting voluntary actions to
promote the conservation of rare and
endangered species and their lowland
dry ecosystem habitats on the island of
Hawaii, including the installation of
fencing to exclude ungulates, restoring
habitat, conducting actions to reduce
rodent populations, reestablishing
native plant species, and conducting
activities to reducing the threat of
wildfire. The WMMWP management
plan and the commitments by
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Kamehameha Schools to implement the
conservation actions listed above will
either lead to maintenance or
enhancement of habitat for the species,
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat
where it is not present, thereby
benefitting the conservation of the 43
plants, the 2 forest birds, and their
habitat. Our records indicate that
between 2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
Kamehameha Schools lands, therefore
we believe that in general there is a low
likelihood of a Federal nexus to provide
a benefit to the species from designation
of critical habitat. However, as the
WMMWP has received Federal funding
for conservation projects in the past, it
is possible that in the future such a
conservation project undertaken on
Kamehameha Schools property may
trigger consultation under Section 7. As
consultation for a project designed to
provide conservation benefit is most
likely to result in a not likely to
adversely affect determination, and the
benefit accruing from the funded
conservation project would be likely
relatively greater than the regulatory
benefit of critical habitat, the
incremental benefit of critical habitat is
reduced under such circumstances.
Overall, the actions described above
demonstrate the willingness of
Kamehameha Schools to protect and
conserve native habitat and the
watershed on their west Maui lands,
and their value as a partner in
conservation.
Makila Land Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership Management Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
3,150 ac (1,275 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned and managed by Makila
Land Company on west Maui, and
under management as part of the
WMMWP. The Makila Land Company is
an established partner in the WMMWP,
and ongoing conservation actions
through the WMMWP management plan
for Makila Land Company lands on west
Maui provide for the conservation of 47
plants and 2 forest birds and their
habitat. For the reasons discussed
below, we have determined that the
benefits of excluding Makila Land
Company lands outweigh the benefits of
including them in critical habitat.
The Makila Land Company lands fall
within seven critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 5,
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 2, Maui—
Montane Wet—Unit 6, Maui—Montane
Mesic—Unit 2, Maui—Montane Mesic—
Unit 3, Maui—Dry Cliff—Unit 5, and
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 6) and 10 critical
habitat units for the two forest birds, the
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria
dolei—Unit 15—Montane Wet,
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 15—
Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei—Unit
19—Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 19—Montane Mesic,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 20—Montane
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit
20—Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei—
Unit 29—Dry Cliff, Pseudonestor
xanthophrys—Unit 29—Dry Cliff,
Palmeria dolei—Unit 35—Wet Cliff, and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 35—
Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by
the plants Alectryon macrococcus,
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B.
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea kunthiana, C.
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes,
Cyrtandra. munroi, Diplazium
molokaiense, Geranium hillebrandii,
Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua coriacea,
Lysimachia lydgatei, Myrsine
vaccinioides, Remya mauiensis,
Sanicula purpurea, Santalum
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare,
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. These
areas contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 25 other
endangered plant species (Acaena
exigua, Bonamia menziesii, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata,
C. obtusa, Cyrtandra filipes, C.
oxybapha, Dubautia plantaginea ssp.
humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Neraudia
sericea, Phyllostegia bracteata, Plantago
princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris
lidgatei, Schiedea salicaria, Sesbania
tomentosa, Stenogyne kauaulaensis,
and Tetramolopium remyi), and the
akohekohe and kiwikiu. The plant
species Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua
laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Plantago
princeps, Remya mauiensis, Stenogyne
kauaulaensis, Tetramolopium capillare,
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense are
reported from on Makila Land Company
lands on west Maui.
Makila Land Company has set aside
upper elevation areas of their property
at Puehuehunui and Kauaula on west
Maui for conservation and protection of
rare dry to mesic forest communities.
Makila Land Company is a long-time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:48 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
cooperator with the WMMWP.
