Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island, 42362-42435 [2018-17514]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42362-42435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17514]



[[Page 42361]]

Vol. 83

Tuesday,

No. 162

August 21, 2018

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island; Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 42362]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ38


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), 
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
(uhiuhi) respectively, under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In 
total, approximately 11,640 acres (ac) (4,711 hectares (ha)) in North 
Kona and South Kohala on Hawaii Island fall within the boundaries of 
the critical habitat designation. Approximately 72 percent of this area 
is already designated as critical habitat for 42 plants and the 
Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni). We are excluding, under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, approximately 7,027 ac (2,844 ha) of land 
on the island of Hawaii that meet the definition of critical habitat 
from this final critical habitat designation.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the final economic analysis, and some 
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule are 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the 
comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this 
rulemaking are available, by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; 
telephone 808-792-9400; or facsimile 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-2013-0028, and at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 
(address above).

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 Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to designate 
critical habitat for the following endangered plants: Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla (listed in 2013), Isodendrion pyrifolium (listed in 
1994), and Mezoneuron kavaiense (listed in 1986). These three plants 
occur in the same ecosystem and have not had designated critical 
habitat on Hawaii Island. Under the Act, species that are determined to 
be endangered or threatened species generally require critical habitat 
to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    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 the plants 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense. Here we are designating approximately 11,640 
acres (ac) (4,711 hectares (ha)) in five multi-species critical habitat 
units for these species. The five units are in North Kona and South 
Kohala on Hawaii Island, on lands owned by the National Park Service, 
State of Hawaii, and private entities. Approximately 72 percent, or 
8,443 ac (3,417 ha), of the area designated as critical habitat 
overlaps with areas already designated as critical habitat for listed 
plant and animal species. Therefore, 27 percent, or 3,197 ac (1,294 
ha), of the area is new critical habitat.
    We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of 
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an 
analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designations 
and related factors. The draft economic analysis (DEA) addressed 
possible economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and was made available for public review during three 
comment periods. Following the close of the comment periods, we 
reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment 
periods, including information that pertains to our consideration of 
the possible incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat 
designation. We have incorporated the comments as appropriate and have 
completed the final economic analysis (FEA).
    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 two knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the best 
available scientific information. These peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and they 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 received from the public during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

    We listed Mezoneuron kavaiense as an endangered species on July 8, 
1986 (51 FR 24672) and Isodendrion pyrifolium as an endangered species 
on March 4, 1994 (59 FR 10305). On October 17, 2012, we published in 
the Federal Register a proposed rule to list 15 species, including 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, as endangered, and to designate 
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii Island (77 FR 63928). On 
October, 29, 2013, we listed Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla as an 
endangered species (78 FR 64638).
    We accepted public comments on our October 17, 2012, proposed rule 
to designate critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii Island (77 
FR 63928) for 60 days, ending December 17, 2012. In addition, we 
published a public notice of the proposed rule on October 20, 2012, in 
the local Honolulu Star Advertiser, Hawaii Tribune Herald, and West 
Hawaii Today newspapers, at the beginning of that comment period. On 
April 30, 2013, we announced the availability of the DEA on the 
proposed

[[Page 42363]]

designation of critical habitat, and reopened the comment period on our 
proposed rule, the DEA, 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 DEA for 
an additional 60 days, ending September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698). In that 
July 2, 2013, document, we also announced a public information meeting 
in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, which we held on August 7, 2013. On May 20, 
2016, we announced an additional reopening of the comment period on the 
proposed critical habitat designation, including the economic impacts 
of the designation, ending June 6, 2016 (81 FR 31900).

Background

Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule

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

                         Table 1--The Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Scientific name              Common name         Listing status           Critical habitat status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bidens micrantha ssp.             kookoolau..........  Listed as an         Designated in this rule.
 ctenophylla.                                           endangered
                                                        species, 2013.
Isodendrion pyrifolium..........  wahine noho kula...  Listed as an         Designated in this rule.
                                                        endangered
                                                        species, 1994.
Mezoneuron kavaiense............  uhiuhi.............  Listed as an         Designated in this rule.
                                                        endangered
                                                        species, 1986.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Habitat Unit Map Corrections

    We designated critical habitat for Cyanea shipmanii, Phyllostegia 
racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and Plantago hawaiensis in 2003 (68 FR 
39624; July 2, 2003). In this final rule, we correct the critical 
habitat unit maps published at 50 CFR 17.99(k)(1) for these four 
species to accurately reflect their designated critical habitat units. 
We amend 50 CFR 17.99(k)(1) by removing four maps (Map 97, Unit 30--
Cyanea stictophylla--d; Map 100, Unit 30--Phyllostegia hawaiiensis--c; 
Map 101, Unit 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c; and Map 102, Unit 30--
Phyllostegia velutina--b) that are either a duplicate of another unit 
map or labeled with the incorrect species name. We replace these four 
maps, using the same map numbers, with correctly labeled maps that 
accurately represent the geographic location of each species' critical 
habitat unit. We also remove the textual descriptions of critical 
habitat boundaries from the entries with corrected maps, in accordance 
with our rule published on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49751).

Determining Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat

    Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act (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 an endangered or threatened species. In 
this final rule, we are designating critical habitat for the plant 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which was listed as an endangered 
species on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64638); Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
which was listed as an endangered species on March 4, 1994 (59 FR 
10305); and Mezoneuron kavaiense, which was listed as an endangered 
species on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672). These three species share 
occupied and unoccupied critical habitat on Hawaii Island.
    On February 11, 2016, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (81 FR 7414) to amend our regulations concerning the 
procedures and criteria we use to designate and revise critical 
habitat, including the identification of primary constituent elements 
(PCEs). That rule became effective on March 14, 2016, but, as stated in 
that rule, the amendments it sets forth apply to ``rules for which a 
proposed rule was published after March 14, 2016.'' We published our 
proposed critical habitat designation for the three plant species on 
October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928); therefore, the amendments set forth in 
the February 11, 2016, final rule (81 FR 7414) do not apply to this 
final designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    In this final rule, we designate critical habitat for three species 
in five multiple-species critical habitat units. Although critical 
habitat is identified for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense individually, we have 
found that the conservation of each depends on the successful 
functioning of certain physical or biological features shared by all 
three of these species in the lowland dry ecosystem. Each critical 
habitat unit identified in this rule contains the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of those individual 
species that occupied that particular unit at the time of listing, or 
in the case of areas that were not occupied at the time of listing, 
contains areas essential for the conservation of those species 
identified. These unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation 
of that species because the designation allows for the expansion of the 
species' range and reintroduction of individuals into areas where the 
species occurred historically, and provides area for recovery in the 
case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to 
eliminate the species from the one or more locations where it is 
presently found. Under current conditions, some of these species are so 
rare in the wild that they are at high risk of extirpation or even 
extinction from various stochastic events, such as hurricanes or 
landslides. Therefore, building up resilience and redundancy in these 
species through the establishment of multiple robust populations is a 
key component of recovery.
    Each of the areas designated represents critical habitat for more 
than one species, based upon shared habitat requirements (i.e., 
physical or biological features) essential for their conservation. The 
identification of critical habitat also takes into account any species-
specific conservation needs as appropriate. Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense co-occur 
in the same lowland dry ecosystem on the island of Hawaii. These three 
plant species share many of the same physical or biological features 
(e.g., elevation, annual rainfall, substrate, and associated native 
plant genera), as well as the same threats from development,

[[Page 42364]]

fire, and nonnative ungulates and plants.
    Please refer to the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) 
or our supporting document ``Supplemental Information for the 
Designation and Non-designation of Critical Habitat for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense'' available at https://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES), 
for a description of the island of Hawaii and associated map, and for a 
description of the lowland dry ecosystem that is designated as critical 
habitat for the three species addressed in this final rule.

Current Status of the Three Species

    In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of locations of 
each species (a location does not necessarily represent a viable 
population), we use the word ``occurrence'' instead of ``population.'' 
Each occurrence is composed only of wild (i.e., not propagated and 
outplanted) individuals. We have updated information on the status of 
the three species that was presented in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; 
October 17, 2012), and provide the updated status below.
    Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), a perennial herb in 
the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii 
(Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla was known from the north Kona district in the lowland 
dry ecosystem (HBMP 2010a). Currently, this subspecies is restricted to 
an area of less than 10 square miles (mi\2\) (26 square kilometers 
(km\2\)) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano, in the lowland dry 
ecosystem in five occurrences totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals. 
The largest occurrence is found in Kaloko and Honokohau, with over 475 
individuals widely dispersed throughout the area (David 2005, pp. 8-10; 
Palmer 2005a, pp. 3-4; Palmer 2005b, pp. 4-5; Zimpfer 2011, in litt.). 
The occurrence at Kealakehe was reported to have been abundant and 
common in 1992, but by 2010 had declined to low numbers (Whistler 2007, 
pp. 1-18; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010a; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11). 
Currently, there are approximately 13 individuals scattered amongst 
several locations in the Kealakehe area (HFIA 2013, in litt.; Guinther 
et al. 2013). In addition, there are three individuals in Kaloko-
Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP) (Beavers 2010, in litt.), and 
two occurrences are found to the northeast: an unknown number of 
individuals at Puu Waawaa, and a few scattered individuals at Kaupulehu 
(HBMP 2010a; Giffin 2011, pers. comm.). Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla is under propagation for outplanting at the Future Forest 
Nursery (Hawaii). Seed banking of this subspecies is occurring at the 
Harold L. Lyon Arboretum Seed Conservation Laboratory (Oahu), and the 
Hawaii Island Seed Bank at the Hawaii Forest Institute (Hawaii). Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla has been outplanted within fenced exclosures 
at Kaloko-Honokohau NHP (49 individuals), Koaia Tree Sanctuary (1 
individual), Puu Waawaa (5 individuals), Kealakehe (124 individuals), 
and at several locations as a result of the Federal Highway 
Administration's (FHWA) conservation measures (over 600 individuals) 
(Boston 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010a; Wagner 2013a, in litt., Wagner 
2014a, in litt.; Wagner 2015, in litt.).
    Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), a perennial shrub in the 
violet family (Violaceae), is known from Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, 
Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999a, p. 1,331). Isodendrion 
pyrifolium was thought to be extinct since 1870, but was rediscovered 
in 1991, at Kealakehe, near Kailua on the island of Hawaii. In 2003, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium was only known from a single occurrence of 
approximately nine individuals at Kealakehe on the island of Hawaii (68 
FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, there are no extant occurrences on 
Oahu, Lanai, Molokai, or Maui. Surveys have documented the decline of 
the total number of individuals at Kealakehe (from nine individuals in 
2003, to four individuals in 2006, to three individuals in 2007, to two 
individuals in 2012) (David 2007, pers. comm. in USFWS 2008, in litt.; 
Wagner 2011b, in litt.) within two small, managed preserves situated in 
an urban setting. The larger 26 ac (11 ha) preserve is bordered by a 
high school, residential development, and construction of the Kealakehe 
portion of Ane Keohokalole Highway. Recent surveys have documented the 
mortality of the two mature, reproducing individuals, leaving only 
several immature individuals in one of the preserves (Wagner 2014b, in 
litt.; Wagner 2016, in litt.). Three individuals are represented in 
off-site seed storage collections (PEPP 2011, p. 32). Isodendrion 
pyrifolium is under propagation for outplanting at the Volcano Rare 
Plant Facility (Hawaii) and at the Future Forests Nursery (Hawaii) 
(VRPF 2010, in litt.; VRPF 2011, in litt; Wagner 2011b, in litt.). Seed 
banking for this species is occurring at the Volcano Rare Plant 
Facility (Hawaii), the Lyon Arboretum's Seed Conservation Lab (Oahu), 
and the National Tropical Botanical Garden (Kauai). Thirteen 
Isodendrion pyrifolium plants have been outplanted at the Kaloko-
Honokohau NHP, 20 plants were outplanted in Puu Waawaa and Kaupulehu, 
and another 15 plants in the Kaloko area (Wagner 2011c, in litt.; 
Wagner 2013a, in litt.; Wagner 2013b, in litt.). Critical habitat has 
been designated for this species on Oahu (77 FR 57648; September 18, 
2012), and on the islands of Maui and Molokai (81 FR 17790; March 30, 
2016).
    Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi), a medium-sized tree in the pea 
family (Fabaceae), was known historically from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, 
Maui, and Hawaii (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 647-648). At the time of 
listing in 1986, a single large occurrence of approximately 30 
individuals at Puu Waawaa contained the majority of individuals of this 
species on Hawaii Island (51 FR 24672, July 8, 1986; HBMP 2010c). In 
1992, a second occurrence of 21 individuals was discovered at Kealakehe 
(USFWS 1994, p. 14; HBMP 2010c). In 1993, fire within a kipuka (an area 
of older land within the younger Kaupulehu lava flow) destroyed 80 
percent of the individuals known from Puu Waawaa. Surveys in 2006 
reported the number of individuals at Puu Waawaa to be approximately 50 
to 100 individuals (HBMP 2010c). In addition, new information recently 
documented 13 individuals near Waikoloa Village (Faucette 2010, p. 3). 
A total of 520 individuals have been reintroduced at several sites in 
the North Kona and Waikoloa regions (USFWS 2015a, in litt.). Currently, 
Mezoneuron kavaiense is found in 6 occurrences totaling 72 mature and 
22 immature wild individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem of Hawaii 
Island (USFWS 2015a, in litt.). Due to its rarity on Kauai and Oahu, 
remaining populations and individuals on those islands are regularly 
monitored by staff at the Plant Extinction Prevention Program of 
Hawaii. Mezoneuron kavaiense is under propagation for outplanting at 
the Volcano Rare Plant Facility (Hawaii), the Olinda Rare Plant 
Facility (Maui), the Pahole Rare Plant Facility (Oahu), the Waimea 
Valley (Oahu), and the National Tropical Botanical Garden (Kauai). Seed 
banking for this species is occurring at the Volcano Rare Plant 
Facility (Hawaii), the Maui Nui Botanical Garden (Maui), Lyon Arboretum 
Seed Conservation Laboratory (Oahu), and the National Tropical 
Botanical Garden (Kauai). Seed collections contain representation of

[[Page 42365]]

genetic material from all islands across the species' distribution.
    Due to the small population sizes, few numbers of individuals, and 
reduced geographic range of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have determined 
that a recovery focus limited to the areas known to be occupied at the 
time of listing would be inadequate to achieve the conservation of 
these species. Some 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; these areas 
provide the habitat necessary for the expansion of existing wild 
populations and reestablishment of wild populations within the 
historical range of the species. Conservation of suitable habitat in 
both occupied and unoccupied areas, either through critical habitat or 
conservation partnerships with landowners, is essential to facilitate 
the establishment of additional populations through natural recruitment 
or managed reintroductions. The recovery plans for these species note 
that augmentation and reintroduction of populations are necessary for 
the species' conservation (as described below in ``Recovery Needs''). 
Population augmentation will increase the likelihood that the species 
will survive and recover in the face of normal and stochastic events 
(e.g., hurricanes, fire, and nonnative species introductions) (Mangel 
and Tier 1994, p. 612; Pimm et al. 1998, p. 777; Stacey and Taper 1992, 
p. 27). Furthermore, because so many important habitat areas for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense occur on lands managed by non-Federal entities, collaborative 
relationships are essential for their recovery, and, in some cases, 
partnerships with landowners are sufficient to conserve areas occupied 
by the species.
    The conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense is dependent upon the protection 
of existing population sites and the protection of suitable unoccupied 
habitat within the species' historical range, either through critical 
habitat or conservation partnerships; protection of these areas will 
provide for the requisite resiliency, redundancy, and representation of 
populations through restoration and reintroductions. Population 
resiliency is the population size, growth rate, and connectivity 
indicative of the ability to withstand stochastic disturbances. 
Redundancy refers to the spreading of risk among multiple populations 
over a large geographic area, and the ability to withstand catastrophic 
events. Representation is genetic and environmental diversity, and the 
ability to adapt to changing conditions over time. Sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation will ensure long-term 
viability and bring Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense to the point at which the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary (that is, when delisting 
is appropriate).

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    We are designating a total of 11,640 ac (4,711 ha) of critical 
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the island of Hawaii. We received a number 
of site-specific comments related to critical habitat for the species, 
completed our analysis of areas considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act or for exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, 
reviewed the application of our criteria for identifying critical 
habitat across the range of these species to refine our designations, 
and completed the FEA of the designation as proposed. We fully 
considered all comments from the public and peer reviewers on the 
proposed rule and the associated economic analysis to develop this 
final designation of critical habitat for these three species. This 
final rule incorporates changes to our proposed critical habitat based 
on the comments that we received and have responded to in this 
document, and considers conservation agreements, conservation 
partnerships, and other efforts to conserve Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Our final designation of critical habitat reflects the following 
changes from the proposed rule:
    (1) We updated the ownership of two parcels in Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 35, TMK (3) 7-4-020:005 (21.7 ac (8.8 ha)) and TMK (3) 7-4-
030:006 (24.8 ac (9.6 ha)) totaling 46.5 ac (18.4 ha), which we had 
indicated were under State of Hawaii ownership in the proposed rule to 
ownership by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) in this final 
rule.
    (2) In response to comments, we provided additional detail from the 
Service's existing recovery plans for Isodendrion pyrifolium and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and discussed how the recovery goals and 
objectives for these two plants relate to the recovery of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, in order to further explain the designation 
of critical habitat in unoccupied areas and the inclusion of areas for 
the expansion of existing populations.
    (3) In response to comments, we clarified that utility facilities 
and infrastructure, and their designated, maintained rights-of-way, are 
existing manmade features and structures that are not included in the 
critical habitat designation.
    (4) Based on public comments and information received regarding 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense in Hawaii, we determined that approximately 100 ac 
(40 ha) of unoccupied proposed critical habitat do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat; therefore, we removed these areas from 
this final designation. These areas that do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat include: 34.5 ac (14 ha) in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 
31, 20.8 ac (8 ha) in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32, 17.1 ac (7 ha) in 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34, and 28.7 ac (12 ha) in Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 35.
    (5) For the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, we 
carefully considered the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion in proposed critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, particularly in areas where conservation agreements and management 
plans specific to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense are in place, and where the 
maintenance and fostering of important conservation partnerships were a 
consideration. Based on the results of our analysis, we are excluding 
approximately 7,027 ac (2,844 ha) from our final critical habitat 
designation for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (see Exclusions discussions, 
below). Two entire units of proposed critical habitat are excluded: 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32 (1,758 ac (711 ha)), and Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 35 (1,164 ac (471 ha)). We excluded portions of the proposed 
designation in three other units, including the following: 2,834 ac 
(1,147 ha) of Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31, 593 ac (240 ha) of Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33, and 678 ac (274 ha) of Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 
34. The total area excluded represents approximately 37 percent of the 
area proposed as critical habitat for the three species. Exclusion from 
critical habitat should not be interpreted as a determination that 
these areas are unimportant, that they do not provide physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (for 
occupied areas), or are not otherwise

[[Page 42366]]

essential for conservation (for unoccupied areas); exclusion merely 
reflects the Secretary's determination that the benefits of excluding 
those particular areas outweigh the benefits of including them in the 
designation.
    Due to these changes in our final critical habitat designation, we 
updated unit descriptions and critical habitat maps, all of which can 
be found later in this document. This final designation of critical 
habitat represents a reduction of 7,126 ac (2,886 ha) from our proposed 
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, for the reasons detailed above. 
Additional minor differences between proposed and final critical 
habitat for these species on the order of roughly 3 ac (1 ha) beyond 
those detailed above are due to minor boundary adjustments and simple 
rounding error.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
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 the 
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 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 pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal 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. 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 to access private lands. Such designation 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 would 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.
    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) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which 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 primary 
biological or physical constituent elements (PCEs 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.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be 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 any generalized conservation 
strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the 
species, 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, other 
unpublished materials, or experts' opinions 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 are 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 needed 
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 related to listed 
plants. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species 
outside

[[Page 42367]]

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 these 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, HCPs, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
    On February 11, 2016, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (81 FR 7414) to amend our regulations concerning the 
procedures and criteria we use to designate and revise critical 
habitat. That rule became effective on March 14, 2016, but, as stated 
in that rule, the amendments it sets forth to 50 CFR 424.12 apply to 
``rules for which a proposed rule was published after March 14, 2016.'' 
We published our proposed critical habitat designation for the three 
plant species on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928); therefore, the 
amendments to 50 CFR 424.12 contained in the February 11, 2016, final 
rule at 81 FR 7414 do not apply to this final designation of critical 
habitat for the three plant species.
Recovery Needs
    The lack of detailed scientific data on the life histories of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense precludes development of a robust quantitative 
model (e.g., population viability analysis (Morris et al. 2002, p. 
708)) to identify the optimal number, size, and location of critical 
habitat units needed to achieve recovery. Based on the best information 
available at this time, we have concluded that the current size and 
distribution of the extant populations are not sufficient to expect a 
reasonable probability of long-term survival and recovery of these 
plant species.
    For two of the three plant species, the recovery needs, outlined in 
the approved recovery plans, include: (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 (Recovery Plan for Caesalpinia kavaiensis (now 
Mezoneuron kavaiense) and Kokia drynarioides, June 1994; Recovery Plan 
for the Big Island Plant Cluster, September 1996). Although a recovery 
plan has not yet been developed for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
which we listed as endangered in 2013 (78 FR 64638; October 29, 2013), 
we believe it is reasonable to apply the same approach to this species 
because it has a similar life history, occurs in the same habitat, and 
faces the same threats as the two other plant species with approved 
recovery plans that are addressed in this final rule.
    The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for 
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and applied to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 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 
Hawaii and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC 1998) 
as simply ``recovery objectives''). To be considered recovered, the 
populations of multi-island species should be distributed among the 
islands of its known historical range (Recovery Plan for Caesalpinia 
kavaiensis (now Mezoneuron kavaiense) and Kokia drynarioides, June 
1994; Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster, September 1996; 
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 cross-pollinated 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, short-lived 
perennial, or annual. 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.
    Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, a short-lived perennial herb, is 
known only from the leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano on Hawaii 
Island. Historically, this subspecies was known only from the North 
Kona district in the lowland dry ecosystem. Currently, this subspecies 
is restricted to an area of less than 10 square miles (mi\2\) (26 
square kilometers (km\2\)), in five occurrences totaling fewer than 
1,000 individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem. One occurrence at 
Kaloko is considered reproducing, defined as offspring that reach 
reproductive maturity (produce viable fruit and seeds). The following 
recovery objectives apply to B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla as a short-
lived plant:
     For interim stabilization, 3 populations reproducing and 
increasing in numbers, with at least 50 mature individuals;
     For downlisting (that is, reclassifying from an endangered 
species to a threatened species), 5 to 7 populations documented where 
they now occur or occurred historically, that are naturally 
reproducing, stable, or increasing in number, with a minimum of 300 
mature individuals per population; and
     For delisting (that is, removing from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants), 8 to 10 populations, that are each 
naturally reproducing, stable, or increasing in number, and secure from 
threats, with a minimum of 300 mature individuals per population and 
persisting at this level for a minimum of 5 consecutive years. There is 
no previously designated critical habitat for this subspecies.
    Isodendrion pyrifolium, a short-lived perennial shrub, is known 
from Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. Isodendrion 
pyrifolium was thought to be extinct since 1870, but was rediscovered 
in 1991, in a single occurrence with 50 to 60 individuals at Kealakehe 
on the island of Hawaii. Currently, there are no extant occurrences on 
Niihau, Oahu, Lanai, Molokai, or Maui. On Hawaii Island, only a few 
immature, wild individuals remain at a single location, and 
approximately 90 outplanted individuals occur in four locations in the 
lowland dry ecosystem. One location at Laiopua has reproducing plants. 
The following recovery objectives apply to Isodendrion pyrifolium as a 
short-lived plant:
     For interim stabilization, 3 populations reproducing and 
increasing in numbers, with at least 50 mature individuals;
     For downlisting, 5 to 7 populations documented on islands 
where they now occur or occurred historically, that are naturally 
reproducing, stable, or increasing in number, with a minimum of 300 
mature individuals per population; and
     For delisting, 8 to 10 populations, that are each 
naturally reproducing,

[[Page 42368]]

stable, or increasing in number, and secure from threats, with a 
minimum of 300 mature individuals per population and persisting at this 
level for a minimum of 5 consecutive years.

