Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island, 31900-31908 [2016-11941]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31900-31908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11941]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ38


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating 
Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on our October 17, 2012, 
proposed designation of critical habitat for three plant species 
(Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Isodendrion pyrifolium 
(wahine noho kula), and Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi)) on Hawaii Island 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are 
reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties further 
opportunity to comment on areas that we are considering for exclusion 
from critical habitat designation in the final rule. Comments 
previously submitted on the proposed rule do not need to be 
resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the 
final rule.

DATES: Written Comments: We will consider comments received or 
postmarked on or before June 6, 2016. Please note comments submitted 
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. 
If you are submitting your comments by hard copy, please mail them by 
June 6, 2016, to ensure that we receive them in time to give them full 
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You may obtain copies of the October 
17, 2012, proposed rule, this document, and the draft economic analysis 
of the proposed designation of critical habitat at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028, from the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site (https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/), or by contacting the Pacific Islands Fish 
and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028, which 
is the docket number for this rulemaking, and follow the directions for 
submitting a comment.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028; Division of Policy, 
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We will post all comments we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. 
This generally means that we will post any personal information you 
provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, 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. Persons who use a

[[Page 31901]]

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Mezoneuron kavaiense 
(uhiuhi), and Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), that was 
published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928). In 
that proposed rule, we proposed to list 15 species on the Hawaiian 
island of Hawaii as endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), to designate critical habitat for one of these species, and to 
designate critical habitat for two plant species that were listed as 
endangered species in 1986 and 1994. We finalized the listing 
determinations of those 15 species on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64638). 
Critical habitat has not yet been finalized. We previously reopened the 
comment period on the proposed critical habitat twice: once for 30 
days, on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), and again for 60 days on July 2, 
2013 (78 FR 39698).
    In particular we are seeking public comment on the areas that we 
are considering for exclusion from the final designation of critical 
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Mezoneuron 
kavaiense (uhiuhi), and Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula). 
Although we previously indicated that we were considering the possible 
exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, 
and asked for comment on the broad public benefits of encouraging 
collaborative conservation efforts with local and private partners, we 
are now offering an additional opportunity for public comment on this 
issue. Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, conservation 
agreements with the Service were signed by several of the landowners 
previously identified for possible exclusion. Furthermore, the Service 
has identified some additional areas considered for exclusion based on 
partnerships with landowners who signed conservation agreements with 
the Service subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule. 
Therefore, we are offering another opportunity for public comment on 
the broad public benefits of encouraging collaborative conservation 
efforts with local and private partners. We will consider information 
and recommendations from all interested parties.
    We are particularly interested in comments concerning whether the 
benefits of excluding any particular area from critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)), after considering 
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We are considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal 
lands, especially areas in private ownership, and whether the benefits 
of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion of those areas. We, 
therefore, request specific information on:
     The benefits of including any specific areas in the final 
designation and supporting rationale.
     The benefits of excluding any specific areas from the 
final designation and supporting rationale.
     Whether any specific exclusions may result in the 
extinction of the species and why.
    For non-Federal lands in particular, we are interested in 
information regarding the potential benefits of including such lands in 
critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from 
critical habitat. In weighing the potential benefits of exclusion 
versus inclusion of non-Federal lands, the Service may consider whether 
existing partnership agreements provide for the management of the 
species. This consideration may include, for example, the status of 
conservation efforts, the effectiveness of any conservation agreements 
to conserve the species, and the likelihood of the conservation 
agreement's future implementation. In addition, we may consider the 
formation or fostering of partnerships with non-Federal entities that 
result in positive conservation outcomes for the species, as evidenced 
by the development of conservation agreements, as a potential benefit 
of exclusion. We request comment on the broad public benefits of 
encouraging collaborative efforts and encouraging local and private 
conservation efforts.
    Our final determination concerning the designation of critical 
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
and Isodendrion pyrifolium will take into consideration all written 
comments and information we receive during all comment periods; from 
peer reviewers; and during the public information meeting, as well as 
comments and public testimony we received during the public hearing, 
that we held in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, on May 15, 2013 (see 78 FR 25243; 
April 30, 2013). The comments will be included in the public record for 
this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of 
our final determination. On the basis of peer reviewer and public 
comments, as well as any new information we may receive during the 
development of our final determination concerning critical habitat, we 
may find (1) that areas within the proposed critical habitat 
designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, (2) that 
some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or (3) 
that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule 
(October 17, 2012; 77 FR 63928) during one of the three previous open 
comment periods from October 17, 2012, through December 17, 2012 (77 FR 
63928), April 30, 2013, through May 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), and July 2, 
2013, through September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698), or at the public 
information meeting or hearing on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 25243), please do 
not resubmit them. We will fully consider them in the preparation of 
our final determinations.
    You may submit your comments by one of the methods listed in 
ADDRESSES. We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you submit 
your comment via U.S. mail, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold personal information such as your street address, 
phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive will be available for public 
inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-
0028, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 63928) to 
list 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii as endangered species 
under the Act, to designate critical habitat for one of these species, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and to designate critical habitat 
for two previously listed plant species, Mezoneuron kavaiense (51 FR 
24672, July 8, 1986) and Isodendrion pyrifolium (59 FR 10305, March 3, 
1994). We proposed to designate 18,766