Conservation actions conducted by the
WMMWP are partly funded by Service
grants through the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011,
2012). Makila Land Company’s
conservation commitments include the
following conservation actions: (1)
Strategic fencing and removal of
ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for
ungulates after fencing; (3) vegetation
monitoring; and (4) allowing surveys for
rare taxa by the State and the Service’s
Plant Extinction Prevention Program
(PEPP) staff. Much of the area is
accessible only by helicopter due to
waterfalls and steep terrain. The
installation of strategic ungulate
exclusion fences on the higher elevation
portions of its lands protect native
habitat and act as a buffer to the
boundaries of the montane wet and wet
cliff ecosystems’ habitat. Additional
conservation actions in these fenced
areas include weed control and
outplanting of native plants. The
WMMWP management plan and the
commitments by Makila Land Company
to implement the conservation actions
listed above will either lead to
maintenance or enhancement of habitat
for the species, or lead to emergence of
suitable habitat where it is not present,
thereby benefitting the conservation of
the 47 plants and 2 forest birds, and
their habitat. Our records indicate that
between 2010 until 2015 there were no
consultations conducted regarding
projects receiving Federal funding on
Makila Land Company lands. We
believe that there is a low likelihood of
a Federal nexus to provide a benefit to
the species from designation of critical
habitat. The actions described above
demonstrate the willingness of Makila
Land Company to protect and conserve
native habitat and the west Maui
watershed on their lands, and their
value as a partner in conservation.
Kahoma Land Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed
Partnership Management Plan, and
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Agreements
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised her authority to exclude
46 ac (19 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are owned or managed by Kahoma
Land Company on west Maui, and
under management as part of the
WMMWP. The ongoing conservation
actions through the WMMWP
management plan for Kahoma Land
Company lands on west Maui provide
for the conservation of 26 plants and 2
forest birds and their habitat. For the
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17945
reasons discussed below, we have
determined that the benefits of
excluding Kahoma Land Company lands
outweigh the benefits of including them
in critical habitat.
Kahoma Land Company lands fall
within three critical habitat units for
plants (Maui—Lowland Dry—Unit 5,
Maui—Lowland Mesic—Unit 2, and
Maui—Wet Cliff—Unit 6) and two
critical habitat units for the two forest
birds, the akohekohe and kiwikiu
(Palmeria dolei—Unit 35—Wet Cliff and
Pseudonestor xanthophrys—Unit 35—
Wet Cliff). The area owned by Kahoma
Land that is overlapped by Maui—
Lowland Dry—Unit 5 is so small (0.1 ac,
0.05 ha) that it will be excluded, but not
included in the analysis for lowland dry
species here. The two remaining units
are occupied by the plants Alectryon
macrococcus, Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyrtandra. munroi, Remya mauiensis,
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense,
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. These
areas contain unoccupied habitat that is
essential to the conservation of 20 other
endangered plant species (Asplenium
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera, B. conjuncta, Bonamia
menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx,
Cyrtandra filipes, Dubautia plantaginea
ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia,
Hesperomannia arborescens, H.
arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei,
Plantago princeps, Platanthera
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, and
Tetramolopium capillare), and the
akohekohe and kiwikiu. None of the
plant species discussed in this rule
currently occurs on Kahoma Land
Company lands on west Maui.
Kahoma Land Company is a coalition
of Maui residents formed in June 2000,
to acquire former sugar cane land
adjacent to Kahoma Valley on west
Maui. Kahoma Land Company’s longterm management goals for this area
include development of land tracts,
diversified agriculture, and ecotourism
ventures. Approximately 690 ac (279 ha)
of the coalition’s lands are within the
WMMWP boundaries between two State
Natural Area Reserves, and 46 ac (19 ha)
are within proposed critical habitat.
Kahoma Land Company is also a current
member of the WMMWP (WMMWP
2013). Kahoma Land Company’s
conservation actions conducted by the
WMMWP are partly funded by Service
grants through the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011,
2012). Its conservation commitments
include the following conservation
actions: (1) Strategic fencing and
removal of ungulates; (2) regular
monitoring for ungulates after fencing;
E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.SGM
30MRR2
17946
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(3) monitoring of habitat recovery
through vegetation succession analyses;
and (4) continued surveys for rare taxa
prior to new fence installations. The
WMMWP management plan includes
actions taken on Kahoma lands to
control ungulates, including
construction of strategic fencing.
Ungulate control checks are currently
underway on Kahoma lands, with
addition of new check installations
(WMMWP 2010, p. 1). Additional
conservation actions in this area include
weed control and outplanting of native
plants. The WMMWP management plan
and the commitments