Critical habitat has been designated for this species on Oahu within 8 
units totaling 1,924 ac (779 ha) (77 FR 57648; September 18, 2012), and 
on the islands of Maui and Molokai within 13 units totaling 21,703 ac 
(8,783 ha) (81 FR 17790; March 30, 2016).
    Mezoneuron kavaiense, a long-lived tree, was known historically 
from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, this species is 
represented by single mature tree on Kauai, five mature trees and two 
seedlings in two populations on Oahu, extirpated on Lanai (two 
outplanted individuals), and extirpated on Maui. On Hawaii Island, M. 
kavaiense is found in six occurrences totaling 72 mature wild and 22 
immature wild individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island 
(USFWS 2015, in litt.). None of these occurrences has reproducing 
plants. In addition, a total of 520 individuals have been reintroduced 
at several sites in the North Kona and Waikoloa regions (USFWS 2015, in 
litt.). The recovery plan for Mezoneuron kavaiense identifies the 
following objectives:
     For downlisting, a minimum of 100 mature individuals in 
each of three populations in the North Kona region on Hawaii Island, 
and 100 mature individuals in each of three populations on each of 
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, and Maui; and
     For delisting, a total of 8 to 10 populations, that are 
each naturally reproducing, stable, or increasing in number, and secure 
from threats, with a minimum of 100 mature individuals per population 
and persisting at this level for a minimum of 5 consecutive years 
(USFWS 1996, p. 118).

There is no previously designated critical habitat for this species.
    The recovery objectives listed above are intended to reduce 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 (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 Isodendrion pyrifolium 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and applied to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, which does not have an approved recovery plan. 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 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 (that is, when delisting is appropriate). Under section 3 of 
the Act, ``conserve'' means to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to this Act are no longer necessary; therefore, we consider meeting 
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 three species in this rule, in terms of providing 
the ability to meet the specified population objectives.
    In conclusion, the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense is 
dependent upon the protection of existing population sites, including 
room for population growth and expansion, and the protection of 
suitable unoccupied habitat within their historical range, to provide 
for the requisite resiliency, redundancy, and representation of 
populations through restoration and reintroductions.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining those areas that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and 
for which designation of critical habitat is considered prudent, by 
identifying the occurrence data for each species and determining the 
ecosystems upon which they depend. This information was developed by 
using:
     The known locations of the three species, including site-
specific species information from the Hawaii Biodiversity Mapping 
Program (HBMP) database (HBMP 2010a; HBMP 2010b; HBMP 2010c), the The 
Nature Conservancy database (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap 
Shapefiles, unpublished), and our own rare plant database;
     Species information from the plant database housed at 
National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG);
     Maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian 
plants, as determined by the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery 
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC 1998, 32 pp. + appendices);
     Maps of important habitat for the recovery of plants 
protected under the Act (USFWS 1999, pp. F12);
     The Nature Conservancy's Ecoregional Assessment of the 
Hawaiian High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps (TNC 2007-Ecosystem 
Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished);
     Color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital aerial photographs for 
the Hawaiian Islands (March 2006 to January 2009);
     Island-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage 
(e.g., Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data of 2005, HabQual data 
of 2014, Landfire data of 2014);
     1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles;
     Geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from 
Hawaii County (2008);
     Species Distribution Models (USFWS 2013, unpublished);
     Recent biological surveys and reports; and
     Discussions with qualified individuals familiar with these 
species and ecosystems.
    Based upon all of this data, we determined the areas that were 
occupied by these species at the time of listing, and whether they 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. In light of the recovery needs of the 
species, we also examined areas that were not occupied at the time of 
listing by one or more of the three species, to identify areas 
essential for the conservation of the species (TNC 2006b, pp. 1-2).

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or

[[Page 42369]]

protection. These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 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.
    For plant species, ecosystems that provide appropriate dryland 
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.
    We derived the specific physical or biological features essential 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense from studies on each of the species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section 
of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), and in the 
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the 
final listing rules published in the Federal Register on October 29, 
2013 (78 FR 64638), for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, on March 4, 
1994 (59 FR 10305), for Isodendrion pyrifolium, and on July 8, 1986 (51 
FR 24672) for Mezoneuron kavaiense; as well as in the Recovery Plan for 
Caesalpinia kavaiensis and Kokia drynarioides (USFWS 1994, pp. 1-91), 
the Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster (USFWS 1996, pp. 1-
252), and the 2003 Final Designation and Nondesignation of Critical 
Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI (68 FR 
39624, July 2, 2003). We have reevaluated the physical and biological 
features for Isodendrion pyrifolium based on the features of the 
ecosystem on which its survival depends, using species information from 
the 2003 Final Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 
46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI (68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003) and new scientific information that has become available since 
that time. Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is found in locations with 
the same substrate age and soil type as Isodendrion pyrifolium and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and is known to share the same land cover 
(vegetation) type as Mezoneuron kavaiense throughout over 85 percent of 
its range (HBMP 2010c). Therefore, we believe that Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla shares the same physical or biological features that 
we have determined for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense. 
We have determined that the three lowland dry plant species (Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense) addressed in this final rule require the physical or 
biological features described in the following paragraphs and 
summarized in Table 2, below.
    Based on the recovery needs of these species discussed above, it is 
essential to conserve suitable habitat in both occupied and unoccupied 
areas, which will in turn allow for the establishment of additional 
populations through natural recruitment or managed reintroductions. 
Establishment of these additional populations will increase the 
likelihood that the species will survive and recover in the face of 
normal and stochastic events (e.g., hurricanes, fire, and nonnative 
species introductions) (Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Pimm et al. 1998, 
p. 777; Stacey and Taper 1992, p. 27). For these reasons, the 
designation of critical habitat limited to the geographic areas 
occupied by the species at the time of listing would be insufficient to 
achieve recovery objectives.
    In this final rule, the physical or biological features are 
described based on the features of the ecosystem on which Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense depend, the lowland dry ecosystem. Ecosystem characteristic 
parameters include elevation, precipitation, substrate (i.e., age of 
lava), and associated native plant genera. The lowland dry ecosystem 
consists of shrublands and forests generally below 3,300 feet (ft) 
(1,000 meters (m)) elevation and receives less than 50 inches (in) (130 
centimeters (cm)) annual rainfall, or otherwise bearing prevailingly 
dry substrate conditions that range from weathered reddish silty loams 
to stony clay soils, rocky ledges with very shallow soil, or relatively 
recent little-weathered lava (TNC 2006b). As conservation of each 
species is dependent upon a functioning ecosystem to provide its 
fundamental life requirements, such as a certain substrate type or 
minimum level of rainfall, we consider the physical or biological 
features present in the lowland dry ecosystem described in this rule to 
provide the necessary physical and biological features for each of the 
three species (see Table 2, below).

           Table 2--Physical and Biological Features* for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Supporting one or more of these associated native plant
                                                            Annual                                                      genera
            Ecosystem                  Elevation         precipitation         Substrate     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Canopy             Subcanopy          Understory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Dry.....................  <3,300 ft (<1,000   <50 in (<130 cm)..  Weathered silty     Diospyros,          Chamaesyce,         Alyxia, Artemisia,
                                   m).                                     loams to stony      Erythrina,          Dodonaea,           Bidens, Capparis,
                                                                           clay, rocky         Metrosideros,       Osteomeles,         Chenopodium,
                                                                           ledges, little-     Myoporum,           Psydrax,            Nephrolepis,
                                                                           weathered lava.     Pleomele,           Scaevola,           Peperomia,
                                                                                               Santalum,           Wikstroemia.        Sicyos.
                                                                                               Sapindus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: These features also represent the primary constituent elements for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron
  kavaiense.

    When designating critical habitat in occupied areas, we focus on 
the physical or biological features that may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protections. In unoccupied habitat, we focus on 
whether the area is essential for the conservation of the species. The 
physical or biological features for occupied areas, in conjunction with 
the unoccupied areas needed to expand and reestablish wild populations 
within their historical range, provide a more accurate picture of the 
geographic areas needed for the recovery of each species. We believe 
this information will be helpful to Federal agencies and our other 
partners, as we collectively work to recover these imperiled species.

[[Page 42370]]

Primary Constituent Elements for the Three Species
    Under the Act and implementing regulations applicable to this rule, 
we are required to identify the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the three plant species in areas 
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' PCEs. 
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.
    The PCEs identified in this final rule take into consideration the 
ecosystem on which these species depend for survival and reflect a 
distribution that we believe is essential to achieving the species' 
recovery needs within the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island. 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 analysis 
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, the PCEs for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense are defined based on 
those physical or biological features essential to support the 
successful functioning of the ecosystem upon which each species 
depends, and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. As the conservation of each species is dependent upon a 
functioning ecosystem to provide its fundamental life requirements, 
such as a certain soil type or minimum level of rainfall, we consider 
the physical or biological features present in the lowland dry 
ecosystem described in this rule to provide the necessary PCEs for each 
of the three species. The ecosystem's features collectively provide the 
suite of environmental conditions essential to meeting the requirements 
of each species, including the appropriate microclimatic conditions for 
germination and growth of plants (e.g., light availability, soil 
nutrients, hydrologic regime, and temperature), 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. In the case of Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
due to its relatively recent rediscovery and limited geographic 
distribution at one known occurrence, the more general description of 
the physical or biological features that provide for the successful 
function of the ecosystem that is essential to the conservation of the 
species represents the only scientific information available. 
Accordingly, for the purposes of this final rule, the physical or 
biological features of a properly functioning lowland dry ecosystem are 
the PCEs essential to the conservation of the three species at issue 
here (see Table 2, above).

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. The following discussion of special management needs is 
applicable to each of the three Hawaii Island species for which we are 
designating critical habitat.
    For Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have determined that the features essential to 
their conservation are those required for the successful functioning of 
the lowland dry ecosystem in which they occur (see Table 2, 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 these three 
species include habitat destruction and modification by development, 
nonnative ungulates, competition with nonnative species, hurricanes, 
fire, drought, and climate change. 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 may require special management 
actions to address the ongoing degradation and loss of habitat caused 
by residential and urban development. Urbanization also increases the 
likelihood of wildfires ignited by human sources. Without protection 
and special management, habitat containing the features that are 
essential for the conservation of these species will continue to be 
degraded and destroyed.
    All designated critical habitat may require active management to 
address the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by 
nonnative ungulates (goats and cattle). Nonnative ungulates also impact 
the habitat through predation and trampling. Without this special 
management, habitat containing the features that are essential for the 
conservation of these species will continue to be degraded and 
destroyed.
    All designated critical habitat may require active management to 
address the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by 
nonnative plants. Special management is also required to prevent the 
introduction and spread of nonnative plant species into native 
habitats. Particular attention is required in nonnative plant control 
efforts to avoid creating additional disturbances that may facilitate 
the further introduction and establishment of invasive plant seeds. 
Precautions are also required to avoid the inadvertent trampling of 
listed plant species in the course of management activities.
    The active control of nonnative plant species will help to address 
the threat posed by fire in all five of the designated critical habitat 
units. This threat is largely a result of the presence of nonnative 
plant species such as the grasses Pennisetum setaceum and Melinis 
minutiflora that increase the fuel load and quickly regenerate after a 
fire. These nonnative grass species can outcompete native plants that 
are not adapted to fire, creating a grass-fire cycle that alters 
ecosystem functions (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 64-66; Brooks et 
al. 2004, p. 680).
    In summary, we find that each of the areas we are designating as 
critical habitat contains features essential for the conservation of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense that may require special management considerations 
or protection to ensure the conservation of the three plant species for 
which we are designating critical habitat. These special management 
considerations and protections are required to preserve and maintain 
the essential features provided to these species by the lowland dry 
ecosystem upon which they depend.

[[Page 42371]]

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense. In accordance with the Act and implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b) applicable to this final rule, we review available 
information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and 
identify areas occupied by the species at the time of listing and any 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to 
be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are designating 
critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla at the time of its listing in 2013, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium at the time of its listing in 1994, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense at the time of its listing in 1986. We also are 
designating critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by these species at the times of their listing because we have 
determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of these 
species.
    We considered several factors in the selection of specific 
boundaries for critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. We determined 
critical habitat unit boundaries taking into consideration the known 
past and present locations of the species, important areas of habitat 
identified by HPPRCC (HPPRCC 1998, entire), recovery areas described by 
species' Recovery Plans (for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense), 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), and 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 (see also Methods, 
above). For these three species, we designate critical habitat only in 
the geographic area of historical occurrence on Hawaii Island, which is 
restricted to the lowland dry ecosystem in the north Kona and south 
Kohala regions. Initial draft boundaries were superimposed over digital 
topographic maps of the island of Hawaii and further evaluated. In 
general, land areas that were identified as highly degraded were 
removed from the final critical habitat units, and natural or manmade 
features (e.g., ridge lines, valleys, streams, coastlines, roads, and 
obvious land features) were 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 
these species, and unoccupied lands that are essential the species' 
conservation, based on their shared dependence on the lowland dry 
ecosystem.
    The critical habitat is a combination of areas occupied by these 
three species at the time of listing, as well as areas that may be 
currently unoccupied. The best available scientific information 
suggests that these species either presently occur within, or have 
occupied, these habitats. The occupied areas provide the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of these species, 
which all depend on the lowland dry ecosystem. However, due to the 
small population sizes, few numbers of individuals, and reduced 
geographic range of each of the three species for which critical 
habitat is here designated, we have determined that a designation 
limited to the areas known to be occupied at the time of listing would 
be inadequate to achieve the conservation of those 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 
habitat necessary for the expansion of existing wild populations and 
reestablishment of wild populations within the historical range of the 
species.
    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 ecosystem 
they have in common. Because the lowland dry ecosystem that supports 
the three plant species addressed here does not form a contiguous area, 
it is divided into five geographic units. Some of the designated 
critical habitat for the three plant species overlies critical habitat 
already designated for other plants on the island of Hawaii. Because of 
the small numbers of individuals or low population sizes of each of 
these three plant species, each requires suitable habitat and space for 
the expansion of existing populations to achieve a level that could 
approach recovery. For example, recent surveys of Isodendrion 
pyrifolium have documented the mortality of the two remaining mature, 
reproducing individuals, leaving only several immature individuals in 
the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island (Wagner 2014b, in litt.; 
Wagner 2016, in litt.) and three individuals represented in off-site 
seed storage collections (PEPP 2011, p. 32). 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 reasoning applies to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense. Further details 
are provided under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below.
    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of the areas occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense at their times of 
listing that contain the physical or biological features essential for 
the recovery and conservation of the three plant species, and the 
unoccupied areas that are needed for the expansion or augmentation of 
reduced populations or reestablishment of populations. The approximate 
size of each of the five plant critical habitat units and the status of 
their land ownership, are identified in Table 3. As noted in Table 3, 
all areas designated for critical habitat designation are found within 
the lowland dry ecosystem. Table 4 identifies the areas excluded from 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below).
    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, railroads, airports, runways, 
utility facilities and infrastructure and their designated and 
maintained rights-of-way, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban 
landscaped areas) because such lands lack the physical or biological 
features essential for the conservation of the three plant species. The 
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the CFR may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. 
Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside 
critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have 
been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical 
habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving these areas would not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat or the 
requirement to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat unless

[[Page 42372]]

the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.

  Table 3--Critical Habitat Designation for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the island of Hawaii
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Size of         Size of                                                                       Corresponding  critical
 Designated critical habitat    section in      section in         State          Federal         County          Private     habitat map in the Code of
            area                   acres         hectares                                                                         Federal Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Hawaii--Lowland Dry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Unit 10...................           2,913           1,179           2,913  ..............  ..............  ..............  Map 39a.
--Unit 31...................           7,067           2,860           7,067  ..............  ..............  ..............  Map 104.
--Unit 33...................             989             400             989  ..............  ..............  ..............  Map 105.
--Unit 34...................             268             109             242  ..............  ..............              27  Map 105.
--Unit 36...................             402             163               5             397  ..............  ..............  Map 105.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient 
physical or biological features to support life-history processes 
essential for the conservation of the species, and lands outside of the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that we have 
determined are essential for the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or 
biological features being present to support the life processes of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense. Some units contain all of the identified elements 
of physical or biological features and support 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.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, and 
refined by accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this 
document in the regulatory portion of this final rule. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. 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-2013-0028, on our 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/, and at the field 
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating 11,640 ac (4,711 ha) as critical habitat in five 
units within the lowland dry ecosystem for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (see 
Table 3, above, for details). Of these five units, 8,443 ac (3,417 ha) 
or 72 percent, was already designated as critical habitat for other 
listed species. The final critical habitat includes land under State, 
County of Hawaii, Federal (Kaloko-Honokohau NHP), and private 
ownership. The critical habitat units we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of those areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the three species of plants. The five critical 
habitat units are: Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 10, Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Unit 31, Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33, Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34, 
and Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36 (see the Regulation Promulgation 
section of this rule, 50 CFR 17.99(k)(115), the Table of Protected 
Species Within Each Critical Unit for the Island of Hawaii, for the 
occupancy status of each unit).
    Because some of the final critical habitat for the three plants 
overlays critical habitat already designated for other plant species on 
the island of Hawaii, we have incorporated the maps of the areas newly 
designated as critical habitat in this final rule into the existing 
critical habitat unit numbering system established for the plants on 
the island of Hawaii in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 
17.99(k). The maps and area descriptions presented here represent the 
critical habitat designation that we have identified for the three 
plant species, subdivided into a total of five units (see Table 3, 
above). The critical habitat unit numbers and the corresponding map 
numbers that will appear at 50 CFR 17.99 are provided for ease of 
reference in the CFR.

Descriptions of the Five Critical Habitat Units

Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 10
    Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 10 consists of 2,913 ac (1,179 ha) of 
State land from Puu Waawaa to Kaupulehu on the northwestern slope of 
Hualalai between the elevations of 1,400 and 2,600 ft (427 and 793 m). 
This unit overlaps portions of previously designated plant critical 
habitat in unit Hawaii 10 (see 50 CFR 17.99(k)), and includes critical 
habitat for the following listed plant species: Bonamia menziesii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Neraudia ovata, 
Nothocestrum breviflorum, and Pleomele hawaiiensis. This unit is 
depicted on Map 39a in the Regulation Promulgation section of this 
rule.
    This unit is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 2, 
above). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat for Mezoneuron 
kavaiense that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 10 is not known to be 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, we have determined this area is also essential for the 
conservation and

[[Page 42373]]

recovery of these two species because it provides the PCEs necessary 
for the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical 
range. Due to their small numbers of individuals, these species require 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or introduction to achieve 
population levels that could approach recovery.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31
    Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31 consists of 7,067 ac (2,860 ha) of 
State land from Puu Waawaa to Kaupulehu on the northwestern slope of 
Hualalai between the elevations of 720 and 1,960 ft (427 and 597 m). 
This unit is not in previously designated plant critical habitat and 
comprises only newly designated plant critical habitat. This unit is 
depicted on Map 104 in the Regulation Promulgation section of this 
rule.
    This unit is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 2, 
above). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat for Mezoneuron 
kavaiense that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31 is not known to be 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, we have determined this area is also essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these two species because it provides the 
PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals, these 
species require suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
introduction to achieve population levels that could approach recovery.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33
    Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 consists of 989 ac (400 ha) of State 
land, from Puukala to Kalaoa on the western slope of Hualalai between 
the elevations of 360 and 1,080 ft (110 and 329 m). This unit is not in 
previously designated critical habitat and comprises only newly 
designated critical habitat. This unit is depicted on Map 105 in the 
Regulation Promulgation section of this rule.
    This unit is unoccupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense; however, it contains 
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 2, 
above). Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 is not known to be 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have determined this area is essential for 
the conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, these species require suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve population 
levels that could approach recovery.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34
    Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 consists of 242 ac (98 ha) of State 
land, and 27 ac (11 ha) of privately owned land for a total of 269 ac 
(109 ha), from Kalaoa to Puukala on the western slope of Hualalai 
between the elevations of 280 and 600 ft (85 and 183 m). This unit is 
not in previously designated critical habitat and comprises only newly 
designated critical habitat. This unit is depicted on Map 105 in the 
Regulation Promulgation section of this rule.
    This unit is unoccupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense; however, it 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 2, 
above). Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 is not known to be 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have determined this area is essential for 
the conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, these species require suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve population 
levels that could approach recovery.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36
    Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36 consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State land 
and 397 ac (161 ha) of Federal land for a total of 402 ac (163 ha), 
near the coastline at Kaloko and Honokohau on the western slope of 
Hualalai between the elevations of 20 and 90 ft (6 and 27 m). This unit 
is not in previously designated critical habitat and comprises only 
newly designated critical habitat. This unit is depicted on Map 105 in 
the Regulation Promulgation section of this rule.
    This unit is occupied by the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland 
dry ecosystem (see Table 2, above). This unit also contains unoccupied 
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla that is essential to the 
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 36 is not known to be occupied by Isodendrion pyrifolium, we 
have determined this area is also essential for the conservation and 
recovery of this lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within its 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, these species require suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction to achieve population levels that could 
approach recovery.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies, 
including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or 
carry out are not likely to 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 that 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.
    We published a final rule defining ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214). ``Destruction or 
adverse modification'' means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are 
not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of

[[Page 42374]]

a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such 
features.
    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 section 7 
consultation process are actions on Federal lands or 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 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 FHWA, Federal 
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and 
actions on State, County, or private lands that are not federally 
funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    At the conclusion 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 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.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where 
we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical 
habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). 
Consequently, Federal agencies may sometimes need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if 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 three species, or would retain its current 
ability for the essential features to be functionally established. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are 
those that result in a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those 
that alter the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of these species or that preclude or significantly delay 
development of such features.
    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 Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. These activities include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Actions that may appreciably degrade or destroy the physical or 
biological features for the species, including, but not limited to, 
overgrazing, maintaining or increasing feral ungulate levels, clearing 
or cutting native live trees and shrubs (e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing, 
construction, road building, mining, herbicide application), and taking 
actions that pose a risk of fire.
    (2) Actions that may alter watershed characteristics in ways that 
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, 
wetland, aquatic, or vegetative communities. Such activities include 
new water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, and 
manipulation of vegetation through activities such as the ones 
mentioned in (1), above.
    (3) Recreational activities that may appreciably degrade 
vegetation.
    (4) Mining sand or other minerals.
    (5) Introducing or facilitating the spread of nonnative plant 
species.
    (6) Importing nonnative species for research, agriculture, and 
aquaculture, and releasing biological control agents.

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 geographical areas owned or controlled by the 
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to 
an integrated natural resources management plan [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.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and 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 he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the 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.