[[Page 31902]]

acres (ac) (7,597 hectares (ha)) on the island of Hawaii. Approximately 
55 percent of the area proposed as critical habitat is already 
designated as critical habitat for 41plants and the Blackburn's sphinx 
moth (Manduca blackburni), for which critical habitat was designated on 
July 2, 2003 (68 FR 39624), and June 10, 2003 (68 FR 34710), 
respectively.
    In our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we announced 
a 60-day comment period, which began on October 17, 2012, and ended on 
December 17, 2012. On April 30, 2013, we announced the availability of 
the draft economic analysis on the proposed designation of critical 
habitat, and reopened the comment period on our proposed rule, the 
draft economic analysis, and amended required determinations for 
another 30 days, ending May 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243). On April 30, 2013, 
we also announced a public information meeting in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 
which we held on May 15, 2013, followed by a public hearing on that 
same day (78 FR 25243). On July 2, 2013, we announced the reopening of 
the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat and 
the draft economic analysis for an additional 60 days, through 
September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698).

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
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. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency unless it is exempted pursuant to the 
provisions of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(e)-(n) and (p)). Federal agencies 
proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on 
the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    Consistent with the best scientific data available, the standards 
of the Act, and our regulations, we initially identified and proposed a 
total of 18,766 ac (7,597 ha) in 7 units for three plant species 
located on the island of Hawaii, that meet the definition of critical 
habitat. In addition, the Act provides the Secretary with the 
discretion to exclude certain areas from the final designation after 
taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national 
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact 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 making that 
determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative 
history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding 
which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, the benefits of critical habitat include public 
awareness of the presence of the three species and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for the three species due to protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, 
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for 
projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
    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 Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction or adverse modification 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. Additionally, continued implementation 
of a management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a 
critical habitat designation would reduce the benefits of including 
that specific area in the critical habitat designation.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation and the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships.
    When we evaluate a management plan during our consideration of the 
benefits of exclusion, we assess 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 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.
    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 those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate 
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Units 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 are appropriate for exclusion from 
the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis 
indicates that the benefits of excluding lands from the final 
designation outweigh the benefits of

[[Page 31903]]

designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation.
    In our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we identified 
areas in four of the proposed critical habitat units for potential 
exclusion from the final critical habitat designation for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 1 provides 
approximate areas (ac, ha) of these lands that meet the definition of 
critical habitat but were proposed for consideration for possible 
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical 
habitat rule.

    Table 1--Areas Considered for Exclusion in the 2012 Proposed Rule (77 FR 63928), by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Areas meeting       Areas
                                                                                  the definition    considered
                                                                                    of critical    for possible
                    Unit                                Specific area               habitat, in    exclusion, in
                                                                                       acres           acres
                                                                                    (hectares)      (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31...............  Kamehameha Schools.................   2,834 (1,147)   2,834 (1,147)
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33...............  Palamanui Global Holdings LLC......       502 (203)       502 (203)
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34...............  Kaloko Properties Corp.............         48 (19)         48 (19)
                                             SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC...........       558 (226)       558 (226)
                                             TSA Corporation....................         26 (10)         26 (10)
                                             Lanihau Properties.................         47 (19)         47 (19)
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35...............  Department of Hawaiian Home Lands..       355 (144)         87 (35)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are now considering whether to exclude additional areas. Table 2 
below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of the additional lands that 
meet the definition of critical habitat but are now under our 
consideration for possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
from the final critical habitat rule. In the paragraphs that follow 
below, we provide a detailed analysis of our consideration of these 
additional lands for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