[[Page 42375]]

    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we 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 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to Federal, State, or local laws 
that may apply to critical habitat. We also look at whether these 
benefits might be reduced by the existence of a conservation plan. In 
such cases, 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 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.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to 
encourage new conservation partnerships and future conservation 
efforts. 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.
    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 the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, 
we then determine whether exclusion would result in extinction. 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 landowners, as well as 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 
the following areas from critical habitat designation for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense:

               Table 4--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Area excluded from
  Unit name designated CH + area      Landowner or land     critical habitat, in
   excluded, in acres (Hectares)           manager            acres (Hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 31        Kamehameha Schools...  Total 2,834 (1,147).
 12,814 (4,039).
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32 1,779  Waikoloa Village       Total 1,758 (712).
 (720).                              Association (WVA).
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 1,583  Palamanui Global       502 (203).
 (640).                              Holdings LLC;         91 (30).
                                     Department of         Total 593 (233).
                                     Hawaiian Home Lands
                                     (DHHL).
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 961    Kaloko Entities;       631 (255).
 (389).                              Lanihau Properties.   47 (19).
                                                           Total 677 (274).
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 1,192  County of Hawaii       165 (67).
 (485).                              (State); Hawaii       30 (12).
                                     Housing and Finance   401 (165).
                                     Development           265 (107).
                                     Corporation (HHFDC)   302 (122).
                                     (State); Department   Total 1,164 (471).
                                     of Hawaiian Home
                                     Lands (DHHL); Forest
                                     City Kona; Queen
                                     Liliuokalani Trust
                                     (QLT).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of 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 DEA of the proposed critical 
habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2013, entire). The draft 
analysis, dated April 4, 2013, was made available for public review 
from April 30, 2013, through May 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243; April 30, 
2013); from July 2, 2013, through September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698); and 
from May 20, 2016, through June 6, 2016 (81 FR 31900). The DEA 
addressed potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense. Following the close of the comment periods, a 
final analysis of the potential economic effects of the designation 
(FEA) was developed taking into consideration the public comments and 
any new information received (IEc 2016). We also considered the effects 
of the exclusion of lands owned by Kaloko Properties LLC, which 
resulted in Unit 34 becoming an unoccupied unit.
    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 
analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the 
species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts 
likely to occur with designation of critical habitat.
    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

[[Page 42376]]

conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on development and transportation 
projects.
    The FEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred 
since the listing of the three species (51 FR 24672, July 8, 1986; 59 
FR 10305, March 4, 1994; 78 FR 64638, October 29, 2013), and considers 
those costs that may occur in the 10 years following the designation of 
critical habitat, which was determined to be the appropriate period for 
analysis because limited planning information was available for most 
activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 10-year 
timeframe. The FEA analyzes economic impacts of the conservation 
efforts for these species associated with the following categories of 
activity: Residential and commercial development projects, and 
transportation projects. The FEA concluded that critical habitat 
designation is unlikely to change the outcome of future section 7 
consultations on projects or activities within occupied areas, and that 
incremental impacts due to section 7 consultations in occupied areas 
will most likely be limited to the additional administrative effort of 
considering adverse modification (IEc 2016, p. 2-9). The FEA estimates 
approximately $35,000 over the next 10 years (an annualized impact of 
$4,700, 7 percent discount rate) associated with future section 7 
consultations. Impacts on projects occurring in areas being considered 
for exclusion are expected to be $15,000 (an annualized impact of 
$2,000, 7 percent discount rate) (IEc 2016, p. E-7).
    The FEA concluded that additional impacts, beyond administrative 
costs associated with section 7 consultations, are likely within 
unoccupied areas but limited information is available regarding the 
nature and extent of these impacts and precludes quantification of 
these costs. Two specific projects in unoccupied habitat were 
identified that may be subject to economic impacts due to a critical 
habitat designation. Prior to finalizing this rule, we also evaluated 
the potential economic effects related to a third project in Unit 34, 
which, based on a potential 4(b)(2) exclusion, would become an 
unoccupied unit. The first is a DHHL residential development project 
that is expected to involve the use of Federal funds, and would thus 
require section 7 consultation, but this area is being excluded from 
the critical habitat designation; therefore, any anticipated effects 
due to the designation will not occur. The second is a QLT mixed-use 
development project that is not likely to be subject to a Federal nexus 
and would, therefore, have very little chance of any economic impacts 
due to critical habitat designation. The QLT land is also being 
excluded from the critical habitat designation. The third project is a 
highway extension planned on Kaloko Entities property and State lands 
in proposed Unit 34. With the exclusion of the Kaloko Entities lands, 
this unit would be considered unoccupied, and, therefore, the only 
critical habitat the project would be impacting would be unoccupied 
critical habitat. However, the project would also still be impacting 
occupied areas on the Kaloko Entities lands, and, therefore, a section 
7 jeopardy analysis on the presence of the species within the project 
area would already be required. Because one of the primary threats to 
these species is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation process 
under section 7 of the Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in 
evaluating the effects to these species, evaluate the effects of the 
action on the conservation or function of the habitat for the species 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, 
and will likely result in similar recommended conservation measures. 
Therefore, the cost of critical habitat designation on this project 
would be limited to the additional administrative cost of adding the 
adverse modification analysis to the section 7 jeopardy analysis.
    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 
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 2016, 
p. 2-23).

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    The Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation and the Secretary is not exercising his discretion to 
exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the FEA 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 under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-
0028.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security or Homeland Security

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have 
determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for 
these three species are owned or managed by the Department of Defense 
or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on national security or homeland security. Consequently, the 
Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from 
this final designation based on impacts on national security or 
homeland security.

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 
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements, or 
non-permitted conservation agreements which reduce the benefits of 
critical habitat or partnerships that would be encouraged by exclusion 
from critical habitat. In preparing this final rule, we have determined 
that the final designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense does 
not include any land covered by permitted conservation plans. We 
anticipate no impact to permitted conservation plans from this critical 
habitat designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and 
Partnerships
    We sometimes exclude areas from critical habitat designations based 
in part on the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation 
plans or agreements that can minimize the benefits of critical habitat. 
We may also exclude areas covered by conservation agreements if we 
believe a benefit of exclusion would be to encourage future 
conservation 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

[[Page 42377]]

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. Some of the factors 
that we will consider for non-permitted plans or agreements are listed 
below. These factors are not required elements of plans or agreements, 
and all items may not apply to every plan or agreement.
    1. The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the 
conservation of the species or the essential physical or biological 
features (if present) for the species;
    2. Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan or 
agreement will be implemented;
    3. The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen 
conservation measures;
    4. 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;
    5. The extent of public participation in the development of the 
conservation plan;
    6. The degree to which there has been agency review and required 
determinations (e.g., State regulatory requirements), as necessary and 
appropriate;
    7. Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) compliance was required; and
    8. 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.
    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, reducing 
the benefits of critical habitat. In addition, we consider the 
potential benefits of exclusion where voluntary conservation agreements 
may encourage future conservation actions and partnerships. 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.
    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). 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 non-
Federal 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 non-Federal lands through such 
partnerships than we can through regulatory methods alone (USFWS and 
NOAA 1996e (61 FR 63854, December 2, 1996)).
    Many non-Federal landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of attracting endangered species to their property. Some 
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 non-Federal lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; 
James 2002, pp. 270-271; 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 can result in an anti-conservation 
incentive because of the fear that maintaining habitats for endangered 
species could represent 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 habitat areas for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense occur on 
lands managed by non-Federal entities, collaborative relationships are 
essential for their recovery. These 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 non-Federal 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). We believe it is imperative for the recovery of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense 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 costs.
    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

[[Page 42378]]

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 7,027 ac (2,844 ha) of 
non-Federal lands on the island of Hawaii 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 lands because the 
continuation and strengthening of important conservation partnerships 
with the landowners will increase the likelihood of meaningful 
conservation for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and increase the possibility that 
these partnerships will encourage others to enter into similar 
partnerships. Furthermore, the development and implementation of 
management plans covering portions of these excluded lands increase the 
accessibility 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, 
thereby reducing the benefits of overlying a designation of critical 
habitat. 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 4. Maps 
of each area excluded are provided in our supporting document 
``Supplemental Information for the Designation and Nondesignation of 
Critical Habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense'' available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028. Here we 
present (by landowner) an overview of each of the areas we are 
excluding based on conservation partnerships with the landowners, 
followed by a summary of our analysis of the benefits of inclusion 
versus the benefits of exclusion in each case.
Kamehameha Schools
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretionary authority to exclude from critical habitat lands that are 
owned by the Kamehameha Schools, totaling 2,834 ac (1,147 ha), under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These lands fall within a portion of the 
9,936 ac (4,021 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 31 (77 FR 63928, October 17, 2012), have documented presence 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are 
considered essential to the conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium. 
Kamehameha Schools is a proven conservation partner, as demonstrated, 
in part, by their ongoing management programs that provide important 
conservation benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to 
other federally listed species. These programs include Kamehameha 
Schools Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP), the Three Mountain 
Alliance TMA Management Plan, and the management program on Kamehameha 
Schools lands at Kaupulehu. We have determined that the benefits of 
excluding these lands owned by Kamehameha Schools outweigh the benefits 
of including them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Kamehameha Schools is the largest private landowner in the State of 
Hawaii, owning approximately 375,000 ac (151,757 ha), with 
approximately 297,000 ac (120,192 ha) on Hawaii Island alone. 
Approximately 98 percent of these lands are dedicated to agriculture 
and conservation, and the remaining 2 percent of lands are in 
commercial real estate and properties. Kamehameha Schools is a private 
charitable educational trust established in 1887, through the will of 
Princess Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop. The trust is used primarily to 
operate a comprehensive educational program for students of Hawaiian 
ancestry. In addition, part of the Kamehameha Schools' 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, entire). The maintenance of 
healthy, functioning native ecosystems is a critical component of the 
Kamehameha Schools' integrated management strategy, and is sustained 
through a suite of voluntary actions including invasive weed control, 
native species restoration, ungulate management, rodent control, and 
wildfire mitigation on lands owned by Kamehameha Schools.
    In 1993, the North Kona Dry Forest Working Group was organized to 
address recovery of dry forest ecosystems in the region. The group 
consisted of Kamehameha Schools in partnership with Federal and State 
agencies, other private landowners, conservation organizations, 
scientific researchers, and the Service. The group selected a 5.8-ac 
(2.3-ha) parcel at Kaupulehu Mauka managed by Kamehameha Schools as a 
pilot project to demonstrate the feasibility of economically restoring 
and regenerating the lowland dry forest ecosystem (Hawaii Forest 
Industry Association (HFIA) 1998, p. 3). By 1998, the group had 
successfully demonstrated exclusion of ungulates, removal of fountain 
grass (Pennisetum setaceum), a reduction in rodent populations, and 
establishment of numerous native understory plant species at Kaupulehu 
Mauka. The benefits of these actions for endangered plant recovery 
include reduction in the threat of wildfire, reduction in rodent 
predation of fruits and seeds of native plant species, and increased 
regeneration of native plant species.
    In 1999, the North Kona Dry Forest Working Group received funding 
from the Service's Private Landowner Incentive Program to outplant nine 
endangered plant species and as part of an effort to expand dry forest 
restoration efforts to larger areas within the region (Cordell et al. 
2008, pp. 279-284). The group initiated this effort at Kaupulehu Makai 
(Cordell et al. 2008, pp. 279-284), an approximately 70-ac (28-ha) 
parcel that is managed as part of a larger parcel owned by the 
Kamehameha Schools. Five endangered plant species naturally occur 
within Kaupulehu Makai, including one of the species for which critical 
habitat is designated in this rule, Mezoneuron kavaiense. The other 
four naturally occurring federally listed plant species are Bonamia 
menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Nothocestrum breviflorum, and 
Pleomele hawaiiensis. Four other listed plant species have been 
outplanted here, including Abutilon menziesii, Hibiscadelphus 
hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, and Kokia drynarioides. 
Management actions on the 70-ac (28-ha) parcel have included 
outplanting and care for 100 individuals of each of the nine endangered 
plant species, construction and enlargement of fire

[[Page 42379]]

breaks, repair and maintenance of a fence line to exclude goats and 
sheep, removal of fountain grass, and control of rodent populations.
    In 2004, additional funding was received from the Service's Private 
Stewardship Grants Program for restoration of the lowland dry ecosystem 
within the 70-ac (28-ha) parcel. With the stated goal of discovering 
and demonstrating methods of cost effective control of fountain grass 
and other nonnative species, this project and its collaboration with 
scientific researchers has provided landowners with the tools and 
scientific documentation to restore the lowland dry ecosystems in the 
North Kona region (Cabin et al. 2000; Cabin et al. 2002a; Cabin et al. 
2002b; Thaxton et al. 2010). This project also includes public outreach 
through ongoing volunteer participation to control nonnative plants and 
outplant native plants. Community volunteer participation has become a 
significant part of the continued success of this project, with 
volunteers consisting of school groups, native Hawaiian charter school 
groups, Youth Conservation Corps, and other special interest groups 
(HFIA 2006, in litt.; HFIA 2007, in litt.; HFIA 2008, in litt.).
    Kamehameha Schools helped establish the Three Mountain Alliance 
(TMA) in 2007. That year, Kamehameha Schools signed a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with the other members of the TMA, including the 
Service, to incorporate approximately 253,466 ac (102,785 ha) of its 
lands into the partnership (TMA Management Plan 2007, entire). Of the 
2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of Kamehameha Schools land excluded from this 
critical habitat designation, 650 ac (263 ha) at Kaupulehu, North Kona, 
are within the management area of the TMA, but currently only the 6 ac 
(2.3 ha) at Mauka are actively managed. The TMA management program is 
ongoing and includes: (1) Habitat protection and restoration; (2) 
watershed protection; (3) compatible recreation and ecotourism; (4) 
education, awareness, and public outreach; (5) cultural and historical 
resource protection; and (6) research, monitoring, and management 
program indicators (TMA Management Plan 2007, pp. 26-38). The TMA 
management plan priorities that benefit Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their 
habitat include prioritizing feral animal control (through removal and 
fencing), weed control, human activities management, public education 
and awareness, small mammal control, climate change, and fire 
management (TMA Management Plan 2007, pp. 16-21). The TMA management 
plan and the commitments by Kamehameha Schools to implement the 
conservation actions listed above have led to maintenance or 
enhancement of habitat for these and other native species, or the 
emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present.
    The conservation priorities articulated in the TMA management plan 
have been implemented on the Kamehameha Schools property at Kaupulehu 
in some form or another since the 1993 organization of the North Kona 
Dry Forest Working Group. Beginning with the experimental set-aside at 
Kaupulehu Mauka and continuing with the outplantings at Makai, 
Kamehameha Schools has conducted voluntary, ongoing conservation, and 
we expect they will continue conservation activities in the future. For 
more than 10 years, Kamehameha Schools has carried out active ecosystem 
management at Kaupulehu on the 76 ac (31 ha) of lowland dry forest (70 
ac (28 ha) at Makai, and approximately 6 ac (2.3 ha) at Mauka), with 
intensive management occurring in a 36-ac (15-ha) area. The entire 76-
ac (31-ha) area is fenced, is enclosed by strategic firebreaks, and has 
been maintained as ungulate-free for the past 15 years. Within the 36-
ac (15-ha) intensively managed area, additional management actions 
include the aggressive suppression of fountain grass and other priority 
weeds, suppression of rodent populations, and outplanting of common and 
rare native species (Hannahs 2013, in litt.). Such voluntary threat 
management and restoration actions provide multiple benefits to listed 
plant species, including Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat. In association 
with their site manager of the 76 ac (28 ha) parcel at Kaupulehu 
(Hawaii Forest Industry Association) and the Service, Kamehameha 
Schools is working to complete a 10-year management plan to continue 
their ongoing active ecosystem management of the parcel, as well as a 
potential expansion of management actions into an additional 70 ac (28 
ha) in the surrounding lowland dry ecosystem (Whitehead 2015, in 
litt.).
    In addition to implementing conservation actions on their lands on 
Hawaii Island, Kamehameha Schools has shown a commitment to 
conservation on their lands across the State of Hawaii. In 2011, they 
approved a 10-year Statewide Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP), 
which sets the vision and direction for native ecosystem management on 
all the Kamehameha Schools lands in Hawaii. The NRMP includes broad 
ecologically and culturally based goals and strategies to: (1) Assess 
natural resources integrity; (2) manage priority threats to 
regeneration of native species; (3) restore ecosystem integrity; and 
(4) integrate and enable sustainable use. The NRMP further describes 
specific actions, targets, and metrics for monitoring implementation at 
annual or 5-year intervals. For example, the NRMP identifies the goal 
of limiting habitat loss by suppressing or eliminating priority threats 
to the regeneration of native species, increasing very high-quality 
habitat, and increasing land-based learning experiences to the 3,000 
people served annually. The NRMP includes the following management 
actions designed to address threats to the lowland dry ecosystem: (1) 
Weed control; (2) fencing/hunting to remove ungulates; (3) increasing 
native land cover and biodiversity; (4) maintaining access and fire 
response infrastructure; and (5) developing a restoration strategy. The 
NRMP also identifies the desired goal of increasing the area of habitat 
in restoration within the area being excluded from this designation.
    The Kamehameha Schools is currently implementing the NRMP across 
the State in coordination with previously established site-specific 
plans that often already include the conservation actions in the NRMP, 
such as the program at Kaupulehu, North Kona. As a partner in the West 
Maui Mountain Watershed Partnership, Kamehameha Schools participates in 
the conservation efforts in Paunau, Maui, to control erosion, manage 
ungulate populations, and eradicate invasive species for the purpose of 
maintaining the watershed that provides a continual supply of fresh 
water to the families of Maui. On Oahu, Kamehameha Schools is a partner 
in efforts to restore the wetlands of Uko`a in order to provide a 
healthy native habitat for Hawaii's water birds and other native 
biodiversity. Ongoing work includes a project to fence a 100-ac (40.5-
ha) area to keep out ungulate populations and allow the native 
ecosystem to regenerate and thrive. On Kauai, Kamehameha Schools has 
conducted surveys on the invasive Australian tree fern and is now 
working on mitigation efforts to control spread of the fern.
    As discussed above, Kamehameha Schools NRMP, the TMA Management 
Plan, and the management program on Kamehameha Schools lands at 
Kaupulehu together have provided for the conservation of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and their shared essential physical or

[[Page 42380]]

biological features. Implementation of these programs has been ongoing 
for many years and the Service has a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in these 
conservation plans will continue to be implemented. The plans contain 
monitoring programs to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these Kamehameha Schools lands. According to our records, 
between 2007 and 2016, there were no section 7 consultations conducted 
for projects on these Kamehameha Schools lands, indicating little 
likelihood of a future Federal nexus on these lands that would 
potentially trigger the consideration of adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat through section 7 consultation.
Waikoloa Village Association (WVA)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretion to exclude 1,758 ac (712 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by the WVA. These 
lands include almost the entirety of the 1,779 ac (720 ha) proposed as 
critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32; this area 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). 
The WVA has a history of voluntarily facilitating and supporting the 
conservation of federally listed species and habitat essential to their 
recovery on their privately owned lands, and recently signed a MOU that 
formalizes their partnership with the Service. We have determined that 
the benefits of excluding these lands owned by the WVA outweigh the 
benefits of including them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Waikoloa Village is a rapidly growing suburban community situated 
on the leeward slope of Mauna Kea volcano at approximately 1,100 ft 
(335 m) elevation in the district of South Kohala on Hawaii Island. The 
WVA, which represents the community through an elected Board of 
Directors, owns and manages the village golf course and approximately 
10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of land that surround the village. In 2009, the 
non-profit Waikoloa Village Outdoor Circle secured funding for the 
Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project from the State of Hawaii Forest 
Stewardship Program and Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) 
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program. The 10-year project (from 2009 to 
2019) has proven successful at protecting existing Mezoneuron kavaiense 
individuals, restoring native forest around a remnant patch of lowland 
dry wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis) forest, and creating new 
populations of nine endangered plant species. The project's management 
program includes: (1) Construction and maintenance of a fence to 
exclude ungulates from a 275-ac (111-ha) area of dry forest south of 
Waikoloa Village; (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) the establishment of common native 
and endangered plant species; and (7) education and community outreach 
activities. In 2011, a new nonprofit, the Waikoloa Dry Forest 
Initiative Inc. (WDFI), was formed to take over responsibility of the 
Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project. In 2012, the WVA Board of 
Directors granted WDFI permission to protect and restore the 275-ac 
(111-ha) dry forest area on WVA lands in the proposed critical habitat 
Hawaii-Lowland Dry-Unit 32 for a period of 75 years by way of a license 
agreement with WDFI.
    In total, the Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project's budget is over 
$1 million, which includes funding from the State of Hawaii Forest 
Stewardship Program, NRCS, and in-kind contributions (Waikoloa Dry 
Forest Recovery Project 2009). Since 2009, the project has successfully 
completed construction of the fence around the 275-ac (111-ha) dry 
forest area, conducted ungulate removal from within the fenced 
exclosure, controlled nonnative plant species, and propagated and 
outplanted common and federally listed native plant species, including 
the federally listed Abutilon sandwicense, Achyranthes mutica, Bonamia 
menziesii, Chrysodracon (=Pleomele) hawaiiensis, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Kokia drynarioides, Melanthera (=Lipochaeta) venosa, 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum breviflorum, 
Sesbania tomentosa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, and Vigna o-
wahuensis. In addition, WDFI conducts regular guided tours, volunteer 
work trips, and an annual festival that provides educational 
opportunities for the community to learn about conservation of listed 
species and the lowland dry ecosystem.
    In addition to cooperating with WDFI, in April 2014, the WVA signed 
an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement additional 
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 Waikoloa Village Association and U.S. Department 
of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). The WVA agreed to 
set aside from development a 60-ac (24-ha) parcel adjacent to the 
Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project's 275-ac (111-ha) exclosure, and 
work cooperatively with the Service or other approved conservation 
partners to conduct activities expected to benefit Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and 
the lowland dry ecosystem. Adaptive management strategies may include 
monitoring, fencing, ungulate removal, nonnative plant control, 
outplanting of target species, and other management actions intended to 
benefit listed species or the lowland dry ecosystem. Implementation has 
already been initiated on the following action agreed to in the MOU: 
set aside from development a 60-ac (24-ha) parcel adjacent to the 
Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project's 275-ac (111-ha) exclosure.
    As discussed above, the Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project 
conducted with the cooperation of WVA has provided for the conservation 
of Mezoneuron kavaiense on WVA lands. Although the conservation area is 
unoccupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, by conserving Mezoneuron kavaiense, the Project also 
conserves the shared physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and 
Isodendrion pyrifolium. Implementation of the program has been ongoing 
for many years, and is expected to continue on the 275-ac (111-ha) dry 
forest reserve until 2087. The plan contains a monitoring program to 
ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be modified 
in the future in response to new information. Furthermore, WVA's 2014 
MOU with the Service augments the reserve area with 60 ac (24 ha) of 
additional

[[Page 42381]]

protected habitat. The WVA's history of conservation actions, their 
willingness to supplement those actions with a new MOU with the Service 
for the protection of additional acreage, and their steps to implement 
the MOU give the Service a reasonable expectation that WVA will 
continue to implement the conservation management strategies and 
actions for the Waikola Dry Forest Recovery Project and those contained 
in the MOU.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these WVA lands. According to our records, between 2007 and 
2016, there were two informal consultations conducted regarding 
projects receiving Federal funding on WVA lands. The 2008 consultation 
with NRCS involved the implementation of conservation actions for the 
Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project. The project was determined not 
likely adversely affect listed species or critical habitat in the 
action area. The second consultation with FEMA in 2013 involved the 
construction of a dip tank to improve fire suppression capabilities in 
West Hawaii. The project was also determined not likely to adversely 
affect any listed species or critical habitat in the action area. This 
history indicates the potential for a future Federal nexus on these 
lands that could trigger the consideration of adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat through section 7 consultation; 
however, these consultations were for actions aimed, directly or 
indirectly, at facilitating conservation efforts. Also, the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense on these lands would trigger a section 7 
consultation on effects to the species even without a critical habitat 
designation. As discussed in Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 
Benefits of Inclusion, below, we determined that the benefits of 
excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits that 
may be derived from this potential Federal nexus.
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC (Palamanui)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands that are owned by 
Palamanui, totaling 502 ac (203 ha). These lands fall within a portion 
of the 1,583 ac (640 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33 (77 FR 63928, October 17, 2012), have documented 
presence of Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are considered essential to the 
conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion 
pyrifolium. 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. These actions include a 
voluntary conservation partnership and conservation agreement with the 
Service and ongoing site-specific management on their lands for the 
conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats. We have 
determined that the benefits of excluding these lands owned by 
Palamanui outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Palamanui is developing a mixed-use residential and commercial 
project on 725 ac (293 ha) in the land division of Kau, North Kona 
district, Hawaii Island (Group 70 International 2004, p. 1-5; Case 
2013, in litt.). A portion of this development will provide supporting 
infrastructure for the proposed University of Hawaii West campus 
located on adjacent State land. In 2005, the area's previous owner, 
Hiluhilu Development LLC, developed an integrated natural and cultural 
resources management plan (INCRMP) as part of a petition to reclassify 
the 725 ac (293 ha) of land to the Urban District for the development 
project at North Kona (Land Use Commission Docket A03-744 2005). The 
INCRMP addressed preservation, mitigation, management, and stewardship 
measures for the natural and cultural resources at the Palamanui 
development, and included a phased management program for biological 
resources with the following goals: (1) Creation of a lowland dry 
forest preserve and smaller reserves to protect rare and endangered 
plants; (2) establishment of the Palamanui Dry Forest Working Group; 
(3) hiring of a reserve coordinator; (4) reduction of fire threat; (5) 
construction of fences around preserve areas and exclosures around 
endangered tree species; (6) control of invasive weeds; (7) control of 
nonnative predators; (8) protection of rare and endangered species 
outside dry forest preserve; (9) creation of a native plant restoration 
program; (10) provision of an updated biological inventory of preserve 
areas and information on native invertebrates and the endangered 
Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus); and (11) development of 
an interpretive program for natural and cultural resources (Hiluhilu 
Development 2005, Exhibit D). To date, Palamanui has successfully 
implemented the following conservation actions: (1) Fencing to protect 
a 55-ac (22-ha) lowland dry forest 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 
critical habitat rule (77 FR 63928), Palamanui participated in a series 
of collaborative meetings with the Service, County of Hawaii, DHHL, 
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), and other 
landowners in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address 
species protection and recovery, and development on a regional scale. 
These discussions resulted in a cooperative approach to setting aside 
acreage adjacent to other landowners in order to protect larger areas 
of contiguous habitat from development. In 2015, Palamanui signed a MOU 
with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important 
conservation actions beneficial to the three species, as well as other 
rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry 
ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding Between Palamanui Global 
Holdings LLC and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 
2015, entire). Palamanui agreed to increase the area of fenced and 
managed lowland dry forest protected within the 55-ac (22-ha) 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 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 
breached the fence and

[[Page 42382]]

entered the preserve; (3) regular weed control in the preserve; and (4) 
propagation, outplanting, and maintenance of listed species in the 
preserve (Wagner 2016b, in litt., Wagner 2016c, in litt).
    As discussed above, Palamanui's protection of the lowland dry 
forest species and habitat through the INCRMP has provided for the 
conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense and the physical or biological 
features that are essential to its conservation. Although the 
conservation area is unoccupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla 
and Isodendrion pyrifolium, by conserving Mezoneuron kavaiense, the 
INCRMP also conserves the shared physical and biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla 
and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The plan has had ongoing implementation for 
many years, and Palamanui has committed to continuing the effort into 
the future (based on their 2015 MOU with the Service). The plan 
contains a monitoring program to ensure that the conservation measures 
are effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information. The 2015 MOU with the Service includes augmentation of the 
existing 55-ac (22-ha) preserve by an additional 19 ac (7.7 ha), as 
well as a commitment to fund conservation actions in the preserved 
areas for the next 20 years. Palamanui's history of conservation 
actions, their cooperation in the development and finalization of the 
MOU, and their initial steps to implement the MOU give the Service a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions contained in the MOU will continue to be implemented.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these Palamanui lands. According to our records, between 
2007 and 2016, there were no section 7 consultations conducted for 
projects on these Palamanui lands, indicating little likelihood of a 
future Federal nexus on these lands that would potentially trigger the 
consideration of adverse modification or destruction of critical 
habitat through section 7 consultation.
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands that are owned by 
DHHL, totaling 492 ac (199 ha). These lands fall within portions of two 
proposed critical habitat 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 (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012); this DHHL land has no 
documented presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense but is considered essential to the 
conservation of all three. 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 (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012); this DHHL land has documented 
presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense. Currently, the DHHL has the responsibility of 
managing approximately 200,000 ac (80,900 ha) in the State of Hawaii 
for the purposes of providing homestead leasing opportunities for 
native Hawaiians. The DHHL 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. These actions include a 
voluntary conservation partnership and conservation agreement with the 
Service and ongoing site-specific management on their lands for the 
conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats. We have 
determined that the benefits of excluding these lands owned by DHHL 
outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense.
    At Kealakehe, the DHHL is developing a portion of the Villages of 
Laiopua (Laiopua), a master-planned community with single- and multi-
family residential units, recreational facilities, community 
facilities, parks, and archaeological and endangered plant preserve 
sites (DHHL 2009, pp. 12-13). From 1996 to 2006, DHHL acquired 685 ac 
(277 ha) of the roughly 1,000-ac (405-ha) development from the previous 
owner Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) 
(formerly Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii 
(HCDCH)). The HHFDC had developed a mitigation plan with the Service 
and Hawaii Department of Fish and Wildlife (DOFAW) (Belt Collins 1999) 
for the listed and other rare plant species affected by the proposed 
development as part of a section 7 consultation with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) on wastewater treatment for Laiopua (USFWS 
1990). The plan was finalized in 1999, and included the following 
conservation actions: (1) Construction requirements for fire prevention 
and control, and to avoid construction impacts to endangered plants; 
(2) development of eight mini-preserves (each approximately 0.03 ac, 
for a total of 0.24 ac (0.1 ha)) and two principal preserves totaling 
approximately 37 ac (15 ha); (3) a secured and managed off-site 
mitigation area (tied to the development of villages 9 and 10) of 
approximately 100 to 150 ac (40 to 61 ha); and (4) propagation and on-
site planting of endangered and common native plant species, and 
management, monitoring, and reporting (Belt Collins 1999).
    The transfer agreements between the HHFDC and DHHL included 
acknowledgement of the need to conform with the portions of the 1999 
Plan related to the lands that DHHL acquired (including management of 
the preserves), and the need to consult with the Service and the DLNR 
on endangered and threatened species issues (HHFDC and DHHL 1997; BLNR 
et al. 2000; HCDCH and DHHL 2004; HCDCH and DHHL 2006). On May 17, 
2007, in association with a section 7 consultation with the U.S. 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding funding under the Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (25 
U.S.C. 4101 et seq.), the Service determined the DHHL development of 
Villages 1, 2, 4, and 5, and associated park and community facilities 
totaling approximately 235 ac (95 ha), were not likely to adversely 
affect the endangered Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
or any designated critical habitat for listed species (USFWS 2007, in 
litt.). As part the proposed action, DHHL agreed to: (1) Minimize 
impacts to listed species and their habitats during construction; (2) 
develop and implement a revised endangered species management plan for 
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense; and (3) construct and 
manage the two principal preserves and the mini preserves (for Villages 
3, 4, and 5) from the 1999 plan, and an archaeological preserve 
totaling approximately 66 ac (27 ha) (Kane 2007, in litt.). The DHHL 
subsequently committed two parcels (totaling 40 ac) and four mini 
preserves (each between 0.1 and 0.4 acres, for a total of approximately 
1 ac (0.4 ha)) for the development, management, and maintenance as 
preserves with the sole purpose of protecting Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other 
endangered species (Masagatani

[[Page 42383]]

2012, in litt.), and set aside an area identified for protection of 
archaeological resources; all protected areas totaled approximately 73 
ac (29 ha). The DHHL also agreed to allocate $250,000 per year over a 
2-year period to fund management of the preserves. The 100- to 150-ac 
(40- to 61-ha) off-site mitigation area from the 1999 plan addressing 
development of Villages 9 and 10 was not created because Village 9 and 
10 were not developed. The DHHL has protected all of the 21.7 ac (8.8 
ha) for Village 10 from development, as discussed below. The HHFDC owns 
the land slated for Village 9; they protected from development a 4.2-ac 
(1.7-ha) portion of this area that is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Since 2010, the DHHL has committed approximately $1,198,052 for the 
development and management of the two larger preserves and four mini 
preserves at Kealakehe (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) promotion of 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, DLNR, and other stakeholders in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection 
and recovery, and development on a regional scale. These discussions 
resulted in a cooperative approach to setting aside acreage adjacent to 
other landowners in order to protect larger areas of contiguous habitat 
from development. In 2015, the DHHL signed a MOU with the Service 
wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions 
beneficial to the recovery of the three species, 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, 
entire). DHHL agreed to protect the 73 ac (29 ha) of existing preserves 
and to set aside and not develop two additional parcels totaling 24 ac 
(10 ha) (one 2 ac (0.8 ha) area and another 21.7 ac (8.8 ha) area); in 
total the protected area is approximately 97 ac (39 ha) to benefit the 
recovery of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the lowland dry ecosystem. The 21.7-ac 
(8.8-ha) portion of the additional 24 ac (10 ha) protected from 
development by DHHL is the site of proposed Village 10 and is adjacent 
to the 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) protected from development by the HHFDC (Village 
9) and another 22 ac (8.9 ha) set aside by the County; 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 DHHL also agreed in the MOU to fund 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 actions from 
the 1999 plan (control and the prevention of the threat of fire; 
control and removal of nonnative plant species; and propagation, 
outplanting, and care of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other rare and endangered 
plant species) as well as the following additional actions: (1) 
Installation and maintenance of a 6-ft-tall, hog wire, ungulate-proof 
fence around each protected area; (2) construction and maintenance of a 
20-ft (6-m) wide firebreak and fence line around these fences; (3) 
sufficient control of nonnative plant species to prepare the land for 
out-planting of covered species; (4) out-planting of covered species; 
(5) weeding after initial preparation and re-weeding/re-planting the 
entire area at regular intervals after the entire area has been weeded 
and out-planted once; and (6) allowing site visits by the Service. 
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; (3) 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 (a threat to the endangered Hawaiian 
hoary bat); (4) site preparation for outplanting; (5) outplanting of 
200 listed plants on 5 ac (2 ha) per year inside the main Aupaka 
preserve; and (6) and weekly monitoring of all outplants (Wagner 2017b, 
in litt).
    As discussed above, the development and management of the preserves 
at Kealakehe has provided for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The 
conservation effort has been occurring since DHHL took over ownership 
and management of the land, and DHHL has committed to continuing the 
effort into the future based on their 2015 MOU with the Service. The 
effort includes an annual progress evaluation to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be modified in the future 
in response to new information. The MOU augments the original 75-ac 
(29-ha) preserve with an additional 24 ac (10 ha) and includes a 
commitment to fund conservation actions into the future. The DHHL's 
history of conservation actions, their cooperation in the development 
and finalization of their MOU with the Service, and their steps to 
implement the MOU give the Service a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in the MOU 
will continue to be implemented.
    The DHHL has worked in other areas on the Island of Hawaii to 
protect and restore endangered and threatened species and their 
habitats. 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. The 
Aina Mauna Legacy Program is removing all feral ungulates from the Aina 
Mauna landscape, and several projects have included fenced units where 
pigs and cattle have been removed (DHHL 2009, pp. 19-21). Projects that 
have been implemented to date have received funding from the Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and included 10-year landowner 
agreements between the Service and the landowners (including DHHL) to 
maintain the conservation actions; other partners involved include the 
State of Hawaii, the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, and the 
Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance. Conservation actions that have been 
implemented for these projects include: (1) Management of 650 ac (263 
ha) of native koa (Acacia koa) buffer between the invasive nonnative 
gorse and the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2014a, in 
litt.); (2) restoration of 2 mi (3.2 km) of riparian habitat along 
Nauhi Gulch (USFWS 2014b, in litt.); (3) protection and restoration of 
approximately 1,100 ac (445 ha) of montane wet and montane mesic native 
forest within the Waipahoehoe Management Unit (USFWS 2015b, in litt.); 
and (4) habitat

[[Page 42384]]

restoration and protection of 525 ac (212 ha) of the Kanakaleonui Bird 
Corridor.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these DHHL lands. According to our records, between 2007 and 
2016, there were three informal consultations conducted regarding 
projects receiving Federal funding on DHHL lands in proposed Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 35 (in 2007, 2010, and 2014). The 2007 project funded 
by HUD (discussed above), entailed the development of four residential 
subdivisions and the establishment of endangered species preserve areas 
at the Villages of Laiopua, Kealakehe, North Kona. Based on the 
conservation measures for the endangered plants Isodendrion pyrifolium 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the candidate plant (at the time) Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, we concurred that this project was not 
likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat (USFWS 
2007, in litt.). A second consultation in 2010 involved the 
construction of Phase 1A of the Ane Keohokalole Highway within a right 
of way adjacent to DHHL lands containing Isodendrion pyrifolium. Based 
on the conservation measures for Isodendrion pyrifolium, we concurred 
that this project was not likely to adversely affect listed species or 
critical habitat (USFWS 2010a, in litt.). The 2014 project, also funded 
by HUD, was for the construction of the Laiopua 2020 community center, 
with a project footprint of 4.53 ac (1.83 ha). Based on the 
conservation measures incorporated into the project description and the 
small project footprint, we concurred that this project was not likely 
to adversely affect listed species or proposed critical habitat. This 
history indicates the potential for a future Federal nexus on these 
lands that could trigger section 7 consultation on effects to critical 
habitat. In addition, a future residential project planned for 
development on the 91 ac (30 ha) of DHHL lands at Kalaoa in proposed 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 is likely to involve a Federal nexus (DHHL 
2002, pp. 25-26). However, as discussed below under Benefits of 
Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion, we determined that the 
benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the 
benefits that may be derived from this potential Federal nexus.
Kaloko Entities
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretion to exclude 631 ac (255 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned or managed by Kaloko 
Entities. These lands fall within a portion of the 961 ac (389 ha) 
proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 (77 FR 
63928, October 17, 2012), have documented presence of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are considered essential 
to the conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium. Kaloko Entities is a new 
conservation partner with a willingness to engage in ongoing management 
programs that provide important conservation benefits to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and federally 
listed species. We have determined that the benefits of excluding these 
lands owned or managed by Kaloko Entities outweigh the benefits of 
including them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The Kaloko Entities, established in 2016, manages approximately 
1,203 ac (487 ha) in the district of North Kona, on Hawaii Island, 
including 631 ac (255 ha) originally proposed for designation of 
critical habitat but excluded by this final rule. The Kaloko Entities 
consists of: (1) Kaloko Residential Park LLC, a Hawaii limited 
liability company (new owner of lands formerly owned by SCD-TSA Kaloko 
Makai LLC and Kaloko Properties Corporation); and (2) TSA LLC, a Hawaii 
limited liability company (formerly known as TSA Corporation).
    Conservation activities on these excluded lands date back to a 2010 
section 7 consultation by the FHWA associated with the construction of 
Phase 1A Package B of the Ane Keohokalole Highway (USFWS 2010b, in 
litt.). As a result of that consultation, SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC 
agreed to set aside 150 ac (61 ha) of this area as a dryland forest 
reserve and participate in implementing conservation measures as a 
condition for issuance of a county grading permit. SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai 
LLC worked cooperatively with FHWA and the County of Hawaii by 
providing access to its lands for implementation of FHWA-funded 
conservation actions in the 150-ac (61-ha) set-aside. The FHWA 
conservation measures that addressed impacts of construction of the 
portion of Ane Keohokalole Highway from Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani 
Street ended in 2015.
    In 2011, SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai, LLC prepared a draft habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) under State law to address the impacts of their 
planned Kaloko Makai Development, a mixed use development on 1,139 ac 
(461 ha) in the Kaloko-Kohanaiki area, Kona, Hawaii; approximately 605 
ac (245 ha) of this area was included in proposed Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Unit 34 (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). The draft HCP was available 
for public comment as a supporting document with the publication of the 
October 17, 2012, proposed designation. The conservation measures in 
the draft HCP were designed to address impacts to four endangered 
species (Chrysodracon (Pleomele) hawaiiensis, Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum breviflorum), one (at the time) candidate 
plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla), and the Kaloko dry 
forest. These measures included: (1) Establishment of a preserve to 
protect in perpetuity the 150-ac (61-ha) set-aside of dry forest from 
the 2010 consultation; (2) propagation and planting of three listed 
plants for each listed plant taken; (3) implementation of a fire plan; 
and (4) removal of invasive plant species around listed plant species 
in the preserve (Hookuleana 2011, pp. 10-11). During the public comment 
periods following the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
critical habitat designation (77 FR 63928), the Service continued to 
reach out to State, County, and private landowners, including several 
meetings between the Service and representatives of SCD-TSA Kaloko 
Makai, LLC. On June 6, 2016, during the second reopened comment period 
on the proposed critical habitat designation, the Service was notified 
of the new management and consultant team representing the Kaloko 
Entities. The comment letter expressed an interest to engage in 
discussions with the Service regarding conservation of key habitats on 
their property. The Kaloko Entities also noted that all development 
plans for the Kaloko Makai Development have been deferred with the 
transfer of ownership of those lands from SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC and 
Kaloko Properties Corporation to Kaloko Residential Park LLC (Mukai 
2016, in litt.).
    In October 2016, the Kaloko Entities entered into a 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

[[Page 42385]]

and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of 
Understanding between Kaloko Entities and U.S. Department of Interior 
Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, entire). The MOU established a 
partnership between Kaloko Entities and the Service to benefit the 
recovery of endangered species and their habitats for the next 26 
years. Kaloko Entities previously agreed to set aside 150 ac (61 ha) as 
a preserve to benefit the conservation of 10 rare and endangered plant 
and animal species and the lowland dry ecosystem. In the 2016 MOU, 
Kaloko Entities committed to pursuing protection of the preserve in 
perpetuity via transfer or donation of the preserve to a third party. 
Kaloko Entities will also construct a fence to exclude ungulates from 
the preserve. The MOU includes a commitment from Kaloko Entities to 
provide $2,000,000 towards the implementation of on-site conservation 
actions that will benefit the recovery of the three plant species and 
the lowland dry ecosystem. Conservation actions include fence 
maintenance, the establishment of fire breaks, weeding, outplanting, 
irrigation, ungulate removal, monitoring, and associated activities 
(including necessary staking and soil surveys) to conserve covered 
species, additional species, and dry forest ecosystem within the 
preserve. The plan contains a monitoring program to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be modified in the future 
in response to new information. Kaloko Entities' protection of the 
lowland dry forest species and habitat through their MOU with the 
Service will provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the 
physical or biological features that are essential to their 
conservation. Implementation has already been initiated on the 
following action agreed to in the MOU: Provide funding towards the 
implementation of on-site conservation actions.
    As discussed above, Kaloko Entities' protection of the lowland dry 
forest species and habitat through the 2010 section 7 consultation by 
the FHWA has provided for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium on Kaloko 
Entities lands. The 2016 MOU with the Service includes a commitment to 
fund $2,000,000 towards the implementation of conservation actions in 
the preserve. The effort includes an annual progress evaluation to 
ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be modified 
in the future in response to new information. Kaloko Entities' history 
of conservation actions, their cooperation in the development and 
finalization of the MOU, and their initial steps to implement the MOU 
give the Service a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in the MOU will continue to 
be implemented.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these Kaloko Entities lands. According to our records, 
between 2007 and 2016, there were two informal consultations regarding 
projects receiving Federal funding on Kaloko Entities lands. In 2008, 
the Service concluded that the construction of the Kaloko Transitional 
Housing Project funded by HUD on lands previously owned TSA Corporation 
was not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. 
In 2010, the second consultation (discussed earlier in this summary) 
involved construction of Phase 1A Package B of Ane Keohokalole Highway 
funded by the FHWA, and incorporated measures to minimize impacts to 
the endangered plants, Nothocestrum breviflorum, Mezoneuron kavaiense, 
Neraudia ovata, and Chrysodracon (Pleomele) hawaiiensis, and the (at 
that time) candidate Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla on lands owned 
by Kaloko Properties Corporation and Stanford Carr Development. This 
consultation resulted in the 150-ac (61-ha) short-term set-aside 
(facilitated by the County) protected from development, and $500,000 
committed by FHWA for conservation actions in the set-aside over a 5-
year period ending in 2015. Based on the above conservation measures, 
we concurred that this project was not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or existing critical habitat. This history, as well as 
the planned future extension of the Ane Keohokalole Highway discussed 
in the FEA (IEc 2016, p. 2-8), indicates the potential for a future 
Federal nexus on these lands that could trigger section 7 consultation 
on effects to critical habitat, although the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense on these lands 
would trigger a section 7 consultation on effects to the species even 
without a critical habitat designation. As discussed below under 
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion, we determined 
that the benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits that may be derived from this potential Federal 
nexus.
Lanihau Properties
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretion to exclude 47 ac (19 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned 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 (77 FR 63928, October 
17, 2012), have documented presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, and are considered essential to the conservation of 
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense. Lanihau Properties 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. These actions include a voluntary conservation 
partnership and a conservation MOU with the Service and ongoing site-
specific management on their lands for the conservation of rare and 
endangered species and their habitats. We have determined that the 
benefits of excluding these lands owned by Lanihau Properties outweigh 
the benefits of including them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Lanihau Properties, LLC, and its affiliates the Palani Ranch 
Company and the Kaumalumalu, LCC (collectively with Lanihau Properties 
called the ``Lanihau Group'') manage certain lands in the district of 
North Kona, on Hawaii Island. Subsequent to the publication of the 
October 17, 2012, proposed critical habitat rule (77 FR 63928), Lanihau 
Properties participated in a series of collaborative meetings along 
with the Service, County of Hawaii, DHHL, DLNR, and other stakeholders 
in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species 
protection and recovery, and development on a regional scale. These 
discussions resulted in a cooperative approach to setting aside acreage 
adjacent to other landowners in order to protect larger areas of 
contiguous habitat from development.
    In 2014, Lanihau Properties entered into a 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

[[Page 42386]]

ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Lanihau Properties and 
U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). 
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 4.6 ac 
(1.9 ha) previously set aside as a dryland forest reserve as a 
condition for issuance of a county grading permit associated with the 
construction of Phase 1A Package B of the Ane Keohokalole Highway 
(USFWS 2010, in litt.), and to work cooperatively with the Service to 
allow entry access and work by the Service (or entities working under 
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with the Service including 
the County of Hawaii) to conduct activities in the no-development area 
expected to benefit the conservation of the three species and the 
lowland dry ecosystem for the next 20 years. Conservation measures that 
the Service may undertake in the no-development area include: (1) 
Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control of nonnative plant species; 
(3) outplanting of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and common 
native plant species; and (4) provision of supplemental water to 
outplanted individuals, and other actions pre-approved by the Lanihau 
Properties. Implementation has already been initiated on the following 
action agreed to in the MOU: Set aside and not undertake development in 
an approximately 16-ac (6-ha) area of lands under its management.
    As discussed above, Lanihau Properties' protection of the lowland 
dry forest species and habitat through their 2014 MOU with the Service 
will provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the 
physical or biological features that are essential to their 
conservation. In light of their prior conservation efforts and the fact 
that they have begun implementation of the 2014 MOU, there is a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions contained in the MOU will continue to be implemented. The plan 
contains a monitoring program to ensure that the conservation measures 
are effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these Lanihau Properties lands. According to our records, 
between 2007 and 2016, there was one informal consultation finalized in 
2010 regarding projects receiving Federal funding on Lanihau Properties 
lands. The consultation involved construction of Phase 1A Package B of 
Ane Keohokalole Highway funded by the FHWA and incorporated measures to 
minimize impacts to the endangered plants, Nothocestrum breviflorum, 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, Neraudia ovata, and Chrysodracon (Pleomele) 
hawaiiensis, and the (at that time) candidate Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla on lands owned by Lanihau Properties and Stanford Carr 
Development. This consultation resulted in 150-ac (61-ha) set-aside 
(facilitated by the County) protected from development, and $500,000 
committed by FHWA for conservation actions in the 150-ac (61-ha) set-
aside over 5 years. Based on the above conservation measures, we 
concurred that this project was not likely to adversely affect listed 
species or existing critical habitat. While this history indicates a 
small potential for a future Federal nexus on these lands that could 
trigger the consideration of adverse modification or destruction of 
critical habitat through section 7 consultation, the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla these lands would trigger a section 7 
consultation on effects to the species even without a critical habitat 
designation. As discussed below under Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 
the Benefits of Inclusion, we determined that the benefits of excluding 
these lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits that may be 
derived from this potential Federal nexus.
County of Hawaii
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by the State of 
Hawaii that are under management of the County of Hawaii (or County), 
totaling 165 ac (67 ha). These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 
ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 
35 (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), have documented presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are considered essential to the conservation 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The 
County 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. These actions include a voluntary 
conservation partnership and conservation agreement with the Service 
and ongoing site-specific management on their lands for the 
conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats. We have 
determined that the benefits of excluding these lands managed by the 
County outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat for 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The County of Hawaii owns or manages over 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) on 
Hawaii Island and is pursuing the development of a regional park on 193 
ac (78 ha) in Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii Island. In 2011, the 
Governor of the State of Hawaii set aside these 193 ac (78 ha) from the 
DLNR to be under the control and management of the County for the 
purposes of wastewater reclamation, a golf course, and/or a public park 
(Governor's Executive Order No. 4355).
    The County has been voluntarily cooperating with the Service in the 
conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats for 
several years. In 2010, in association with their management of the 
construction of Phase 1A Package B of the Ane Keohokalole Highway by 
the FWHA, the County helped negotiate protection from development of 
over 150 ac (61 ha) of lowland dry ecosystem habitat in the Kaloko dry 
forest known to contain numerous listed plant species (USFWS 2010, in 
litt.). This project did not involve County lands, but the land has 
since come under County management through an easement. Subsequent to 
the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, the County 
participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, 
DHHL, DLNR, and other stakeholders in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 
33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery, and 
development on a regional scale. These discussions resulted in a 
cooperative approach to setting aside acreage adjacent to other 
landowners in order to protect larger areas of contiguous habitat from 
development.
    In 2015, the County entered into 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