                  Table 2--Additional Areas Considered for Exclusion, by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Areas meeting       Areas
                                                                                  the definition  considered for
                                                                                    of critical       possible
                    Unit                                Specific area               habitat, in    exclusion, in
                                                                                       acres           acres
                                                                                    (hectares)      (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32...............  Waikoloa Village Association.......     1,758 (711)     1,758 (711)
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33...............  Department of Hawaiian Home Lands..         91 (30)         91 (30)
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35...............  County of Hawaii (State)...........        165 (67)        165 (67)
                                             Hawaii Housing and Finance                  30 (12)         30 (12)
                                              Development Corporation (State).
                                             Department of Hawaiian Home Lands..       401 (165)       401 (165)
                                             Forest City Kona...................       265 (107)       265 (107)
                                             Queen Liliuokalani Trust...........       302 (122)       302 (122)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as 
habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, or candidate 
conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat 
designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-
Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant 
partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that 
are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its 
habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects 
on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered 
by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by 
private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with 
the Service.
    We evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of 
any exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the 
existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or 
agreements and their attendant partnerships when we undertake a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. A non-exhaustive list 
of factors that we will consider for non-permitted plans or agreements 
is shown below. These factors are not required elements of plans or 
agreements, and all items may not apply to every plan or agreement.

    (i) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the 
conservation of

[[Page 31904]]

the species or the essential physical or biological features (if 
present) for the species;
    (ii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan or agreement will be implemented;
    (iii) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen 
conservation measures;
    (iv) The degree to which the record of the plan supports a 
conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair the 
realization of benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or 
partnership;
    (v) The extent of public participation in the development of the 
conservation plan;
    (vi) The degree to which there has been agency review and 
required determinations (e.g., State regulatory requirements), as 
necessary and appropriate;
    (vii) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) compliance was required; and
    (viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring 
program and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation 
measures are effective and can be modified in the future in response 
to new information.

    In the proposed rule (October 17, 2012; 77 FR 63928), we identified 
several specific areas under consideration for exclusion from critical 
habitat based on the landowner's conservation partnerships; these 
exclusions totaled approximately 4,099 ac (1,659 ha) of State land and 
private lands. The areas identified for potential exclusion, as 
detailed in our proposed rule, included lands owned or managed by 
Kamehameha Schools; Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC; Kaloko Properties 
Corp.; Lanihau Properties; SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai, LLC; TSA Corporation; 
and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We asked for public comment 
on the potential exclusions, and for information regarding the 
potential benefits of including private lands in critical habitat 
versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. 
After publication of the proposed rule, three of these landowners 
(Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC; Lanihau Properties; and the Department 
of Hawaiian Homelands) signed memoranda of understanding with the 
Service covering actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and Isodendrion pyrifolium. 
Furthermore, in the proposed rule we noted that exclusions in the final 
rule would not necessarily be limited to those we initially identified 
in the proposed rule. Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule, 
we identified additional private or non-Federal lands that we are 
considering for exclusion from critical habitat, based on conservation 
partnerships with the Service. These include lands owned or managed by 
Waikoloa Village Association, County of Hawaii, Hawaii Housing and 
Finance Development Corporation, Forest City Kona, and Queen 
Liliuokalani Trust. Therefore, at this time we request public comment 
on the following: the benefits of including any specific areas in the 
final designation and supporting rationale, benefits of excluding any 
specific areas from the final designation and supporting rationale, and 
whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of the 
species and why. The three of the areas originally proposed for 
exclusion, as well as the additional areas being considered for 
exclusion, are briefly described below.

Certain Areas Considered for Exclusion in the 2012 Proposed Rule

Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we stated 
that we were considering the exclusion of 502 ac (203 ha) owned or 
managed by Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC (Palamanui). These lands fall 
within a portion of the 1,583 ac (640 ha) proposed as critical habitat 
in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33; the proposed unit is occupied by 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied but essential to the conservation 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 
63928; October 17, 2012). Palamanui has demonstrated their willingness 
to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site management that 
provides important conservation benefits to the native Hawaiian species 
that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat. Under an integrated 
natural cultural resource management plan (INCRMP 2005) addressing 
preservation, mitigation, management, and stewardship measures for the 
natural and cultural resources at the Palamanui development, Palamanui 
successfully implemented the following conservation actions on their 
lands: (1) Fencing to protect a 55-ac (22-ha) Lowland Dry Forest 
Preserve (Preserve) and other endangered plant locations outside the 
Preserve; (2) maintenance of firebreaks to control the threat of fire 
at the Preserve and other endangered plant locations outside the 
Preserve; (3) establishment of the Palamanui Dry Forest Working Group 
and research partnership; and (4) partnerships with other landowners 
and practitioners to benefit the conservation and recovery of dry 
forest species and their habitat.
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule, Palamanui participated in a series of collaborative meetings with 
the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, 
Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in 
proposed Critical Habitat Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species 
protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2015, 
Palamanui signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Service 
wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions 
beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the lowland dry ecosystem 
upon which they depend (Memorandum of Understanding Between Palamanui 
Global Holdings LLC and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife 
Service 2015). In the MOU, Palamanui agreed to increase the area of 
fenced and managed lowland dry forest protected within the Preserve by 
19 ac (7.7 ha), for a total of approximately 75 ac (30 ha). Palamanui 
also agreed to ensure funding for conservation actions within the 
Preserve for the next 20 years at a minimum of $50,000 per year. 
Palamanui will also contribute conservation actions valued at an 
additional $200,000 to benefit the recovery of the three plant species 
and the lowland dry ecosystem, and agreed to work cooperatively with 
the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities 
expected to benefit Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat. Implementation 
has already been initiated on the following actions agreed to in the 
MOU: (1) Firebreak maintenance around the Preserve; (2) fence 
maintenance to exclude ungulates from the Preserve and removal of 
ungulates that had been allowed to enter the Preserve; (3) regular weed 
control in the Preserve; and (4) propagation, outplanting, and 
maintenance of listed species in the Preserve.

Lanihau Properties

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we considered 
the exclusion of 47 ac (19 ha) of land owned/managed by Lanihau 
Properties. These lands fall within a portion of the 961 ac (389 ha) 
proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii-- Lowland Dry--Unit 34; the 
proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied but essential to the conservation 
of Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Lanihau 
Properties has demonstrated their willingness to work as a conservation 
partner by undertaking site management that provides important 
conservation

[[Page 31905]]

benefits to the native Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland 
dry ecosystem habitat. In 2010, Lanihau Properties agreed to set aside 
a 4.6-ac (1.9-ha) area as a dryland forest reserve and implement 
conservation measures as a condition for issuance of a county grading 
permit associated with the construction of the Ane Keohokalole Highway 
(USFWS 2010, in litt.).
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule, Lanihau Properties participated in a series of collaborative 
meetings along with the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of 
Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other 
stakeholders in proposed Critical Habitat Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to 
address species protection and recovery and development on a regional 
scale. In 2014, Lanihau Properties signed an MOU with the Service 
wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions 
beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and 
endangered plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem 
(Memorandum of Understanding between Lanihau Properties and U.S. 
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). In the 
agreement, Lanihau Properties agreed to set aside and not undertake 
development in an approximately 16-ac (6-ha) area, adding 11.4 ac (4.6 
ha) to the previous 4.6-ac (1.9-ha) set aside, and work cooperatively 
with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities 
expected to benefit the conservation of the three species and the 
lowland dry ecosystem for the next 20 years.