[[Page 42387]]

to set aside and not develop approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of lands under 
its management, and 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) managed by the County, 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) managed by HHFDC, and 
15.9 ac (6.4 ha) 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 the 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) set aside by the HHFDC and another 21.7 
ac (8.8 ha) set aside by DHHL; 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) of County set-aside are located within the 
proposed Kealakehe Regional Park and adjacent to an existing 3.4-ac 
(1.4-ha) preserve managed by the County but owned by the Hawaiian DLNR. 
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 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. Implementation has already been initiated on the 
following action agreed to in the MOU: Set aside and not develop 
approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of lands under its management. The County 
continues to meet with the Service to implement the MOU.
    As discussed above, the County's protection of the lowland dry 
forest species and habitat through their 2015 MOU with the Service will 
provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the physical or 
biological features that are essential to their conservation. In light 
of their prior conservation efforts and the fact that they have begun 
implementation of the 2015 MOU, there is a reasonable expectation that 
the conservation management strategies and actions contained in the MOU 
will continue to be implemented. The plan contains a monitoring program 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
modified in the future in response to new information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these County lands. According to our records, between 2007 
and 2016, there was one informal consultation conducted regarding a 
project receiving Federal funding on lands under management of the 
County. In 2013, the FHWA consulted with the Service regarding the 
widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, adjacent to Kaloko-Honokohau NHP 
in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The Service concurred the proposed project was 
not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical 
habitat, including proposed critical habitat delineated by Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 35. While this history indicates there is a small 
potential for a future Federal nexus on these lands that could trigger 
the consideration of adverse modification or destruction of critical 
habitat through section 7 consultation, the presence of Mezoneuron 
kavaiense on these lands would trigger a section 7 consultation on 
effects to the species even without a critical habitat designation. As 
discussed below in our summary of benefits of exclusion outweighing the 
benefits of inclusion, by landowner, we determined that the benefits of 
excluding these lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits that 
may be derived from this potential Federal nexus.
Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by the State of 
Hawaii that are under management of the HHFDC totaling 30 ac (12 ha). 
These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as 
critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 (77 FR 63928; October 
17, 2012), have documented presence of Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are 
considered essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The HHFDC is a new conservation 
partner with a willingness to engage in ongoing management programs 
that provide important conservation benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and 
their habitat, as well as to other rare and federally listed species. 
We have determined that the benefits of excluding these lands managed 
by HHFDC outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The HHFDC was established in 2006, and is tasked with developing 
and financing low- and moderate-income housing projects and 
administering homeownership programs. The HHFDC has the development 
rights to a 36.6-ac (14.8-ha) parcel, Tax Map Key (3) 7-4-020: 004, of 
Village 9 at the former Villages of Laiopua project in Kealakehe, North 
Kona, Hawaii; approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of this parcel was proposed 
as critical habitat (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). In 2012, the 
Hawaii State Judiciary selected a 10-ac (4-ha) portion of the parcel as 
the future site of the Kona Judiciary Complex; however, during the 
extended due diligence process, surveys detected the presence of the 
endangered Mezoneuron kavaiense within the HHFDC parcel, which led to 
the decision to pursue development of the Judiciary Complex at another 
location (Hawaii State Judiciary 2013, in litt.; Hawaii State Judiciary 
2014, in litt.).
    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed 
rule (77 FR 63928), the HHFDC, in partnership with the Service, County 
of Hawaii, DHHL, DLNR, and other stakeholders in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, participated in a series of meetings to 
address species protection and recovery, and development on a regional 
scale. These discussions resulted in a cooperative approach to setting 
aside acreage adjacent to other landowners in order to protect larger 
areas of contiguous habitat from development.
    In 2016, the HHFDC entered into an MOU with the Service wherein 
they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to 
the three species, as well as other rare and listed plant 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 Service 2016, entire). The 
HHFDC agreed to set aside and not develop approximately 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) 
of lands under its management (at the site of the proposed Village 9 at 
Laiopua) 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,

[[Page 42388]]

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 DHHL; 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 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. Implementation has already been initiated on the following 
action agreed to in the MOU: set aside and not develop approximately 
4.2 ac (1.7 ha) of lands under its management. The HHFDC continues to 
meet with the Service to implement the MOU.
    As discussed above, HHFDC's protection of the lowland dry forest 
species and habitat through their 2016 MOU with the Service will 
provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the physical or 
biological features that are essential to their conservation. In light 
of their prior conservation efforts and the fact that they have begun 
implementation of the 2016 MOU, there is a reasonable expectation that 
the conservation management strategies and actions contained in the MOU 
will continue to be implemented. The plan contains a monitoring program 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
modified in the future in response to new information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these lands managed by HHFDC lands. According to our 
records, between 2007 and 2016, there were no section 7 consultations 
conducted for projects on these HHFDC lands, indicating little 
likelihood of a future Federal nexus on these lands that would 
potentially trigger the consideration of adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat through section 7 consultation.
Forest City Hawaii Kona LLC (Forest City Kona)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretion to exclude 265 ac (107 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by Forest City Kona. 
These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as 
critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 (77 FR 63928, October 
17, 2012), have documented presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, and are considered essential to the conservation of 
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense. Forest City Kona is a 
new conservation partner with a willingness to engage in ongoing 
management programs that provide important conservation benefits to 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and 
federally listed species. We have determined that the benefits of 
excluding lands owned by Forest City Kona outweigh the benefits of 
including them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Forest City Kona is a wholly owned subsidiary of the national real 
estate company, Forest City Enterprises, Inc. Forest City Kona was 
selected by the HHFDC to be the developer of the Kamakana Villages 
housing project on approximately 272 ac (110 ha) in Keahuolu, North 
Kona district, Hawaii Island (James 2012, in litt.). The Kamakana 
Villages project is planned to consist of residential (50 percent 
affordable housing), commercial, mixed-use, parks, open space, 
archaeological preserves, and schools. Subsequent to the publication of 
the October 17, 2012, proposed critical habitat rule (77 FR 63928), 
Forest City Kona participated in a series of collaborative meetings 
with the Service, DHHL, DLNR, and other stakeholders in Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and 
recovery, and development on a regional scale. These discussions 
resulted in a cooperative approach to setting aside acreage adjacent to 
other landowners in order to protect larger areas of contiguous habitat 
from development.
    In 2016, Forest City Kona entered into a MOU with the Service and 
HHFDC 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 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 or approved conservation partners to conduct activities 
expected to benefit the conservation of the three species and the 
lowland dry ecosystem in these areas for the next 20 years. In the 
larger of the two areas, 12 ac (5 ha) in size, Forest City Kona will 
fence and maintain a firebreak around the perimeter. The MOU's 
conservation actions include installation of maintenance of fencing to 
exclude ungulates, the installation and maintenance of a firebreak, and 
control of nonnative plant species. The MOU includes an agreement by 
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. These actions may include additional fencing, 
firebreaks, and weeding, as well as propagation, outplanting, and care 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other rare and common native plant species. 
Implementation has already been initiated on the following actions 
agreed to in the MOU: (1) Set aside and not undertake development in 
two areas, totaling 20 ac (8 ha) of lands under its management; and (2) 
provide funding towards the implementation of on-site or off-site 
conservation actions within the North Kona region to conserve and 
recover the three plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. Forest 
City Kona continues to meet with the Service to implement the MOU.
    As discussed above, Forest City Kona's protection of the lowland 
dry forest species and habitat through their 2016 MOU with the Service 
will provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the 
physical or biological features that are essential to their 
conservation. In light of their prior conservation efforts and the fact 
that they have begun implementation of the 2016 MOU, there is a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions contained in the MOU will continue to be implemented. The plan 
contains a monitoring program to ensure that the conservation measures 
are

[[Page 42389]]

effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these Forest City Kona lands. According to our records, 
between 2007 and 2016, there were no section 7 consultations conducted 
for projects on these Forest City Kona lands, indicating little 
likelihood of a future Federal nexus on these lands that would 
potentially trigger the consideration of adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat through section 7 consultation.
Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
discretion to exclude 302 ac (122 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned 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 (77 FR 63928, October 17, 
2012), have no documented presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense, but are 
considered essential to the conservation of all three. The QLT is a 
proven conservation partner, as demonstrated, in part, by their history 
of conservation programs and site management that provide important 
conservation benefits to federally listed plants and their habitat. 
These programs include a voluntary conservation agreement with the 
Service dating back to 2004 under the Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program, outplanting and site maintenance for federally listed 
species, and the initiation of a service learning program to engage the 
public in conservation actions. We have determined that the benefits of 
excluding these lands owned by QLT outweigh the benefits of including 
them in critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The mission of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust, founded in 1909, is to 
provide services to benefit orphaned and destitute Hawaiian children 
and their families. On Hawaii Island, QLT properties total 
approximately 6,200 ac (2,509 ha), including the nearly intact, 3,400-
ac (1,376-ha) ahupua`a of Keahuol[umacr]u in Kona, and the 2,800 ac 
(1,133 ha) of agricultural and conservation lands of Honohina on the 
windward side. 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 (off-
site) storage and provide individuals of each species for 
reintroduction or restoration projects. The Service and the QLT each 
contributed $10,000 toward the completion of this project. The QLT 
voluntarily contributed additional funds toward purchase of an all-
terrain vehicle, fencing to exclude ungulates, and construction of a 
greenhouse, and renewed and extended the 2004 agreement through 2007. 
The QLT also initiated management of outplanting sites, installed 
irrigation, and conducted reintroduction of select native species.
    In February 2014, the QLT entered into a 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 program will be implemented within a portion of an already 
existing 25-ac (10-ha) Historic Preserve Area for a period of 20 years 
and includes: (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. To date, they have installed 
exclusion fencing around the Historic Preserve Area and have begun 
implementation of their intensive management program. 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 such as those mentioned 
above 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 detailed above, the QLT developed a 
culturally and place-based service learning program that has involved 
over 1,300 beneficiaries, school groups, and other community members in 
removing invasive species. The QLT continues to spend over $12,000 per 
year to control invasive species, such as fountain grass (Pennisetum 
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, in litt.).
    As discussed above, QLT's protection of the lowland dry forest 
species and habitat through their 2014 MOU with the Service will 
provide for the conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and the physical or 
biological features that are essential to their conservation. In light 
of their prior conservation efforts and the fact that they have begun 
implementation of the 2014 MOU, there is a reasonable expectation that 
the conservation management strategies and actions contained in the MOU 
will continue to be implemented. The plan contains a monitoring program 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
modified in the future in response to new information.
    Because critical habitat designation provides regulatory protection 
against Federal actions that are found likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, we looked at the section 7 consultation 
history on these QLT lands. According to our records, between 2007 and 
2016, there were no consultations conducted regarding projects 
receiving Federal funding on these QLT lands, indicating little 
likelihood of a future Federal nexus on these lands that would 
potentially trigger the consideration of adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat through section 7 consultation. Our DEA 
and FEA identified one anticipated future project slated for 
development on QLT lands; however, the Trust's project is unlikely to 
involve the use of Federal funding or require Federal permitting, and, 
therefore, section 7 consultation is unlikely (IEc 2016, p. 2-12). The 
Benefits of Inclusion and Exclusion
    Benefits of Inclusion--We find there are minimal benefits to 
including the areas described above in critical habitat. As discussed 
earlier in this document, the primary effect of designating any 
particular area as critical habitat is the requirement for Federal 
agencies to consult under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they 
carry out, authorize, or fund do not destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. In areas where a federally listed species 
is likely present, Federal agencies are obligated under section 7 of 
the Act to consult with us on actions that may

[[Page 42390]]

affect that species to ensure that such actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. This requirement to 
consult to ensure Federal actions are not likely to jeopardize 
federally listed species in the area in question operates regardless of 
critical habitat. In areas where listed species are not likely present, 
section 7 consultation may not be triggered by a Federal action unless 
critical habitat is designated. Thus the benefit of critical habitat 
may potentially be greater in unoccupied areas, since consultation may 
be triggered solely by the critical habitat designation. An evaluation 
of our consultation history on the island of Hawaii demonstrates that 
there is some potential for a Federal nexus resulting in a section 7 
consultation, as has occurred nine times in the last 9 years (2007 to 
2016) for actions in the excluded areas; however, the consultations 
were all informal, and the Service concurred in each case that the 
action was not likely to adversely affect the listed species or any 
critical habitat within the project area, in some cases due to 
conservation measures included in the project.
    In areas of critical habitat unoccupied by but essential to a 
species, such as QLT-owned lands and the portion of DHHL-owned lands in 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33, critical habitat designation can provide 
a conservation benefit because Federal agencies are required to consult 
with the Service to ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat, and conservation measures are 
subsequently recommended for offsetting adverse project impacts to 
habitat. However, in these two particular cases, the likelihood that 
conservation benefits would be gained from a critical habitat adverse 
modification analysis is very limited. There is no history of section 7 
consultations on the excluded QLT lands over the last 9 years, and the 
only future development project expected on these lands is unlikely to 
involve the use of Federal funding or require Federal permitting and, 
therefore, would not have a Federal nexus that would trigger a 
consultation (IEc 2016, p. 2-13).
    With respect to the unoccupied portions of DHHL lands in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33, although there is no history of section 7 
consultations, there is a future development project proposed for these 
91 ac (37 ha) that would likely have a Federal nexus. However, the DHHL 
has a strong history of implementation in the development and 
management of the preserves at Kealakehe that have provided for the 
conservation of Mezoneuron kavaiense, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, and Isodendrion pyrifolium, and in 2015 DHHL entered into 
an MOU with the Service in which DHHL agreed to preserve a total of 
approximately 97 ac (39 ha) of land for the conservation and recovery 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and their lowland dry ecosystem. In addition, 
under the MOU, DHHL agreed to install and maintain a fence around the 
preserve lands and to construct and maintain a firebreak around the 
fence, control nonnative plant species, conduct out-planting, weed and 
maintain the area, and conduct other related conservation activities. 
As discussed above, implementation of this MOU has been initiated. For 
these reasons, we believe that the MOU minimizes the benefits of 
designating the 91 ac (37 ha) of DHHL lands in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Unit 33 for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    If a future Federal nexus were to occur for an action taking place 
within an area occupied by one or more listed species, section 7 
consultation would already be triggered by the presence of the species, 
and the Federal agency would consider the effects of its actions on the 
species through a jeopardy analysis. Because one of the primary threats 
to these species is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation 
process will, in evaluating the effects to these species, evaluate the 
effects of the action on the conservation or function of the habitat 
for the species regardless of whether critical habitat is designated 
for these lands. As noted in our FEA (IEc 2016, p. 1-7), the Service's 
recommendations for offsetting adverse project impacts to habitat that 
is occupied by a listed bird, invertebrate, or plant species under the 
jeopardy standard are often the same as recommendations we would make 
to offset adverse impacts to critical habitat, with the exception of 
the conservation project's location. As a consequence of shared threats 
and habitat requirements, any potential project modifications to 
provide for the conservation of one of these species would likely be 
the same as modifications requested for the others; thus, there would 
be little if any benefit from additional section 7 consultation for 
those species for which an area is designated as unoccupied but 
essential critical habitat for a species when it is also designated as 
occupied habitat for one of the other species.
    Although the standards for jeopardy and adverse modification are 
not the same, any additional conservation that could be attained 
through the section 7 prohibition on adverse modification analysis 
would not likely be significant in this case because of the 
consultation history. Most of the excluded areas in this rule are 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
or Mezoneuron kavaiense, and, therefore, in all seven previous 
consultations a jeopardy analysis was completed and recommendations for 
offsetting adverse impacts to habitat were incorporated into the 
projects. Furthermore, the State of Hawaii prohibits take of any 
federally listed endangered or threatened plants (HRS section 195D-4). 
Violation of this State law can result in a misdemeanor conviction with 
both criminal fines and administrative fines that graduate for 
subsequent convictions. This prohibition may lessen the benefit of a 
critical habitat designation on these lands that are occupied by Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and/or Mezoneuron 
kavaiense.
    The existing conservation programs being implemented by these 
landowners also may reduce the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. 
The designation of critical habitat carries no requirement that non-
Federal landowners undertake any proactive conservation measures, for 
example with regard to the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of 
habitat for listed species. Any voluntary action by a non-Federal 
landowner that contributes to the maintenance, restoration, or 
enhancement of habitat is, therefore, a valuable benefit to the listed 
species. The benefits of overlaying a designation of critical habitat 
may be further reduced by the fact that the development and 
implementation of management plans covering portions of these excluded 
lands increase the accessibility necessary for surveys or monitoring 
designed to promote the conservation of these federally listed plant 
species and their habitat. We have evaluated each of the conservation 
plans below to determine the appropriate weight that should be given to 
the plans in reducing the benefits of critical habitat.
    Another potential benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate landowners, 
State and local government agencies, and the public regarding the 
potential conservation value of an area, and may help focus 
conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value for certain 
species. Any information about Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and

[[Page 42391]]

Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat that reaches a wider audience, 
including parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. 
However, in the case of all the lands excluded from this designation, 
the educational value of critical habitat is limited because the 
conservation value of these lands to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense is well recognized 
through extensive coordination and outreach with State and local 
government agencies and the public after critical habitat was proposed.
    During 2012, the Service held multiple informational meetings with 
the DHHL, DLNR, HHFDC, QLT, Forest City Kona, other nongovernmental 
organizations (NGOs) and private landowners, about the proposed 
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. In 2013, the Service participated 
in a community forum and held a public informational meeting to educate 
local community members about the limited distribution of the three 
federally listed species, the threats to the native flora of Hawaii and 
the ecosystems upon which they rely, and the importance of native flora 
and fauna to the Hawaiian community and economy. On August 7, 2013, the 
Service held a public information meeting in the Kailua-Kona area of 
west Hawaii specifically to highlight the proposed critical habitat. In 
2013 and 2014, the Service, along with several landowners participated 
in a series of meetings to address protection and recovery of listed 
species and their habitat while balancing individual landowner 
priorities on a regional scale. The process of proposing and finalizing 
critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer review and public 
comment. Through this process, all of these excluded lands were clearly 
identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat for the three 
plant species. The Service has posted maps of the areas excluded as 
supplemental materials under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028 at https://www.regulations.gov. The maps identify and further underscore the 
importance of these areas for the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. It is 
unlikely that designation of critical habitat will reach a wider 
audience or provide new information concerning the conservation value 
of this area.
    Furthermore, the landowners excluded from this designation have 
already taken proactive steps to manage for the conservation of these 
species, as demonstrated by their ongoing conservation efforts and 
participation in conservation agreements. Several landowners have a 
history of conservation efforts that date back many years. Also, three 
of the landowners (Kamehameha Schools, WVA, and QLT) conduct public 
outreach and education programs that engage the public in conservation 
awareness. Therefore, for the lands excluded from this designation, the 
benefit of critical habitat in terms of education is reduced.
    There is a long history of critical habitat designation in Hawaii, 
and neither the State nor county jurisdictions have ever initiated 
their own additional requirements in areas because they were identified 
as critical habitat. Therefore, based on this history, we believe this 
potential benefit of critical habitat is limited.
    Benefits of Exclusion--The benefits of excluding the areas 
described above from designated critical habitat are relatively 
substantial. Excluding the areas owned and/or managed by these 
landowners from critical habitat designation will provide significant 
benefit in terms of sustaining and enhancing the partnership between 
the Service and these landowners and partners, with positive 
consequences for conservation for the species that are the subject of 
this rule as well as other species that may benefit from such 
partnerships in the future. As described above, partnerships with non-
Federal landowners are vital to the conservation of listed species, 
especially on non-Federal lands; therefore, the Service is committed to 
supporting and encouraging such partnerships through the recognition of 
positive conservation contributions. In the cases considered here, 
excluding these areas from critical habitat, both managed and 
unmanaged, will help foster the partnerships the landowners and land 
managers in question have developed with Federal and State agencies and 
local conservation organizations; will encourage the continued 
implementation of voluntary conservation actions for the benefit of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat on these lands; and may also 
serve as a model and aid in fostering future cooperative relationships 
with other parties here and in other locations for the benefit of other 
endangered or threatened species.
    The designation of critical habitat, on the other hand, could have 
an unintended negative effect on our relationship with some non-Federal 
landowners due to the perceived imposition of government regulation. 
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on 
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will 
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 1,263; 
Bean 2002, p. 2). The magnitude of this negative outcome is greatly 
amplified in situations where active management measures (such as 
reintroduction, fire management, and control of invasive species) are 
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe the 
judicious exclusion of specific areas of non-federally owned lands from 
critical habitat designation can contribute to species recovery and 
provide a superior level of conservation than critical habitat. 
Therefore, we consider the positive effect of excluding active 
conservation partners from critical habitat to be a significant benefit 
of exclusion.
    Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--We have 
reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of 7,027 ac (2,844 ha) of land 
owned and/or managed by 10 landowners on the island of Hawaii from 
critical habitat designation (see Table 4, above). The benefits of 
including these lands in the designation are comparatively small. We 
see a low likelihood of these areas substantially benefitting from the 
application of section 7 to critical habitat, as reflected in the 
consultation history between 2007 and 2016. All seven of the section 7 
consultations in the excluded areas have resulted ``in not likely to 
adversely affect'' determinations. There are three future projects 
planned for development on these excluded lands. One of them is planned 
for occupied habitat (on Kaloko Makai land) and, therefore, would 
already be subject to a jeopardy analysis in a section 7 consultation, 
which minimizes the benefits of designating this area as critical 
habitat. In evaluating the effects to these species in a jeopardy 
analysis, we evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or 
function of the habitat for the species regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated for these lands, and the Service's 
recommendations for offsetting adverse project impacts to occupied 
habitat are often the same as any recommendations we would make to 
offset adverse impacts to critical habitat. The two other projects are 
planned for unoccupied habitat, but only one (on DHHL land) would have 
a Federal nexus and, therefore, a potential benefit from critical 
habitat designation. However, the section 7 consultation for the 
project on DHHL land would be

[[Page 42392]]

unlikely to result in benefits for these species beyond the current and 
anticipated future benefits gained through the conservation partnership 
DHHL has with the Service.
    Furthermore, the potential educational and informational benefits 
of critical habitat designation on lands containing the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
would be minimal, because the landowners and land managers under 
consideration have demonstrated their knowledge of the species and 
their habitat needs in the process of developing their partnerships 
with the Service. Additionally, the current active conservation efforts 
on some of these lands contribute to our knowledge of the species 
through monitoring and adaptive management. Finally, as described 
above, Kamehameha Schools, WVA, and QLT have developed or participated 
in an active community outreach programs that have increased community 
awareness of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    In contrast, the benefits derived from excluding these owners and 
enhancing our partnership with these landowners and land managers is 
significant. Because voluntary conservation efforts for the benefit of 
listed species on non-Federal lands are so valuable, the Service 
considers the maintenance and encouragement of conservation 
partnerships to be a significant benefit of exclusion. The development 
and maintenance of effective working partnerships with non-Federal 
landowners for the conservation of listed species is particularly 
important in areas such as Hawaii, a State with relatively little 
Federal landownership but many species of conservation concern. 
Excluding these areas from critical habitat will help foster the 
partnerships the landowners and land managers in question have 
developed with Federal and State agencies and local conservation 
organizations, and will encourage the continued implementation of 
voluntary conservation actions for the benefit of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their 
habitat on these lands. In addition, these partnerships not only 
provide a benefit for the conservation of these species, but may also 
serve as a model and aid in fostering future cooperative relationships 
with other parties in this area of Hawaii Island and in other locations 
for the benefit of other endangered or threatened species. Therefore, 
in consideration of the factors discussed above under Benefits of 
Exclusion, including the relevant impacts to current and future 
partnerships, we have determined that the benefits of exclusion of 
lands owned and/or managed by the 10 landowners considered here and 
identified in Table 4, above, outweigh the benefits of designating 
these non-Federal lands as critical habitat. Below, we provide a 
summary of how the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion for each landowner.
Kamehameha Schools
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by Kamehameha 
Schools, totaling 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) on the island of Hawaii. 
Kamehameha Schools has been a proven conservation partner over the last 
two decades, as demonstrated, in part, by their ongoing management 
programs, including the Kamehameha Schools NRMP, the TMA Management 
Plan, and the management program on Kamehameha Schools land at 
Kaupulehu.
    The section 7 consultation history of these Kamehameha Schools 
lands (no consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is 
little potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit 
to including these lands in critical habitat. If a future Federal nexus 
were to occur for an action taking place on these lands, a section 7 
consultation would already be triggered by the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the Federal 
agency would consider the effects of its actions on the species through 
a section 7 consultation on the species. Because one of the primary 
threats to these species is habitat loss and degradation, the 
consultation process under section 7 of the Act for projects with a 
Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects to these species, 
evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or function of 
the habitat for the species regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated for these lands, and will likely result in similar 
recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by Kamehameha Schools as critical 
habitat. First, the significant management actions already underway by 
Kamehameha Schools to restore and support the lowland dry habitat upon 
which Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense depend reduce the benefit of including the lands 
where these management actions occur in critical habitat. Since 
critical habitat does not require active management to maintain or 
improve habitat, the conservation actions in the Kamehameha Schools 
NRMP, the TMA Management Plan, and the management program on Kamehameha 
Schools lands at Kaupulehu provide benefits on the managed portions of 
these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through 
critical habitat designation and section 7 consultations. Additionally, 
this landowner and the public are already educated about the 
conservation value of these areas due to Kamehameha Schools' 
conservation actions, their active outreach and education program, and 
the extensive coordination and outreach with State and local government 
agencies and the public after critical habitat on these lands was 
proposed; the designation of critical habitat would not increase 
Kamehameha School's or the public's awareness in this regard. Finally, 
the State of Hawaii's take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS 
section 195D-4) will also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat 
designation on these lands since they are occupied by Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like Kamehameha Schools to partner with the Service in the 
future, by removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding Kamehameha Schools lands even where active 
management is not occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership 
between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage other 
conservation opportunities with Kamehameha Schools in the future and 
increased conservation of listed species and their habitat on 
Kamehameha Schools lands. Because Kamehameha Schools is a large 
landowner in the area where habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense occurs, 
managing approximately 297,000 ac (120,192 ha) on Hawaii Island, its 
partnership with the Service is not only beneficial to the conservation 
of the species on Kamehameha Schools land