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we announced 
we were considering the exclusion of 87 ac (35 ha) of lands owned by 
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) out of the total 446 ac 
(181 ha) of DHHL land proposed as critical habitat. Based on a new MOU 
evidencing a more robust partnership with the Service, summarized 
below, and updated land ownership records that added approximately 46.5 
ac (18.4 ha) to DHHL's land considered for exclusion, we are now 
considering the exclusion of 492 ac (199 ha) of lands owned by DHHL. 
These lands fall within portions of two proposed units. The DHHL owns 
91 ac (30 ha) of the 1,583 ac (640 ha) proposed as critical habitat in 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33; this proposed unit is occupied by 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied by but essential to the 
conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion 
pyrifolium. The DHHL also owns 401 ac (165 ha) of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) 
proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35; this 
proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 
17, 2012).
    The DHHL has worked in partnership with the Service to protect and 
restore endangered and threatened species and their habitats during the 
last 15 years on Hawaii Island. In December 2010, the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission adopted the ``Aina Mauna Legacy Program,'' a 100-year plan 
to reforest approximately 87 percent of a 56,200-ac (22,743-ha) 
contiguous parcel managed by DHHL on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea, 
Hawaii Island. Implementation of the Aina Mauna Legacy Program calls 
for removal of all feral ungulates from the Aina Mauna landscape and 
several restoration projects have been implemented to benefit 
endangered and threatened species and their habitats (DHHL 2009, pp. 
19-21). Each of these projects received funding from the Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for 10-year landowner agreements 
to maintain the conservation actions, and includes multiple partners 
such as the State, National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Mauna Kea 
Watershed Alliance.
    From 1996 to 2006, the DHHL acquired a total of approximately 685 
ac (277 ha) at Laiopua, Kealakehe, and Keahuolu from the Hawaii Housing 
Finance Development Corporation (HHFDC, previously HCDCH) (Masagatani 
2012, in litt.) and subsequently committed two parcels equaling 
approximately 40 ac (16 ha) for the development, management, and 
maintenance as preserves with the sole purpose of protecting of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and other endangered species. The three parcels included the 
two principal preserves of the 1999 plan and the area identified for 
protection of archaeological resources, for a total of 73 ac (29 ha) 
protected. Since 2010, the DHHL has committed approximately $1,198,052 
for the development and management of the preserve areas (Masagatani 
2012, in litt.). Conservation actions in the preserve areas include: 
(1) Fencing to exclude ungulates and prevent human trespass; (2) 
control and removal of nonnative plants; (3) control and prevention of 
the threat of fire; (4) propagation, outplanting, and care of common 
native and endangered plant species; and (5) promoting community 
volunteer and education programs that support native plant 
conservation.
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule, the DHHL participated in a series of collaborative meetings with 
the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural 
Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to 
address species protection and recovery and development on a regional 
scale. In 2015, the DHHL signed an MOU with the Service for a 
conservation agreement expected to benefit the recovery of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their 
habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and U.S. Department of 
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). Under the agreement, the DHHL 
will continue to protect the 73 ac (29 ha) of existing preserves and 
agrees to set aside and not develop an additional 24 ac (10 ha) for a 
total protected area of 97 ac (39 ha) to benefit the recovery of the 
three plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. The DHHL agreed in 
the MOU to funding conservation actions valued at $3.229 million on 44 
ac (18 ha) of the existing preserves for 40 years and within the 
additional 24 ac (10 ha) for 20 years. The remaining 29 ac (ha) of 
existing preserves will not be actively managed but will remain 
protected from development. Conservation actions on the 68 managed 
acres include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control and the 
prevention of the threat of fire; (3) control and removal of nonnative 
plant species; (4) propagation, outplanting, and care of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and other rare and endangered plant species; and (5) other 
management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant 
species and the lowland dry ecosystem. Implementation has already been 
initiated on the following actions agreed to in the MOU: (1) Fence and 
firebreak maintenance around the preserves; (2) regular weed control of 
the managed areas in the preserves; and (3) initiated improvements to 
the fences and gates in the existing Aupaka Preserve, including raising 
the height of the fence to exclude ungulates and removing barbed wire, 
which is a threat to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus 
cinereus semotus).

[[Page 31906]]

Additional Areas Currently Under Consideration for Exclusion

Waikoloa Village Association

    We are considering excluding 1,758 ac (711 ha) of lands from 
critical habitat that are owned or managed by the Waikoloa Village 
Association (WVA). These lands include the majority of the 1,779 ac 
(720) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32; the 
proposed unit is occupied by one of the three plant species, Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and is unoccupied but essential to the conservation of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 
63928; October 17, 2012). Since 2012, the WVA has voluntarily 
facilitated and supported the conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense and other federally listed species and their 
habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, on their privately owned lands. 
In 2012, the WVA Board of Directors granted permission to protect and 
restore 275 ac (111 ha) of dry forest habitat south of Waikoloa Village 
for a period of 75 years by way of a license agreement with the 
nonprofit Waikoloa Dry Forest Initiative, Inc. The project's management 
program includes: (1) Construction and maintenance of a 275-ac (111-ha) 
fence to exclude ungulates; (2) removal of ungulates from the fenced 
exclosure; (3) control of nonnative plant species to reduce competition 
and the threat of fire; (4) integrated pest management to reduce 
impacts on native plant species; (5) provision of infrastructure for 
propagation and maintenance of outplantings; (6) establishment of 
common native and endangered plant species; and (7) education and 
community outreach activities. Furthermore, in 2014, the WVA signed an 
MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important 
conservation actions beneficial to Mezoneuron kavaiense, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and the lowland dry 
ecosystem upon which they depend (Memorandum of Understanding between 
Waikoloa Village Association and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2014, entire). The WVA agreed not to undertake 
development in 60 ac (24 ha) adjacent to the Waikoloa Dry Forest 
Recovery Project's 275-ac (111-ha) exclosure and to work cooperatively 
with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities 
expected to benefit Mezoneuron kavaiense, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and their habitat.