[[Page 42393]]

through protection and enhancement of habitat, but also potentially a 
very positive influence on other landowners considering partnerships 
with the Service. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation 
partnership model with a large landowner, and thereby may encourage the 
formation of new partnerships with other landowners, with consequent 
benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other listed species.
    The benefits of excluding these Kamehameha Schools lands from 
critical habitat are sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that 
may be realized through the designation of critical habitat. The 
regulatory benefit of designating critical habitat, afforded through 
the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, is minimal because of limited 
potential for a Federal nexus on these lands and because the presence 
of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense would 
already require section 7 consultation regardless of whether or not 
critical habitat is designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 
prohibition on adverse modification would be unlikely to provide 
additional conservation benefits beyond what would be attained through 
the jeopardy analysis for these species. The current efforts underway 
by Kamehameha Schools demonstrate the willingness of the landowner to 
contribute to the conservation of listed species and their habitat, and 
provide significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed 
portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved 
through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. Furthermore, 
significant conservation benefits would be realized through the 
exclusion of all these Kamehameha Schools lands, both managed and 
unmanaged, by continuing and strengthening our positive relationship 
with Kamehameha Schools, as well as encouraging additional beneficial 
conservation partnerships in the future. The combination of 
conservation gained from continuing management actions by Kamehameha 
Schools and the importance of maintaining, enhancing, and developing 
conservation partnerships provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than 
what could be provided through the designation of critical habitat.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding Kamehameha Schools' lands outweigh 
those of including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the 
Secretary has further determined that such exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Waikoloa Village Association (WVA)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by WVA, totaling 
1,758 (712 ha) on the island of Hawaii. The WVA has been involved in 
conservation since 2009, through the State Forest Stewardship 
Agreement, the 2012 Waikoloa Dry Forest Initiative License Agreement, 
and more recently their MOU with the Service.
    The section 7 consultation history of these WVA lands (two informal 
consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is potential for a 
future Federal nexus that could create a benefit to including these 
lands in critical habitat. However, we believe that the benefits gained 
from supporting the positive conservation partnership with this 
landowner in the State of Hawaii by excluding these lands from critical 
habitat (discussed below) are greater than the benefit that would be 
gained from the designation of critical habitat. If a future Federal 
nexus were to occur for an action taking place on these WVA lands, a 
section 7 consultation would already be triggered by the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the Federal agency would consider the effects 
of its actions on the species through a jeopardy analysis. Because one 
of the primary threats to these species is habitat loss and 
degradation, the consultation process under section 7 of the Act for 
projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects to these 
species, evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or 
function of the habitat for the species regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated for these lands, and likely result in similar 
recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by WVA as critical habitat. This 
landowner and the public are already educated about the conservation 
value of these areas for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense due to WDFI's conservation 
actions, their active public outreach and education program, and the 
Service's extensive coordination and outreach with State and local 
government agencies and the public after critical habitat on these 
lands was proposed; the designation of critical habitat would not 
increase WVA's or the public's awareness in this regard. The State of 
Hawaii's take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-
4) will also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat designation on 
these lands since they are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense. In 
addition, the 2014 MOU with the Service contains conservation actions 
that will restore and support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense depend, and so the benefit of including the lands where the 
management actions occur in critical habitat is reduced. Since critical 
habitat does not require active management to maintain or improve 
habitat, the conservation actions in the MOU are expected to provide 
benefits on the managed portions of these non-Federal lands beyond 
those that can be achieved through critical habitat designation and 
section 7 consultations. However, we have also taken into consideration 
that this is a new conservation agreement and full implementation has 
not yet been demonstrated.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like WVA to partner with the Service in the future, by 
removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding other WVA lands where active management is not 
occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership between the Service 
and WVA, which may encourage other conservation opportunities with the 
landowner in the future and increased conservation of listed species 
and their habitat on WVA lands. Because WVA is a large landowner in the 
area where habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense occurs, managing approximately 
10,000 ac (4,047 ha) on Hawaii Island, its partnership with the Service 
is not only beneficial to the conservation of the species on WVA land 
through protection and enhancement of habitat, but also potentially a 
very positive influence on other landowners considering partnerships 
with the Service. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation 
partnership model with a large landowner, and thereby may

[[Page 42394]]

encourage the formation of new partnerships with other landowners, with 
consequent benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other listed species
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because the presence of the species 
would already require a section 7 consultation regardless of whether or 
not critical habitat is designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 
prohibition on adverse modification would be unlikely to provide 
significant additional conservation benefits beyond what would be 
attained through the section 7 consultation due to the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense. The current conservation efforts underway by WVA 
demonstrate the willingness of WVA to contribute to the conservation of 
listed species and their habitat, and provide significant benefits for 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed portions of these non-Federal lands 
beyond those that can be achieved through critical habitat and section 
7 consultations. WVAs current conservation efforts (including 
development of the MOU), combined with our outreach to State and local 
governments and the public, indicate that the educational value of 
critical habitat would be minimal. The State's prohibition on the take 
of listed plants will also minimize the benefits of critical habitat in 
this case because the excluded lands are occupied by Mezoneuron 
kavaiense. On the other hand, significant conservation benefits would 
be realized through the exclusion of all these WVA lands, both managed 
and unmanaged, by continuing and strengthening our positive 
relationship with WVA, as well as encouraging additional beneficial 
conservation partnerships in the future. The combination of 
conservation gained from continuing management actions by WVA and the 
importance of maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation 
partnerships provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what 
could be provided through the designation of critical habitat on these 
WVA lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding WVA lands outweigh those of including 
them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary has further 
determined that such exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, or 
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned or managed by 
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC (Palamanui), totaling 502 ac (203 ha) on 
the island of Hawaii. Palamanui has been involved since 2005 in 
conservation programs that provide important conservation benefits to 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and 
federally listed species, such as their INCRMP, their new MOU with the 
Service, and their collaboration with other landowners in the 
originally Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these Palamanui lands (no 
consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is little 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. If a future Federal nexus 
were to occur for an action taking place on these Palamanui lands, a 
section 7 consultation would already be triggered by the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the Federal agency would consider the effects 
of its actions on the species through a section 7 consultation on the 
species. Because one of the primary threats to these species is habitat 
loss and degradation, the consultation process under section 7 of the 
Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects 
to these species, evaluate the effects of the action on the 
conservation or function of the habitat for the species regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, and will likely 
result in similar recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by Palamanui as critical habitat. First, 
the management actions already underway by Palamanui to restore and 
support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend 
reduce the benefit of including the lands where these management 
actions occur in critical habitat. Since critical habitat does not 
require active management to maintain or improve habitat, the 
conservation actions included in the ICNRMP and the 2015 MOU with the 
Service provide benefits on the managed portions of these non-Federal 
lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical habitat and 
section 7 consultations. In addition, the landowner and public are 
already aware of the conservation value of these areas due to 
Palamanui's conservation actions and the extensive coordination and 
outreach with State and local government agencies and the public after 
critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the designation of 
critical habitat would not increase Palamanui's or the public's 
awareness in this regard. Finally, the State of Hawaii's take 
prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-4) will also 
lessen the benefit of a critical habitat designation on these lands 
since they are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like Palamanui to partner with the Service in the future, by 
removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding other Palamanui lands where active management is 
not occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership between the 
Service and the landowner, which may encourage additional conservation 
partnerships with Palamanui in the future and increased conservation of 
listed species and their habitat on Palamanui lands. The exclusion 
highlights a positive conservation partnership model with the 
landowner, and thereby may help encourage the formation of new 
partnerships with other landowners, yielding benefits to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense beyond what could be realized through critical habitat 
designation and section 7 consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these Palamanui lands from critical 
habitat are sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be 
realized through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory 
benefit of designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 
7(a)(2) consultation process, is minimal because of limited potential 
on these lands for a Federal nexus and because the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense would already require section 7 consultation 
regardless of whether or

[[Page 42395]]

not critical habitat is designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 
prohibition on adverse modification would be unlikely to provide 
additional conservation benefits beyond what would be attained through 
the jeopardy analysis for these species. The current conservation 
efforts underway by Palamanui demonstrate the willingness of Palamanui 
to contribute to the conservation of listed species and their habitat, 
and provide significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed 
portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved 
through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. Palamanui's 
current conservation efforts (including development of the MOU), 
combined with our outreach to State and local governments and the 
public, indicate that the educational value of critical habitat would 
be minimal. The State's prohibition on the take of listed plants will 
also minimize the benefits of critical habitat in this case because the 
excluded lands are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense. On the other hand, 
significant conservation benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense would be 
realized through the exclusion of these Palamanui lands, by continuing 
and strengthening our positive relationship with Palamanui, as well as 
encouraging additional beneficial conservation partnerships in the 
future. The combination of conservation gained from continuing 
management actions by Palamanui and the importance of maintaining, 
enhancing, and developing conservation partnerships provides greater 
benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what could be provided through the 
designation of critical habitat on this Palamanui land.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding Palamanui's lands outweigh those of 
including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary 
has further determined that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude 492 ac (199 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are under management by DHHL. 
This landowner is a conservation partner with a willingness to engage 
in ongoing management programs that provide important conservation 
benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare 
and federally listed species as demonstrated, by their history of 
conservation actions at Laiopua, their new MOU with the Service, and 
their collaboration with other landowners in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 
31, 33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these DHHL lands over the 
last 9 years includes three informal consultations in Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 35, indicating there is potential for a future Federal nexus 
that would create a benefit to including these lands in critical 
habitat. However, we believe that the benefits gained from supporting 
the positive conservation partnership with this large landowner in the 
State of Hawaii by excluding these lands from critical habitat 
(discussed below) are greater than the benefit that would be gained 
from the designation of critical habitat. Furthermore, if a future 
Federal nexus were to occur for an action taking place on the DHHL 
lands in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35, a section 7 consultation would 
already be triggered by the presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the 
Federal agency would consider the effects of its actions on the species 
through a jeopardy analysis. Because one of the primary threats to 
these species is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation process 
under section 7 of the Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in 
evaluating the effects to these species, evaluate the effects of the 
action on the conservation or function of the habitat for the species 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, 
and likely result in similar recommended conservation measures.
    With respect to the unoccupied portions of DHHL lands in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33, although there is no history of section 7 
consultations, there is a future project that would likely have a 
Federal nexus. As mentioned earlier, DHHL is planning to develop all of 
these lands under their ownership in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33. 
However, DHHL has a strong history of implementation of conservation 
efforts at the Kealakehe preserves, and in 2015, DHHL entered into an 
MOU with the Service in which DHHL agreed to preserve a total 97.05 ac 
(39 ha) of land for the conservation and recovery of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and 
their lowland dry ecosystem, and to conduct related conservation 
activities. We do not anticipate that critical habitat designation on 
these DHHL lands would result in benefits for these species beyond the 
current and anticipated future benefits gained through the conservation 
partnership DHHL has with the Service.
    Several additional factors serve to further reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands as critical habitat. The management actions 
already underway at the Kealakehe preserves to restore and support the 
lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend reduce the 
benefit of including the lands where the management actions occur in 
critical habitat. Since critical habitat does not require active 
management to maintain or improve habitat, the conservation actions 
included in the conservation effort at Kealakehe and the 2015 MOU with 
the Service are expected to provide benefits on the managed portions of 
these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through 
critical habitat and section 7 consultations. Additionally, this 
landowner and the public are already educated about the conservation 
value of these areas for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense due to DHHL's conservation actions 
and the Service's extensive coordination and outreach with State and 
local government agencies and the public after critical habitat on 
these lands was proposed; the designation of critical habitat would not 
increase DHHL's or the public's awareness in this regard. Also, the 
State of Hawaii's take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS 
section 195D-4) will also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat 
designation on these DHHL lands in proposed Unit 35 since they are 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas where there are existing plans and programs can 
encourage landowners like DHHL to partner with the Service in the 
future, by removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships,

[[Page 42396]]

especially on non-Federal lands, and excluding other DHHL lands where 
active management is not occurring is likely to strengthen the 
partnership between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage 
additional partnerships with DHHL in the future and increased 
conservation of listed species and their habitat on DHHL lands. Because 
DHHL is a large landowner/manager in the State of Hawaii, managing 
200,000 ac (80,900 ha), its partnership with the Service is not only 
beneficial to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on DHHL land through 
protection and enhancement of habitat, but also potentially a very 
positive influence on other landowners considering partnerships with 
the Service. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation 
partnership model with a large landowner/manager in the State, and 
thereby may encourage the formation of new partnerships with other 
landowners, yielding benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense beyond what could be 
realized through critical habitat designation and section 7 
consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal. In the occupied proposed Unit 35, the 
presence of the species would already require a jeopardy analysis and 
section 7 prohibition on adverse modification with critical habitat 
would be unlikely to provide additional conservation benefits on those 
lands beyond what would be attained through the jeopardy analysis for 
these species on those lands; the conservations measures that would be 
recommended to avoid impacts to habitat would likely be the same as 
those already recommended to avoid impacts to the species. In 
unoccupied Unit 33, there could be a benefit to designating critical 
habitat; however, we do not anticipate that critical habitat 
designation on these DHHL lands would result in benefits for these 
species beyond the current and anticipated future benefits gained 
through the conservation partnership DHHL has with the Service. The 
current conservation efforts underway by DHHL demonstrate the 
willingness of DHHL to contribute to the conservation of listed species 
and their habitat, and provide significant benefits for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense on the managed portions of these non-Federal lands beyond 
those that can be achieved through critical habitat and section 7 
consultations. These current conservation activities on these lands and 
development of the MOU, combined with our outreach to State and local 
governments and the public, indicate that the educational value of 
critical habitat would be minimal. On the other hand, significant 
conservation benefits would be realized through the exclusion of these 
DHHL lands, by continuing and strengthening our positive relationship 
with DHHL, as well as encouraging additional beneficial conservation 
partnerships in the future. The combination of conservation gained from 
continuing management actions by DHHL and the importance of 
maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation partnerships 
provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what could be 
provided through critical habitat and section 7 consultations.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding DHHL lands outweigh those of including 
them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary has further 
determined that such exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron kavaiense, or Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla.
Kaloko Entities
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned or managed by 
Kaloko Entities, totaling 631 ac (255 ha) on the island of Hawaii. 
Kaloko Entities is a new conservation partner with a willingness to 
engage in management programs and partnerships that will provide 
important conservation benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as 
well as to other rare and federally listed species, as demonstrated by 
their MOU with the Service and their collaboration with other 
landowners in the originally proposed Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 
33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these Kaloko Entities lands 
(two informal consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is a 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. However, we believe that the 
benefits gained from supporting the positive conservation partnership 
with this landowner by excluding these lands from critical habitat 
(discussed below) are greater than the benefit that would be gained 
from the designation of critical habitat. Furthermore, if a future 
Federal nexus were to occur for an action taking place on these Kaloko 
Entities lands, a section 7 consultation would already be triggered by 
the presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense, and the Federal agency would consider the effects of its 
actions on the species through a section 7 consultation on the species. 
Because one of the primary threats to these species is habitat loss and 
degradation, the consultation process under section 7 of the Act for 
projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects to these 
species, evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or 
function of the habitat for the species regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated for these lands, and likely result in similar 
recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by Kaloko Entities as critical habitat. 
The management actions already underway by Kaloko Entities to restore 
and support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend 
reduce the benefit of including the lands where the management actions 
occur in a critical habitat designation. Since critical habitat does 
not require active management to maintain or improve habitat, the 
conservation actions in the MOU provide benefits on the managed 
portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved 
through critical habitat designation and section 7 consultations. In 
addition, the landowner and the public are already educated about 
conservation value of these areas for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense due to 
Kaloko Entities' conservation actions and the Service's extensive 
coordination and outreach with State and local government agencies and 
the public after critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the 
designation of critical habitat would not increase Kaloko Entities' or 
the public's awareness in this regard. Finally, the State of Hawaii's 
take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-4) will 
also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat designation on these 
lands since they are occupied by Bidens micrantha

[[Page 42397]]

ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like Kaloko Entities to partner with the Service in the 
future, by removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding Kaloko Entities lands even where active management 
is not occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership between the 
Service and the landowner, which may encourage additional partnerships 
with Kaloko Entities in the future and increased conservation of listed 
species and their habitat on Kaloko Entities lands. The exclusion 
highlights a positive conservation partnership model with the 
landowner, and thereby may help encourage the formation of new 
partnerships with other landowners, yielding benefits to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense beyond what could be realized through critical habitat 
designation and section 7 consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense would already 
require section 7 consultation regardless whether critical habitat is 
designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 prohibition on adverse 
modification would be unlikely to provide additional conservation 
benefits beyond what would be attained through the jeopardy analysis 
for these species. The current conservation efforts underway by Kaloko 
Entities demonstrate the willingness of Kaloko Entities to contribute 
to the conservation of listed species and their habitat, and provide 
significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed portions of these 
non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical 
habitat and section 7 consultations. The current conservation efforts 
(including development of the MOU), combined with our outreach to State 
and local governments and the public, indicate that the educational 
value of critical habitat would be minimal. The State's prohibition on 
the take of listed plants will also minimize the benefits of critical 
habitat in this case because the excluded lands are occupied by two of 
the species. On the other hand, significant conservation benefits would 
be realized through the exclusion of these Kaloko Entities lands, by 
continuing and strengthening our positive relationship with Kaloko 
Entities, as well as encouraging additional beneficial conservation 
partnerships in the future. The combination of conservation gained from 
continuing management actions by Kaloko Entities and the importance of 
maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation partnerships 
provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what could be 
provided through the designation of critical habitat on these Kaloko 
Entities lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding Kaloko Entities lands outweigh those of 
including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary 
has further determined that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Lanihau Properties
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned or managed by 
Lanihau Properties, totaling 47 ac (19 ha) on the island of Hawaii. 
Lanihau Properties is a new conservation partner with a willingness to 
engage in management programs that will provide important conservation 
benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare 
and federally listed species, as demonstrated by their MOU with the 
Service and their collaboration with other landowners in the originally 
proposed Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these Lanihau Properties 
lands (one informal consultation over the last 9 years) indicates there 
is a small potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a 
benefit to including these lands in critical habitat. However, we 
believe that the benefits gained from supporting the positive 
conservation partnership with this landowner by excluding these lands 
from critical habitat (discussed below) are greater than the benefit 
that would be gained from the designation of critical habitat. 
Furthermore, if a future Federal nexus were to occur for an action 
taking place on these Lanihau Properties lands, a section 7 
consultation would already be triggered by the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the Federal agency would consider the 
effects of its actions on the species through a section 7 consultation 
on the species. Because one of the primary threats to these species is 
habitat loss and degradation, the consultation process under section 7 
of the Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating the 
effects to these species, evaluate the effects of the action on the 
conservation or function of the habitat for the species regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, and likely 
result in similar recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by Lanihau Properties as critical 
habitat. The management actions already underway by Lanihau Properties 
to restore and support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense depend reduce the benefit of including the lands where the 
management actions occur in a critical habitat designation. Since 
critical habitat does not require active management to maintain or 
improve habitat, the conservation actions in the MOU provide benefits 
on the managed portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that 
can be achieved through critical habitat designation and section 7 
consultations. In addition, the landowner and the public are already 
educated about conservation value of these areas for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense due 
to Lanihau Properties' conservation actions and the Service's extensive 
coordination and outreach with State and local government agencies and 
the public after critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the 
designation of critical habitat would not increase Lanihau Properties' 
or the public's awareness in this regard. Finally, the State of 
Hawaii's take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-
4) will also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat designation on 
these lands since they are occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like Lanihau

[[Page 42398]]

Properties to partner with the Service in the future, by removing any 
real or perceived disincentives for engaging in conservation 
activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging future 
conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding Lanihau Properties lands even where active 
management is not occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership 
between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage additional 
partnerships with Lanihau Properties in the future and increased 
conservation of listed species and their habitat on Lanihau Properties 
lands. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation partnership 
model with the landowner, and thereby may help encourage the formation 
of new partnerships with other landowners, yielding benefits to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense beyond what could be realized through critical habitat 
designation and section 7 consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because the presence of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla would already require a section 7 
consultation regardless of whether or not critical habitat is 
designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 prohibition on adverse 
modification would be unlikely to provide additional conservation 
benefits beyond what would be attained through the section 7 
consultation on species present. The current conservation efforts 
underway by Lanihau Properties demonstrate the willingness of Lanihau 
Properties to contribute to the conservation of listed species and 
their habitat, and provide significant benefits for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on 
the managed portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can 
be achieved through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. The 
current conservation efforts (including development of the MOU), 
combined with our outreach to State and local governments and the 
public, indicate that the educational value of critical habitat would 
be minimal. The State's prohibition on the take of listed plants will 
also minimize the benefits of critical habitat in this case because the 
excluded lands are occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla. On 
the other hand, significant conservation benefits would be realized 
through the exclusion of these Lanihau Properties lands by continuing 
and strengthening our positive relationship with Lanihau Properties, as 
well as encouraging additional beneficial conservation partnerships in 
the future. The combination of conservation gained from continuing 
management actions by Lanihau Properties and the importance of 
maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation partnerships 
provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what could be 
provided through the designation of critical habitat on these Lanihau 
Properties lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding Lanihau Properties lands outweigh those 
of including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary 
has further determined that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
County of Hawaii
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat State-owned lands managed by 
the County of Hawaii, totaling 165 ac (67 ha) on the island of Hawaii. 
The County is a proven conservation partner, as shown, in part, in 
voluntary conservation actions dating back to 2010, their new MOU with 
the Service, and their collaboration with other landowners in Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, which all demonstrate a 
willingness to engage in ongoing management programs that provide 
important conservation benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat.
    The section 7 consultation history of these County lands (one 
informal consultation over the last 9 years) indicates there is a small 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. However, we believe that the 
benefits gained from supporting the positive conservation partnership 
with this landowner by excluding these lands from critical habitat 
(discussed below) are greater than the benefit that would be gained 
from the designation of critical habitat. Furthermore, if a future 
Federal nexus were to occur for an action taking place on these County 
lands, a section 7 consultation would already be triggered by the 
presence of Mezoneuron kavaiense and the Federal agency would consider 
the effects of its actions on the species through a section 7 
consultation on the species. Because one of the primary threats to 
these species is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation process 
under section 7 of the Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in 
evaluating the effects to these species, evaluate the effects of the 
action on the conservation or function of the habitat for the species 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, 
and likely result in similar recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands managed by the County as critical habitat. The 
management actions already underway by the County to restore and 
support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend 
reduce the benefit of including the lands where the management actions 
occur in a critical habitat designation. Since critical habitat does 
not require active management to maintain or improve habitat, the 
conservation actions in the MOU provide benefits on the managed 
portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved 
through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. In addition, the 
landowner and the public are already educated about conservation value 
of these areas for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense due to the County's prior 
conservation actions and the Service's extensive coordination and 
outreach with State and local government agencies and the public after 
critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the designation of 
critical habitat would not increase the County of Hawaii's or the 
public's awareness in this regard. The State of Hawaii's take 
prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-4) will also 
lessen the benefit of a critical habitat designation on these lands 
since they are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
land managers like the County to partner with the Service in the 
future, by removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future