County of Hawaii

    We are considering exclusion of 165 ac (67 ha) of lands owned by 
the State of Hawaii that are under management of the County of Hawaii 
(County). These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) 
proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35; the 
proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 
17, 2012). Since 2010, the County of Hawaii (County) has been involved 
in voluntary cooperative partnerships and conservation agreements with 
the Service for the conservation of rare and endangered species and 
their habitats. In 2010, the County helped facilitate protection of 
over 150 ac (61 ha) of lowland dry ecosystem habitat known to contain 
numerous listed plant species (USFWS 2010, in litt.).
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule, the County participated in a series of collaborative meetings 
with the Service, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land 
and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 
35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a 
regional scale. In 2015, the County signed an MOU with the Service 
wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions 
beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and listed 
plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem 
(Memorandum of Understanding Between County of Hawaii and U.S. 
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, entire). The 
County agreed to set aside and not develop approximately 30 ac (12 ha) 
of lands under its management, and also agreed to conduct conservation 
actions valued at $1.534 million on a total of 50.1 ac (20.3 ha) to 
benefit the recovery of the three plant species, as well as other rare 
and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry 
ecosystem, over the next 20 years. The 50.1 ac (20.3 ha) where 
conservation actions will occur includes 30 ac (12 ha) owned by the 
County, 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) owned by the Hawaii Housing Finance and 
Development Corporation, and 15.9 ac (6.4) owned by Lanihau Properties. 
Of the total 30 ac (12 ha) of County land protected from development, 
22 ac (8.9 ha) are adjacent to a 4.2-ac (1.7-ha) set-aside by the 
Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation and another 21.7-ac 
(8.8-ha) set-aside by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; these three 
areas together create approximately 47.9 contiguous acres (19.4 ha) 
protected for the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry 
ecosystem. The remaining 8-ac (3.2-ha) set-aside is located within the 
proposed Kealakehe Regional Park and adjacent to an existing 3.4-ac 
(1.4-ha) preserve managed by County but owned by the Hawaiian 
Department of Land and Natural Resources. Because the conservation 
actions will occur in some areas jointly managed by the County and 
other agencies or at offsite locations, the County will work 
cooperatively and in partnership with these landowners. These 
conservation actions will include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; 
(2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (3) control of 
nonnative plant species; and (4) other management actions expected to 
benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the lowland dry 
ecosystem.

Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation

    We are considering exclusion of 30 ac (12 ha) of lands owned by the 
State of Hawaii that are under management of the Hawaii Housing Finance 
and Development Corporation (HHFDC). These lands fall within a portion 
of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012). The HHFDC has demonstrated their 
willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site 
management that provides important conservation benefits to the native 
Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat.
    Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, HHFDC 
participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural 
Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to 
address species protection and recovery and development on a regional 
scale. In 2016, HHFDC signed an MOU with the Service wherein they 
agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and federally 
listed species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem 
(Memorandum of Understanding Between Hawaii Housing Finance and 
Development Corporation and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and 
Wildlife

[[Page 31907]]

Service 2016, entire). The HHFDC agreed to set aside and not develop 
approximately 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) of lands under its management to provide 
protection and management for one of the seven remaining mature 
individuals of Mezoneuron kavaiense in proposed Unit 35, as well as 
other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland 
dry ecosystem, over the next 20 years. The 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) protected 
from development by the HHFDC are adjacent to the 22-ac (8.9-ha) set-
aside by the County and another 21.7-ac (8.8-ha) set-aside by the 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands; these three areas together create 
approximately 47.9 contiguous acres (19.4 ha) protected for the 
conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem. 
Because the conservation actions will occur in some areas jointly 
managed by the HHFDC and other agencies, the HHFDC will work 
cooperatively and in partnership with these landowners and the Service. 
These conservation actions will include: (1) Fencing to exclude 
ungulates; (2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (3) 
control of nonnative plant species; and (4) other management actions 
expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the 
lowland dry ecosystem.

Forest City Kona

    We are considering the exclusion of 265 ac (107 ha) of lands that 
are owned by Forest City Kona, LLC. These lands fall within a portion 
of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Forest City Kona has demonstrated their 
willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site 
management that provides important conservation benefits to the native 
Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat.
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule, Forest City Kona participated in a series of collaborative 
meetings with the Service, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department 
of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 
34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development 
on a regional scale. In 2016, Forest City Kona signed an MOU with the 
Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions 
beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as 
other rare and federally listed species and their habitat in the 
lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Forest City 
Kona and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, 
entire). Forest City Kona agreed to set aside and not undertake 
development in two areas, totaling 20 ac (8 ha), and to work 
cooperatively with the Service on approved conservation programs to 
conduct activities to benefit the conservation of the three species and 
the lowland dry ecosystem in these areas for the next 20 years. The 
MOU's conservation actions include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; 
(2) control of nonnative plant species; (3) propagation, outplanting, 
and care of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and common native plant 
species; (4) control and prevention of the threat of fire; and (5) 
other management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed 
plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. The MOU also includes a 
commitment from Forest City Kona to provide $500,000 towards the 
implementation of on-site or off-site conservation actions within the 
North Kona region that will benefit the recovery of the three plant 
species and the lowland dry ecosystem.

Queen Liliuokalani Trust

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we stated 
that we were not considering for exclusion lands owned by Queen 
Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) for the following reasons: (1) The 
conservation plans in place at the time only addressed actions related 
to Isodendrion pyrifolium, but did not address conservation of the 
other two plants with proposed critical habitat on the land, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense; and (2) since 
2005, we were unaware of efforts to outplant propagated individuals of 
Isodendrion pyrifolium or any current plans to conserve listed species 
or their habitats in the lowland dry ecosystem on the lands at Keahuolu 
owned by QLT. In 2014, QLT signed an MOU with the Service addressing 
both of these previous concerns. We are now considering exclusion of 
302 ac (122 ha) of lands that are owned or managed by QLT. These lands 
fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical 
habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied 
by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012).
    Since 2004, QLT has supported the conservation of federally listed 
species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, on their 
privately owned lands. In 2004, the QLT entered into an agreement with 
the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to conduct 
research on the propagation of two endangered plants, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata, in order to secure genetic material in 
ex situ storage and provide individuals of each species for 
reintroduction or restoration projects. In February 2014, the QLT 
signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement 
important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well 
as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland 
dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Queen Liliuokalani 
Trust and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, 
entire). The management actions included in the MOU are: (1) Fencing to 
exclude ungulates; (2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; 
(3) propagation and outplanting of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as six other 
rare or listed plant species; (4) weed control; (5) watering and 
maintenance of outplanted individuals; (6) monitoring and reporting; 
(7) analysis of success criteria; and (8) adaptive management. The QLT 
also agreed to set aside and not undertake development in a separate 
28-ac (11-ha) area and work cooperatively with the Service or other 
conservation partners to conduct activities to benefit the conservation 
of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem. This area will be 
available for the conservation and propagation efforts for the three 
species and other listed and rare species of the lowland dry ecosystem.
    In addition to the agreements and commitments detailed above, QLT 
developed a culturally based service learning program that has involved 
over 1,300 beneficiaries, school groups, and other community members in 
removing invasive species. QLT continues to spend over $12,000 per year 
to control invasive species, such as fountain grass (Cenchrus setaceum) 
and haole koa (Leucaena leucocephala). Other significant expenditures 
include funds spent on security in response to trespassing and 
vandalism on its Kona lands (QLT 2013).

Summary of Areas Considered for Exclusion

    We are considering exclusion of these non-Federal lands because we 
believe

[[Page 31908]]

the exclusion may result in the continuation, strengthening, or 
encouragement of important conservation partnerships that will 
contribute to the long-term conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense and Isodendrion pyrifolium. 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, 
would be important outcomes of these conservation partnerships.
    The final designation may not exclude these areas, or be limited to 
these exclusions, but may also consider other exclusions as a result of 
continuing analysis of relevant considerations (scientific, economic, 
and other relevant factors, as required by the Act) and the public 
comment process. In particular, we solicit comments from the public on 
whether to make the specific exclusions we are considering, and whether 
there are other areas that are appropriate for exclusion.
    The final decision on whether to exclude any area will be based on 
the best scientific data available at the time of the final 
designation, including information obtained during the comment periods 
and information about the economic impact of the designation.

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 11, 2016.
Karen Hyun,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-11941 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P