[[Page 42399]]

conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have demonstrated partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding County-managed lands from critical habitat even 
where active management is not occurring is likely to strengthen the 
partnership between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage 
additional partnerships with the County in the future and increased 
conservation of listed species and their habitat on County lands. 
Because the County of Hawaii is a large landowner/manager in the area 
where habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense occurs, managing over 10,000 ac 
(4,047 ha) on Hawaii Island, its partnership with the Service is not 
only beneficial to the conservation of the species on County land 
through protection and enhancement of habitat, but also potentially a 
very positive influence on other landowners considering partnerships 
with the Service. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation 
partnership model with a large landowner/manager in the State, and 
thereby may encourage the formation of new partnerships with other 
landowners, yielding benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense beyond what could be 
realized through critical habitat designation and section 7 
consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands managed by the County of 
Hawaii from critical habitat are sufficient to outweigh the potential 
benefits that may be realized through the designation of critical 
habitat. The regulatory benefit of designating critical habitat, 
afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, is minimal 
because the presence of Mezoneuron kavaiense would already require 
section 7 consultation regardless of whether or not critical habitat is 
designated. In occupied habitat, the section 7 prohibition on adverse 
modification would be unlikely to provide additional conservation 
benefits beyond what would be attained through the jeopardy analysis 
for these species. The current conservation efforts underway by the 
County demonstrate the willingness of the County to contribute to the 
conservation of listed species and their habitat, and provide 
significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed portions of these 
non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical 
habitat and section 7 consultations. The County's current conservation 
efforts (including development of the MOU), combined with our outreach 
to State and local governments and the public, indicate that the 
educational value of critical habitat would be minimal. The State's 
prohibition on the take of listed plants will also minimize the 
benefits of critical habitat in this case because the excluded lands 
are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense. On the other hand, significant 
conservation benefits would be realized through the exclusion of these 
County lands, by continuing and strengthening our positive relationship 
with the County of Hawaii, as well as encouraging additional beneficial 
conservation partnerships in the future. The combination of 
conservation gained from continuing management actions by the County 
and the importance of maintaining, enhancing, and developing 
conservation partnerships provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than 
what could be provided through the designation of critical habitat on 
these County lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding these County of Hawaii lands outweigh 
those of including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the 
Secretary has further determined that such exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat State-owned lands managed by 
HHFDC, totaling 30 ac (12 ha) on the island of Hawaii. HHFDC is a new 
conservation partner with a willingness to engage in management 
programs that will provide important conservation benefits to Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and federally 
listed species, as demonstrated by their MOU with the Service and their 
collaboration with other landowners in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 
33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these HHFDC lands (no 
consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is little 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. If a future Federal nexus 
were to occur for an action taking place on these HHFDC lands, a 
section 7 consultation would already be triggered by the presence of 
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the Federal agency would consider the effects 
of its actions on the species through a section 7 consultation on the 
species. Because one of the primary threats to these species is habitat 
loss and degradation, the consultation process under section 7 of the 
Act for projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects 
to these species, evaluate the effects of the action on the 
conservation or function of the habitat for the species regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated for these lands, and will likely 
result in similar recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands managed by HHFDC as critical habitat. First, 
the management actions already underway by HHFDC to restore and support 
the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend reduce the 
benefit of including the lands where these management actions occur in 
a critical habitat designation. Since critical habitat does not require 
active management to maintain or improve habitat, the conservation 
actions in the MOU provide benefits on the managed portions of these 
non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical 
habitat and section 7 consultations. In addition, the landowner and the 
public are already educated about conservation value of these areas due 
to HHFDC's conservation actions and the extensive coordination and 
outreach with State and local government agencies and the public after 
critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the designation of 
critical habitat would not increase HHFDC's or the public's awareness 
in this regard. Finally, the State of Hawaii's take prohibition on 
federally listed plants (HRS section 195D-4) will also lessen the 
benefit of a critical habitat designation on these lands since they are 
occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
land managers like HHFDC to partner with the Service in the future, by 
removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the

[[Page 42400]]

benefits of excluding areas where we have conservation partnerships, 
especially on non-Federal lands, and excluding other HHFDC lands from 
critical habitat where active management is not occurring is likely to 
strengthen the partnership between the Service and the landowner, which 
may encourage additional partnerships with the HHFDC in the future and 
increased conservation of listed species and their habitat on HHFDC 
lands. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation partnership 
model with a land manager, and thereby may encourage the formation of 
new partnerships with other landowner/managers, yielding benefits to 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense beyond what could be realized through critical 
habitat designation and section 7 consultations on these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because of limited potential on these 
lands for a Federal nexus and because the presence of Mezoneuron 
kavaiense would already require section 7 consultation regardless of 
whether or not critical habitat is designated. In occupied habitat, the 
section 7 prohibition on adverse modification would be unlikely to 
provide additional conservation benefits beyond what would be attained 
through the jeopardy analysis for these species. The current 
conservation efforts underway by HHFDC demonstrate the willingness of 
HHFDC to contribute to the conservation of listed species and their 
habitat, and provide significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the 
managed portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be 
achieved through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. HHFDC's 
current conservation efforts (including development of the MOU), 
combined with our outreach to State and local governments and the 
public, indicate that the educational value of critical habitat would 
be minimal. The State's prohibition on the take of listed plants will 
also minimize the benefits of critical habitat in this case because the 
excluded lands are occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense. On the other hand, 
significant conservation benefits would be realized through the 
exclusion of these HHFDC lands by continuing and strengthening our 
positive relationship with HHFDC, as well as encouraging additional 
beneficial conservation partnerships in the future. The combination of 
conservation gained from continuing management actions by HHFDC and the 
importance of maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation 
partnerships provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what 
could be provided through the designation of critical habitat on these 
HHFDC lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding HHFDC's lands outweigh those of 
including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary 
has further determined that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Forest City Kona, LLC
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by Forest City 
Kona, totaling 265 ac (107 ha) on the island of Hawaii. Forest City 
Kona is a new conservation partner with a willingness to engage in 
management programs that will provide important conservation benefits 
to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and 
federally listed species, as demonstrated by their MOU with the Service 
and their collaboration with other landowners in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Units 31, 33, 34, and 35.
    The section 7 consultation history of these Forest City Kona lands 
(no consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is little 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. If a future Federal nexus 
were to occur for an action taking place on these Forest City Kona 
lands, a section 7 consultation would already be triggered by the 
presence of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the Federal agency 
would consider the effects of its actions on the species through a 
section 7 consultation on the species. Because one of the primary 
threats to these species is habitat loss and degradation, the 
consultation process under section 7 of the Act for projects with a 
Federal nexus will, in evaluating the effects to these species, 
evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or function of 
the habitat for the species regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated for these lands, and will likely result in similar 
recommended conservation measures.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by Forest City Kona as critical habitat. 
First, the management actions already underway by Forest City Kona to 
restore and support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
depend reduce the benefit of including the lands where these management 
actions occur in a critical habitat designation. Since critical habitat 
does not require active management to maintain or improve habitat, the 
conservation actions in the MOU provide benefits on the managed 
portions of these non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved 
through critical habitat and section 7 consultations. In addition, the 
landowner and the public are already educated about conservation value 
of these areas due to Forest City Kona's conservation actions and the 
extensive coordination and outreach with State and local government 
agencies and the public after critical habitat on these lands was 
proposed; the designation of critical habitat would not increase Forest 
City Kona's or the public's awareness in this regard. Finally, the 
State of Hawaii's take prohibition on federally listed plants (HRS 
section 195D-4) will also lessen the benefit of a critical habitat 
designation on these lands since they are occupied by Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like Forest City Kona to partner with the Services in the 
future, by removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding Forest City Kona lands from critical habitat even 
where active management is not occurring is likely to strengthen the 
partnership between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage 
additional partnerships with Forest City Kona in the future and 
increased conservation of listed species and their habitat on Forest 
City Kona lands. The exclusion highlights a positive conservation 
partnership model with the landowner, and thereby may be influential in 
the formation of new partnerships with other landowners,

[[Page 42401]]

yielding benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense beyond what could be realized 
through critical habitat designation and section 7 consultations on 
these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because of limited potential on these 
lands for a Federal nexus and because the presence of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla would already require section 7 consultation 
regardless of whether or not critical habitat is designated. In 
occupied habitat, the section 7 prohibition on adverse modification 
would be unlikely to provide additional conservation benefits beyond 
what would be attained through the jeopardy analysis for these species. 
The current conservation efforts underway by Forest City Kona 
demonstrate the willingness of Forest City Kona to contribute to the 
conservation of listed species and their habitat, and provide 
significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed portions of these 
non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical 
habitat and section 7 consultations. Forest City Kona's current 
conservation efforts (including development of the MOU), combined with 
our outreach to State and local governments and the public, indicate 
that the educational value of critical habitat would be minimal. The 
State's prohibition on the take of listed plants will also minimize the 
benefits of critical habitat in this case because the excluded lands 
are occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla. On the other hand, 
significant conservation benefits would be realized through the 
exclusion of these Forest City Kona lands by continuing and 
strengthening our positive relationship with Forest City Kona, as well 
as encouraging additional beneficial conservation partnerships in the 
future. The combination of conservation gained from continuing 
management actions by Forest City Kona and the importance of 
maintaining, enhancing, and developing conservation partnerships 
provides greater benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense than what could be 
provided through the designation of critical habitat on these Forest 
City Kona lands.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding Forest City Kona's lands outweigh those 
of including them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary 
has further determined that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, or Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT)
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised his 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned by Queen 
Liliuokalani Trust, totaling 302 ac (122 ha) on the island of Hawaii. 
The QLT is a proven conservation partner, as demonstrated in several 
conservation efforts including a Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
Agreement and a new MOU with the Service, showing a willingness to 
engage in ongoing management programs that provide important 
conservation benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to 
other rare and federally listed species.
    The section 7 consultation history of these QLT lands (no 
consultations over the last 9 years) indicates there is little 
potential for a future Federal nexus that would create a benefit to 
including these lands in critical habitat. The only future development 
project planned for these QLT lands is not expected to have a Federal 
nexus, and, therefore, critical habitat would provide no benefit 
through the section 7 consultation process.
    Several additional factors serve to reduce the benefit of 
designating these lands owned by QLT as critical habitat. First, the 
management actions already underway by QLT to restore and support the 
lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense depend, reduce the 
benefit of including the lands where these management actions occur in 
critical habitat. Since critical habitat does not require active 
management to maintain or improve habitat, the conservation actions of 
QLT provide benefits on the managed portions of these non-Federal lands 
beyond those that can be achieved through critical habitat and section 
7 consultations. Furthermore, QLT has begun implementation on the 2014 
MOU with the Service that contains conservation actions that will 
restore and support the lowland dry habitat upon which Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
depend, and so the benefit of including the lands where the management 
actions occur in critical habitat is reduced. Additionally, this 
landowner and the public are already educated about conservation value 
of these areas due to QLT's conservation actions, their active outreach 
and education program, and the Service's extensive coordination and 
outreach with State and local government agencies and the public after 
critical habitat on these lands was proposed; the designation of 
critical habitat would not increase QLT's or the public's awareness in 
this regard.
    The benefits of exclusion, on the other hand, are significant. 
Excluding areas covered by existing plans and programs can encourage 
landowners like QLT to partner with the Services in the future, by 
removing any real or perceived disincentives for engaging in 
conservation activities, and thereby provide a benefit by encouraging 
future conservation partnerships and beneficial management actions. 
Furthermore, we give great weight to the benefits of excluding areas 
where we have conservation partnerships, especially on non-Federal 
lands, and excluding these QLT lands even where active management is 
not occurring is likely to strengthen the partnership between the 
Service and the landowner, which may encourage additional partnerships 
with QLT in the future and increased conservation of listed species and 
their habitat on QLT lands. The exclusion highlights a positive 
conservation partnership model with the landowner, and thereby may be 
influential in the formation of new partnerships with other landowners, 
yielding benefits to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense beyond what could be realized 
through critical habitat designation and section 7 consultations on 
these areas.
    The benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat are 
sufficient to outweigh the potential benefits that may be realized 
through the designation of critical habitat. The regulatory benefit of 
designating critical habitat, afforded through the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process, is minimal because of limited potential on these 
lands for a Federal nexus. The current conservation efforts underway by 
QLT demonstrate the willingness of QLT to contribute to the 
conservation of listed species and their habitat, and provide 
significant benefits for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the managed portions of these 
non-Federal lands beyond those that can be achieved through critical 
habitat and section 7 consultations. The outreach and

[[Page 42402]]

education programs of QLT, as well as our outreach to State and local 
governments and the public, indicate that the educational value of 
critical habitat on these lands would be minimal. On the other hand, 
significant conservation benefits would be realized through the 
exclusion of these QLT lands, by continuing and strengthening our 
positive relationship with QLT, as well as encouraging additional 
beneficial conservation partnerships in the future.
    The Secretary has therefore concluded that, in this particular 
case, the benefits of excluding QLT lands outweigh those of including 
them in critical habitat. As detailed below, the Secretary has further 
determined that such exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, or 
Mezoneuron kavaiense.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We have determined that the exclusion of 7,027 ac (2,844 ha) from 
the designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on the 
island of Hawaii owned and/or managed by the 10 landowners identified 
here will not result in extinction of the species. The exclusion of 
these lands is likely to improve our ability to maintain current and 
form new conservation partnerships with non-Federal landowners in areas 
essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. As discussed above, 
reintroduction and reestablishment of populations into areas that are 
not currently occupied by the species will be required to achieve their 
conservation. Exclusion is not likely to reduce the likelihood that 
reintroductions would occur or be successful. Exclusion of lands that 
are managed by non-Federal landowners for restoration or maintenance of 
suitable native habitat is more likely to facilitate robust 
partnerships with non-Federal landowners that would be required to 
support a reintroduction program that would be effective in conserving 
these species. 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. Excluding lands covered by voluntary 
conservation partnerships in Hawaii is likely to restore, maintain, and 
increase the strength and number of partnerships with non-Federal 
landowners that are needed to recover the species.
    An important consideration as we evaluate these exclusions and 
their potential effect on the species in question is that critical 
habitat does not carry with it a regulatory requirement to restore or 
actively manage habitat for the benefit of listed species; the 
regulatory effect of critical habitat is only the avoidance of 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat should an 
action with a Federal nexus occur. It is, therefore, advantageous for 
the conservation of the species to support the proactive efforts of 
non-Federal landowners who are contributing to the enhancement of 
essential habitat features for listed species through exclusion.
    As described above, at least some of the area excluded is likely to 
support recovery efforts for these species, although for purposes of 
this analysis we do not count on that. However, the remaining 
designated critical habitat will accommodate the expansion of existing 
populations and the establishment of new populations of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrfolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense that will help prevent extinction. Although some of the areas 
where these species occur are being excluded from critical habitat, the 
11,640 ac (4,711 ha) of critical habitat designated in this final rule 
and the sufficient numbers of individuals remaining in the critical 
habitat designation are adequate to facilitate the recovery of each 
species.
    These three species are also subject to other protections as well; 
these protections remain in effect even absent the designation of 
critical habitat. Section 195D-4 of Hawaii Revised Statutes (endangered 
species and threatened species) stipulates that species determined to 
be endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act 
shall be deemed endangered or threatened under the State law. Thus, 
these species are already protected under State law, and unlike the 
Federal Endangered Species Act, State law prohibits the take of plants. 
Under the State law, it is unlawful, with some exceptions, to ``take'' 
such species, or to possess, sell, carry or transport them. The 
statutory protections under State law provide additional assurances 
that exclusion of these areas from critical habitat will not result in 
extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is currently known from five 
occurrences totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals within the lowland 
dry ecosystem of the North Kona region on Hawaii Island. One of the 
locations where the subspecies occurs is on land owned by Kaloko 
Entities that is excluded from this critical habitat designation, but 
these individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla are protected by 
the State prohibition on the take of listed plants. As part of their 
2016 MOU with the Service, Kaloko Entities is preserving a 150-ac (61-
ha) area to protect Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and nine other 
species, and will provide enhanced protection through fencing around 
the area. However, the Service is not relying on the actions of Kaloko 
Entities to prevent the extinction of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla. As described above in ``Recovery Needs,'' the future of 
this subspecies depends on the outplanting of cultivated individuals 
into suitable habitat to establish new populations. Plants are under 
propagation, and seed banking is taking place at facilities on Hawaii 
and Oahu, and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla has already been 
outplanted in several areas on Hawaii Island. Although three of the 
locations (across five different landownerships) where Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla currently occurs are being excluded from critical 
habitat, this rule designates 11,640 ac (4,711 ha) of both occupied and 
unoccupied critical habitat for this subspecies on Hawaii Island where 
it is possible the subspecies could be reintroduced. The State's 
prohibition on the take of listed plants, combined with the designation 
of other critical habitat on the Island of Hawaii, is sufficient to 
prevent extinction of this subspecies.
    Isodendrion pyrifolium currently has only a few immature 
individuals left in the wild in the Kealakehe area. These individuals 
are on land owned by DHHL that is excluded from this critical habitat 
designation. However, DHHL already provides enhanced protection for 
these individuals through fencing around the plants, and these 
individuals are protected by the State prohibition on the take of 
plants. In addition, the recovery of this species will rely on the 
outplanting of cultivated individuals in suitable habitat on Hawaii 
Island and other suitable habitat in the State of Hawaii. Plants are 
under propagation, and seed banking is taking place at facilities on 
Hawaii and Kauai, and Isodendrion pyrifolium has already been 
outplanted in several areas of Hawaii Island. Recent management efforts 
have resulted in 90 outplanted individuals distributed in four 
occurrences (in

[[Page 42403]]

addition to the Kealakehe area). We have also designated critical 
habitat for this species on Oahu within 8 units totaling 1,924 ac (779 
ha) (77 FR 57648; September 18, 2012), and on the islands of Maui and 
Molokai within 13 units totaling 21,703 ac (8,783 ha) (81 FR 17790; 
March 30, 2016). Even though the DHHL land is excluded, this rule 
designates 11,640 ac (4,711 ha) of critical habitat for the species on 
Hawaii Island. Combined, these measures will prevent extinction of 
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
    Currently, Mezoneuron kavaiense is found in six occurrences 
totaling 72 mature and 22 immature wild individuals in the lowland dry 
ecosystem of Hawaii Island, mainly in the Kealakehe, Puu Waawaa, and 
Waikoloa Village areas. These individuals are protected by the State 
prohibition on taking listed plants. In addition, as with the other two 
species, the recovery of this species will rely on the outplanting of 
cultivated individuals. Monitoring and recovery actions are being 
implemented for wild and outplanted populations on Kauai, Oahu, and 
Lanai. Plants are under propagation and seed banking is taking place at 
facilities on Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. On Kauai, there is an 
occurrence of Mezoneuron kavaiense in Waimea Canyon. On Oahu, there are 
two occurrences with a total of five individuals. On Lanai, the species 
is extirpated in the wild; however, two individuals have been 
reintroduced into a fenced exclosure. Seed collections contain 
representation of genetic material of Mezoneuron kavaiense from all 
islands across the species' distribution. Although we are excluding 
some areas that had been proposed for critical habitat designation, 
this rule designates 11,640 ac (4,711 ha) of critical habitat for the 
species, including occupied and unoccupied habitat with room for 
reintroduction. The final designation of critical habitat for 
Mezoneuron kavaiense includes the area at Puu Waawaa that contains the 
majority (67 percent) of remaining mature wild individuals, and the 
largest outplanting of the species (254 plants). Combined, these 
measures will prevent the extinction of Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    We have thoroughly considered the effect of each of the exclusions 
made in this final rule. For all of the reasons described above, the 
Secretary has determined that these exclusions will not result in the 
extinction of the species concerned, and is exercising his discretion 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this final critical 
habitat designation portions of the proposed critical habitat units 
that are within the areas identified in Table 4, totaling 7,027 ac 
(2,844 ha).
    Maps of areas essential to the conservation of the species covered 
in this rule, identified through designated critical habitat, or 
through partnerships and conservation agreements with landowners and 
land managers but excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act, are available in the document ``Supplementary Information 
for the Designation and Non-Designation of Critical Habitat on Hawaii 
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and 
Mezoneuron kavaiense,'' available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028.
    The total area excluded from critical habitat designation in this 
rule is summarized by landowner in the following table.

Table 5--Total Area (ac, ha) Excluded From Critical Habitat by Landowner
                             or Land Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Area excluded
               Landowner or land manager                    in ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamehameha Schools.....................................    2,834 (1,147)
Waikoloa Village Association...........................      1,758 (712)
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC..........................        502 (203)
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands......................        492 (199)
Kaloko Entities........................................        631 (255)
Lanihau Properties.....................................          47 (19)
County of Hawaii.......................................         165 (67)
Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation.....          30 (12)
Forest City Kona.......................................        265 (107)
Queen Liliuokalani Trust...............................        302 (122)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat on Hawaii Island for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
during four comment periods. We also contacted appropriate Federal, 
State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and 
DEA during these comment periods.
    During the first comment period, we received 20 letters addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation. During the second comment 
period, we received 87 letters addressing the proposed critical habitat 
designation or the DEA. During the May 15, 2013, public hearing, 39 
individuals or organizations made comments on the designation of 
critical habitat for the three species. During the fourth comment 
period, we received 9 letters addressing the proposed critical habitat 
designation. All substantive information provided during comment 
periods has either been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or is addressed below. Comments we received are grouped 
into 11 general issues relating to the proposed critical habitat 
designation for the three species.

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 on 
our combined proposed listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 63928; 
October 17, 2012) from 14 knowledgeable individuals with scientific 
expertise on the Hawaii Island plants and the other species included in 
the proposed rulemaking, including familiarity with the species, the 
geographic region in which these species occur, and conservation 
biology principles. We received responses from 11 of the peer reviewers 
on the combined proposed listing and critical habitat rule; however, 
only two peer reviewers provided comments specifically addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation. These peer reviewers generally 
supported our methodology and conclusions. We reviewed all comments 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the designation of critical habitat for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiense. Peer reviewers' comments are addressed in the following 
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Comments From Peer Reviewers
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer expressed appreciation for emphasis 
placed on ecosystem approaches to preservation of species and the 
effects of global climate change. The peer reviewer also commented that 
we cannot be certain that areas that are identified as unoccupied by a 
species within the proposed critical habitat designation actually have 
no representatives of that species in the area. The peer reviewer added 
that it is very difficult to obtain evidence of absence for species in 
an area because of the intensive level of sampling required, and that 
it is doubtful that this level of sampling has been achieved for most 
of these species and the areas where they could occur.

[[Page 42404]]

    Our Response: We recognize that biological survey efforts for many 
native species and ecosystems may be infrequent or lack complete 
coverage, and that presence of a species may later be detected in a 
critical habitat unit that was considered unoccupied by a species. To 
ascertain the occupancy status of critical habitat units, the Service 
uses the best available occurrence data and other scientific and 
commercial information available to us at the time of our determination 
(see Methods, above). Our understanding of species' biological needs 
and distribution is updated as we obtain new information from sources 
such as additional survey data and recent advances in species 
distribution modeling. Any updated occurrence data that the Service 
obtains for a listed species are used to inform ongoing recovery 
efforts and any further rulemaking for that species. These data also 
are incorporated into the technical assistance we provide to action 
agencies during the section 7 consultation process and our section 7 
analyses.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern that the land set 
aside for protection in the Kaloko area is not adequately protected 
from feral animals, particularly goats that have been observed near 
Kaloko-Honokohau NHP in recent months. The peer reviewer emphasized 
that this area merits a high ranking for protection for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron 
kavaiensis, and that funds should be procured to construct an ungulate-
proof fence around the entire 150 ac (61 ha), allowing outplanting to 
continue on a larger scale with assurances that the plants will persist 
and not be consumed by feral goats.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the peer 
reviewer regarding the land set-aside for protection at Kaloko, and 
agree that the area constitutes some of the best remaining habitat for 
the recovery of listed plant species. The peer reviewer is correct in 
stating that the entire 150-ac (61-ha) area is not protected from goats 
by ungulate-proof fencing at this time. The Service is working with the 
landowners and developer to construct an ungulate-proof fence, remove 
ungulates, control nonnative plants, maintain firebreaks, and allow for 
outplanting of listed plant species.
Comments From State Agencies
    (3) Comment: The State of Hawaii DOFAW stated a concern regarding 
the proposed critical habitat designation at Puu Waawaa because that 
area is not an area where the DOFAW is planning on concentrating 
recovery efforts for these species. The DOFAW commented that the 
proposed critical habitat for the three species at Puu Waawaa is in a 
currently grazed area of scattered native trees with an understory 
dominated by invasive fountain grass, particularly below the highway, 
and that the area below the highway is not a suitable area in which to 
recover these species. The DOFAW further stated that conservation 
efforts will be much more effective in higher elevation (above 2,400 
feet (ft) (731 meters (m)), wetter (mesic-dry to mesic, as opposed to 
dry) habitat, where more intact native ecosystems occur. The DOFAW 
proposed that the critical habitat boundary polygon be adjusted to 
include only those areas above the highway, excluding the area below 
the highway because it is extremely degraded. The DOFAW questioned how 
the critical habitat designation would affect the management and 
recovery efforts for these species currently in place at Puu Waawaa.
    Our Response: The State DOFAW is a valued conservation partner in 
the recovery of endangered species and their habitats. We appreciate 
the DOFAW's strategic approach to focus efforts in areas that may 
benefit the recovery of additional listed species and where recovery is 
likely to be accomplished more readily due to reduced competition with 
nonnative plant species. The designation of critical habitat will not 
direct or require the State DOFAW to implement recovery and/or 
management actions in a specific area, and the State is encouraged to 
continue their recovery efforts how and where they determine most 
appropriate. Based on geographic analysis program (GAP) vegetation 
data, we recognize that certain areas of the proposed critical habitat 
within Unit 31 at Puu Waawaa are characterized as alien grassland 
dominated by fountain grass or kiawe (GAP 2005). We also understand 
that the State of Hawaii DLNR manages month-to-month grazing leases at 
Puu Waawaa that are allowed for the dual purposes of fuels reduction 
and commercial cattle production (Parsons 2014, pers. comm.). However, 
our analysis indicates that these areas contain both the physical and 
biological features essential for the recovery and conservation of the 
three plant species, as well as unoccupied areas that are needed for 
the expansion or augmentation of reduced populations or the 
reestablishment of populations. The Recovery Plans for these species 
note that augmentation and reintroduction of populations are necessary 
for the species' conservation (as described above in Recovery Needs 
section). Survey data indicate 47 separate locations of Mezoneuron 
kavaiense individuals in the area west of Mamalahoa Highway that are 
distributed evenly throughout the lower elevations of Unit 31 (DOFAW 
2006, unpublished). While it can be assumed that areas at higher 
elevation (above 2,400 ft (731 m)), with higher rainfall (mesic) and 
higher incidence of native species, may provide favorable conditions 
for plant growth and recovery, data are not available at this time to 
inform whether introduction of these three species from the lowland dry 
to the lowland mesic or montane mesic ecosystem is likely to be 
successful. Mezoneuron kavaiense and the two other species are 
primarily known to occur at elevations of 2,400 ft (730 m) and below on 
Hawaii Island, the majority of which occur below Mamalahoa Highway in 
Unit 31 (USWFS 1994, pp. 13-16). Therefore, we have not adjusted the 
proposed boundaries of the Unit 31 in this final critical habitat rule. 
The Service will continue our collaborative approach with the State and 
DOFAW on the management and recovery of endangered species and their 
habitats. We will also continue to evaluate new data and information 
regarding the threat of climate change and the ability of critical 
habitat to provide the areas essential to species' recovery.
    (4) Comment: The DHHL recommended that the Service consult with the 
Hawaiian Homes Commission, the DHHL, the Office of Native Hawaiian 
Relations, and the native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act, as well as provide knowledge of species, habitat, and 
management and protection prior to designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We met with DHHL representatives on August 24, 2012, 
prior to publishing our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). 
At the meeting, we provided information regarding our compilation of 
available information on species and habitat areas on Hawaii Island, 
and requested updated information from DHHL. At the time we published 
our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), we notified elected 
officials, the Hawaii County Planning Department, and several Hawaiian 
organizations including Kamehameha Schools, the Office of Hawaiian 
Affairs (OHA) (offices for Honolulu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai), DHHL, 
the State Historic Preservation Division, and Kahea (the Hawaiian-
Environmental Alliance). Following publication of our proposed rule, we 
met with DHHL representatives

[[Page 42405]]

(December 4, 2012, and April 10, 2013) and presented a joint workshop 
with DHHL planning staff at the April 23, 2013, Hawaiian Homes 
Commission meeting, in Kapolei, Oahu. In addition, we have consulted 
with staff from the Department of the Interior's Office of Native 
Hawaiian Relations and included them in meetings with DHHL. We reviewed 
and incorporated new information from these meetings into this final 
rule.
    (5) Comment: The DHHL requested that the Secretary of the Interior 
consider the effects of designation of critical habitat on Hawaiian 
Home Lands in a similar manner to the effects it has on tribal lands, 
including the impact of tribal sovereignty. The DHHL also referenced 
Secretarial Order 3206, which describes guidelines for the Service when 
dealing with Indian tribes relating to endangered species on Indian 
tribal lands and calls on the Service to forge close working 
relationships with Indian tribes to preserve endangered species while 
respecting tribal authority over their lands. The DHHL further 
commented that the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act (Pub. L. 104-42) 
requires the Secretary to follow certain procedures when determining 
whether the consent of the United States is necessary for an amendment 
to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Pub. L. 67-34) and when 
determining whether to approve an exchange of Hawaiian Home Lands with 
other lands.
    Our Response: In accordance with the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations With Native American 
Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (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. 
108-199) 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 do not yet have a formal government-to-
government relationship with the Federal Government, 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 63928; 
October 17, 2012), we notified several Hawaiian organizations as 
described in our response to Comment (4). We have considered all 
comments provided by the DHHL and these other organizations in this 
final rule.
    (6) Comment: The DHHL requested an extension of the public comment 
period to allow an additional 60 days for public review and comment on 
the proposed critical habitat designation and DEA. The additional time 
was requested to gather and assess information regarding the benefits 
of exclusion or inclusion of DHHL lands.
    Our Response: On July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39698), we reopened the public 
comment period on the proposed critical habitat designation and DEA for 
an additional 60 days, ending on September 3, 2013. Further, on May 20, 
2016, we announced another reopening of the comment period on the 
proposed critical habitat designation, including the economic impacts 
of the designation, ending June 6, 2016 (81 FR 31900).
    (7) 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 
further commented that critical habitat designation on agricultural 
land hurts Hawaii's agricultural production by limiting potential uses 
on the land and reducing the market value of the land. They reiterated 
concerns of cattle producers that critical habitat designation amounts 
to a downzoning (i.e., State land use district reclassification from 
Agriculture to Conservation) of property and would negatively affect 
the development potential of their lands, and consequently would 
negatively affect the financial well-being of rancher's operations.
    Our Response: We understand the HDOA's concern with maintaining 
food sustainability but we have no information to suggest that the 
critical habitat designation will limit the ability of agricultural 
lands to produce food crops. According to the State land use dockets 
that establish ``Important Agricultural Lands'' (IALs) on the island of 
Hawaii, there are no IALs within this final critical habitat 
designation (IAL 2013). The designation of critical habitat does not 
deny anyone economically viable use of their property (see our response 
to Comment (31) for an explanation of the regulatory consequence of a 
critical habitat designation).
    Regarding downzoning, according to the State's DLNR Office of 
Conservation and Coastal Lands and the State Office of Planning, 
critical habitat designation does not automatically generate a district 
reclassification or downzoning (e.g., redistricting from development 
use to conservation). According to the State Office of Planning, the 
presence of critical habitat is taken into consideration during the 
redistricting process (both during the 5-year boundary reviews and 
review of petitions for boundary amendments); however, the presence of 
critical habitat does not necessarily mean that an area will be 
redistricted to the Conservation District. The DLNR and State Office of 
Planning were unable to identify an instance in which critical habitat 
specifically affected a districting decision.
    The FEA acknowledges that there is uncertainty with regard to 
whether or not the County of Hawaii will require landowners to 
implement conservation measures or conduct environmental assessments as 
a result of the designation of critical habitat. Uncertainty exists 
regarding whether or not critical habitat designation will cause the 
County to request additional assessments or reporting, or require 
additional conservation efforts when a landowner applies for a change 
in zoning. As described in section 2.6 of the FEA, the County Planning 
Department indicated that while critical habitat designation is taken 
into consideration, the presence of a listed

[[Page 42406]]

species weighs more heavily in the decision-making process. The County 
was unable to identify an instance in which the presence of critical 
habitat generated additional conservation recommendations or a request 
for an environmental assessment.
    (8) Comment: The County of Hawaii Planning Department commented 
that their policy (``Policy Env-1.5'') requires that areas identified 
as critical habitat be considered sensitive and are inventoried as part 
of the County permitting process, and, therefore, the Kona Community 
Development Plan (KCDP) already recognizes the sensitive nature of the 
majority of lands that the Service is now designating as critical 
habitat for these three plant species.
    Our Response: We recognize that ``Policy ENV-1.5: Sensitive 
Resources'' in the KCDP addresses areas already designated critical 
habitat and predominantly native ecosystems. In addition, we appreciate 
that authors of the KCDP voluntarily compiled information on critical 
habitat, anchialine ponds, and rare plants and animals using data from 
the Hawaii Natural Heritage Program (HNHP) database. The KCDP includes 
a map showing native vegetation within the plan area and a map showing 
designated critical habitat; this map also shows habitat of the Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense within the Kona 
Urban Area (KCDP 2008, Figures 4-8b and 4-8c). Because the KCDP was 
published in 2008, and the HNHP, which was a source of information for 
the map, no longer exists, we will work with the Planning Department 
and provide updates on sensitive resources, as appropriate, including 
the critical habitat designations in this final rule.
    Even though the KCDP already recognizes the sensitive nature of 
these lands, the Service is not relieved of its statutory obligation to 
designate critical habitat based on the contention that it will not 
provide additional conservation benefit (see, e.g., Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003)). 
If an area provides the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species, even if that area is already managed 
or protected, that area still qualifies as critical habitat under the 
statutory definition of critical habitat if special management or 
protection is required.
    (9) Comment: The County of Hawaii Planning Department commented on 
the lack of timely input by the Service during the KCDP planning 
process, which included years of community and government input, 
including Federal agencies. They stated that if the Service had 
provided data during the KCDP planning process about areas now being 
proposed for critical habitat, it may have altered the Kona Urban Area 
boundary designation.
    Our Response: While we were not heavily involved in the KCDP 
planning process, there was extensive information that the Service had 
earlier made available to the public regarding two of these species. We 
previously proposed critical habitat for one of the three species, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, in the KCDP area in 2002 (67 FR 36968; May 28, 
2002). In addition, before its listing in 2013, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla had been included as a candidate for protection under the 
Act since 1980, and is recognized in numerous surveys and reports in 
the Kona area (Char 1990; Char 1992; Warshauer and Gerrish 1993; Belt 
Collins Hawaii 1999; Hart 2003, in litt.; Whistler 2007). Futhermore, 
in the development of this critical habitat designation, the Service 
used the HNHP database as a primary source of information on rare 
species occurrence data; this is the same source that the KCDP 
referenced for information on sensitive resources such as rare plants 
and animals, and native habitats.
    (10) Comment: The County of Hawaii Planning Department commented 
that the KCDP Greenbelt may be an appropriate tool to provide 
protection for the species' habitats within the Kona Urban Area 
boundary designation. The Greenbelt is defined as areas of largely 
undeveloped, wild, agricultural land surrounding or neighboring urban 
areas and is intended as a strategic planning tool to prevent urban 
sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Greenbelt may also serve 
multipurpose uses, such as for drainage (e.g., flow ways or retention 
basins), sensitive resource preserves, or wildfire protection buffers.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the KCDP and commend the plan for 
addressing the desire for open space and preventing urban sprawl. We 
also support the use of native plant species in landscaping, including 
endangered and threatened plant species, provided proper permits and 
approvals are secured. While we recognize that Greenbelt areas are 
intended in some instances to protect sensitive resources, these areas 
are not likely to support species recovery because they: (1) Are too 
small in size; (2) increase habitat fragmentation; and (3) allow uses 
such as various transportation features, parks, playgrounds, and other 
activities that are incompatible with native ecosystem restoration 
(Kona CDP 2008, pp. 4-40-4-41, SC12).
Comments From Elected Officials
    (11) Comment: Hawaii Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa requested that 
the Service conduct a public information meeting regarding the proposed 
critical habitat for three species on the island of Hawaii during the 
public comment period for the proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Service held two public information meetings 
regarding the proposed critical habitat designation for the three 
Hawaii Island species, the first on May 15, 2013, and the second on 
August 7, 2013; both public information meetings were held at the Kona 
Civic Center. Announcements of the meetings were published in the 
Federal Register on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), and July 2, 2013 (78 
FR 39698), respectively. In addition, the Service sent letters to all 
interested parties, including elected officials, Federal and State 
agencies, native Hawaiian organizations, private landowners, and other 
stakeholders, notifying each of the public information meetings.
    (12) Comment: Hawaii County Mayor William Kenoi expressed strong 
reservations about the proposed critical habitat designation and 
commented that areas within the proposed critical habitat designation 
have been proposed for some type of active use or development for at 
least 25 years. Mayor Kenoi commented that the proposed use of these 
properties are a result of a quarter-century of land use decisions, 
planning, and coordination, and represent an integral part of the 
growth of this fast-growing region. Mayor Kenoi also expressed support 
for the Service's efforts to protect native species in accordance with 
the Act, and urged the Service and all stakeholders to seek common 
ground.
    Our Response: We acknowledge Mayor Kenoi's concerns related to the 
proposed critical habitat designation and its overlap with current land 
use proposals. Under the Act, any species determined to be endangered 
or threatened requires critical habitat to be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. By definition, in section 
3(5)(A) of the Act, critical habitat for an endangered or threatened 
species includes the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection; and 
specific areas outside

[[Page 42407]]

the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed in 
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. Although this designation may overlap areas proposed for the 
land uses mentioned by the commenter, these areas meet the definition 
of critical habitat and are therefore included in this final 
designation. However, under section 4(b)(2), we 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 this 
final rule, we have excluded several areas based on relevant impacts 
(see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, above).
    (13) Comment: Hawaii County Councilmember Karen Eoff commented on 
the importance in maintaining cultural, environmental, and economic 
balance, and expressed support for designating adequate critical 
habitat for Hawaii Island's endangered native plant and animal species. 
She further stated that protection of the island's fragile ecosystem, 
and cultural and natural environment, will enhance the visitor industry 
and economy. The councilmember also commented that collaborative 
efforts among the Service, DHHL, QLT, OHA, and State and County 
agencies, in tandem with the directives and guidelines outlined in the 
KCDP, will ensure perpetuation of traditional cultural practices, 
ensure protection of the island's natural resources, and safeguard 
balanced economic development.
    Our Response: We appreciate the councilmember's comments in support 
of the protection of Hawaii's endangered plant and animal species and 
her suggestion to work collaboratively with all stakeholders (see our 
response to Comments (37) and (40), below, regarding our outreach to 
and collaboration with stakeholders). See our response to Comments (8) 
and (9) regarding our consideration of the KCDP in this final rule.
Comments Regarding Exclusions
    (14) Comment: The Kamehameha Schools, WVA, Palamanui, Kaloko 
Entities (previously Kaloko Properties Corporation, SCD-TSA Kaloko 
Makai LLC, TSA Corporation), Lanihau Properties, QLT, Forest City Kona, 
State of Hawaii lands assigned to the County of Hawaii, DHHL, and the 
HHFDC requested exclusion of their lands from the proposed critical 
habitat designation or expressed opposition to the designation of their 
lands. Numerous other public commenters wrote in support of excluding 
these lands from critical habitat.
    Our Response: We used the best available scientific information to 
determine habitat essential to the conservation of the species (see 
Methods, above), and further refined the critical habitat boundaries 
based on new information received since publication of the proposed 
rule on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), and release of our DEA of the 
Hawaii Island proposed critical habitat on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 
25243). Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 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. Some of 
these landowners have long-standing partnerships with the Service, and/
or demonstrated commitment and success for conservation of endangered 
species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The Service has worked 
with the other landowners to execute MOUs to benefit the three critical 
habitat species and the lowland dry ecosystem. For the reasons 
described above (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act), the lands under control of Kamehameha Schools, WVA, 
Palamanui, Kaloko Entities, Lanihau Properties, QLT, Forest City Kona, 
State of Hawaii lands assigned to the County of Hawaii, the HHFDC, and 
the DHHL have been excluded from critical habitat in this final rule.
    (15) Comment: The Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) stated that 
the Service's conclusion that the proposed rule will not 
``significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use'' is 
erroneous. They stated that if HELCO's electrical facilities are 
included in the critical habitat designation, their ability to provide 
reliable power where it is needed will be compromised because the 
designation might impede its ability to maintain, replace, or repair 
existing facilities or install additional facilities necessary to meet 
demand and thereby cause a significant adverse effect on energy 
distribution. The HELCO stated that their 6700 and 6800 circuits 
provide stability and redundancy for the grid, which is particularly 
essential, due to their proximity to the Keahole Power Plant. They also 
stated that the Service failed to take into account the impact of the 
proposed rules on energy supply, distribution, and use, as required by 
Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2011, and that consequently, the 
Service should prepare a Statement of Energy Effects that addresses 
HELCO's electrical facilities. Another commenter stated that areas with 
the HELCO's existing electrical facilities should be excluded from the 
critical habitat designations, and proposed a buffer of 250 ft (76 m) 
around all electrical facilities and requested exclusion of these areas 
from the critical habitat designation to allow for necessary 
maintenance and vegetation clearing. The commenter also requested that 
maps of the proposed critical habitat be revised to reflect exclusion 
of these areas, and that the Service add mention of ``electrical 
utility infrastructure and a 250 ft (76 m) buffer around such 
electrical infrastructure'' to the list of examples of manmade features 
and structures that are not included in the final critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: In our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), 
we state that existing manmade features and structures such as 
buildings, roads, railroads, airports, runways, other paved areas, 
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas are not included in the 
critical habitat designation. In this final rule, we add clarification 
to include utility facilities and infrastructure and their designated, 
maintained rights-of-way as examples of existing manmade features and 
structures (see Sec.  17.99 Critical habitat; plants on the Hawaiian 
Islands.). Any such structures or features and the land under them that 
is 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 above, Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat). It has always been our intent and practice to not include any 
existing designated, maintained rights-of-way for utility facilities 
and infrastructure in the areas designated as critical habitat. Federal 
actions involving these areas will not trigger section 7 consultation 
unless the specific action will also affect adjacent critical habitat 
or its physical or biological features. We believe the clarification 
for utility facilities and infrastructure and their existing 
designated, maintained rights-of-way allows for maintenance and 
vegetation clearing, therefore, exclusion of a 250-ft (76-m) buffer 
around electrical infrastructure and facilities is neither necessary 
nor appropriate. As stated above, it is our practice to consider 
utility rights-of-way as part of the development/infrastructure 
footprint, although, there are circumstances where a portion of the 
designated right-of-way may not be regularly maintained; therefore, 
this area may contain physical or biological features that define 
critical habitat. For example, a utility company

[[Page 42408]]

may have a designated right-of-way for a utility line where only a 
small portion of the right-of-way is maintained (mowed, graded) as an 
access route. In this situation, if the un-maintained portion of the 
right-of-way contains the designated physical or biological features, 
the Service would recommend the action agency consult on the project's 
effects to critical habitat.
    According to Executive Order 13211, a ``Significant energy action'' 
means any action by an agency that is a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy 
action (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). As discussed in the Required 
Determinations section below, the OIRA determined this rule was not 
significant. The economic analysis for this critical habitat 
designation could not identify any energy projects planned or proposed 
within the proposed critical habitat designation, and, therefore, 
section A.4 of Appendix A of the FEA, ``Potential Impacts to the Energy 
Industry,'' states that the designation of critical habitat is not 
anticipated to result in any impacts to the energy industry.
    (16) Comment: Several commenters requested that the Kaloko Makai 
property be excluded from critical habitat designation in light of the 
willingness of SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai, LLC to convey 40 ac (1 ha) (out of 
the roughly 630 ac (255 ha) of the Kaloko Makai property proposed as 
critical habitat) to Hawaii Health Systems Corporation (HHSC) at no 
cost for the development of a new regional acute care hospital, to set 
aside 150 ac (61 ac) in perpetuity for a dryland forest preserve, and 
to fence and remove ungulates and nonnative species from the preserve. 
Concern was raised that if the Kaloko Makai property is designated as 
critical habitat there is little chance that the Kaloko Makai project 
will be developed, and, as a result, the roads, water, sewer, and other 
infrastructure that are necessary for the hospital operations would not 
be built.
    Our Response: The Service received notification in a June 6, 2016, 
letter, of the new management of this property representing a group 
called the Kaloko Entities that includes: (1) Kaloko Properties LLC, a 
Hawaii limited liability company (formerly known as Kaloko Properties 
Corporation); (2) Kaloko Residential Park LLC, a Hawaii limited 
liability company (owner of the Kaloko Makai lands formerly owned by 
SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC); and (3) TSA LLC, a Hawaii limited liability 
company (formerly known as TSA Corporation). The letter expressed an 
interest to re-engage in discussions with the Service regarding a 
partnership or conservation agreement. As discussed in our response to 
Comment (14) above, and for the reasons discussed in the Consideration 
of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the lands owned by Kaloko 
Entities have been excluded from this critical habitat designation.
Comments Regarding the Methodology Used To Determine Critical Habitat
    (17) Comment: Several commenters opposed the designation of 
critical habitat in unoccupied areas. One commenter stated that where 
unoccupied habitat is involved, courts have determined that 
``[e]ssential for conservation is the standard for unoccupied habitat . 
. . and is a more demanding standard than that of occupied critical 
habitat,'' citing Homebuilders Association of No. California v. U.S. 
Fish & Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Another 
commenter challenged the Service to substantiate the presumption that 
loss of unoccupied habitat will significantly decrease the likelihood 
of conserving the species or jeopardize the conservation and 
preservation of the species.
    Our Response: We used the best available scientific information to 
determine critical habitat for the species (see Methods, above), and 
further refined the critical habitat boundaries based on new 
information received since publication of the proposed rule on October 
17, 2012 (77 FR 63928) and release of our DEA of the Hawaii Island 
proposed critical habitat on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243). In this 
final rule, the critical habitat designation is a combination of areas 
occupied by the species and areas that may be unoccupied. For areas 
considered occupied, the best available scientific information suggests 
that these areas were occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiensis at the times of their 
listing. However, due to the small population sizes, few numbers of 
individuals, and reduced geographic range of each of the three species 
for which critical habitat is here designated, we have determined that 
a designation limited to the known present range of the area occupied 
by each species at the time of its listing would be inadequate to 
achieve the conservation of those species. The areas believed to be 
unoccupied 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 the reestablishment of wild populations within the 
historical range of the species. These areas within the designated unit 
provide the physical and biological features of the lowland dry 
ecosystem for the three plants and also provide essential habitat that 
is necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations of the 
three species which occupy other sites in the unit. Due to the small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes of each of these three 
species, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery these 
species. See our response to Comment (12) above regarding the 
definition of critical habitat and criteria for our determination of 
why unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation of the three 
species in this final rule (see also Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat, above).
    (18) Comment: Several commenters disputed the use of an ecosystem 
approach in our determination of PCEs for each species and cited the 
regulations for determining critical habitat at 50 CFR 424.12(b). In 
addition, commenters 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, adding that the courts have consistently held that such a 
generalization of critical habitat is unacceptable.
    Our Response: Under the Act and its implementing regulations, in 
areas occupied at the time of listing, we are required to identify the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species for which we propose critical habitat. The PCEs are those 
specific elements of the physical and biological features that provide 
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the 
conservation of the species. These species need a functioning ecosystem 
to survive and recovery. Further, in many cases, due to our limited 
knowledge of specific life-history requirements for the species that 
are little-studied and occur in remote and inaccessible areas, the 
physical and biological features that provide for the successful 
functioning of the ecosystem on which these species depend represent 
the best, and, in many cases, the only, scientific information 
available. Accordingly, the physical and biological features of the 
ecosystem are, at least in part, the physical and

[[Page 42409]]

biological features essential to the conservation of those species. 
Collectively, these features provide the suite of environmental 
conditions essential to meeting the fundamental requirements of each 
species.
    In this case, the physical and biological features that we 
identified for these species represent the PCEs for these species, and 
reflect a distribution that we concluded is essential to the species' 
recovery needs within the lowland dry ecosystem. 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 
maintenance of the historical geographical and ecological distribution 
of each species. The PCEs 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. The physical and 
biological features/PCEs of a functioning ecosystem for the lowland dry 
ecosystem identified as essential to the conservation of the three 
species are described in Table 2 of this final rule 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 Resource Conservation Service's 
(NRCS) soil type analysis data layer for GIS (geographic information 
systems) mapping (NRCS 2008); (c) Hawaii Island vegetation analyses by 
Gagne and Cuddihy (1999, pp. 45-114); (d) plant databases from the 
National Tropical Botanical Garden (2011); (e) geographic information 
system maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian plants 
(HPPRCC 1998); (f) GAP (geographic analysis program) vegetation data 
(GAP 2005); (g) Federal Register documents, such as listing rules and 
5-year status reviews; (h) recent biological surveys and scientific 
reports regarding species and their habitats; and (i) discussions with 
qualified individuals familiar with these species and ecosystems.
    (19) Comment: One commenter stated that most of the area proposed 
for critical habitat is affected by various threats (wildfires, 
nonnative plants, and nonnative ungulates), is not currently good 
habitat for endangered plant species, and would require difficult, 
expensive measures to rehabilitate, requiring at the very least some 
fencing and firebreaks. The commenter stated that development could be 
planned to avoid, protect, and restore remnant sites with high-quality 
habitat.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter's statement that various 
threats affect most, if not all, of the habitat for the three species. 
Fire, nonnative plant species, and ungulates are identified as primary 
threats to the physical and biological features of the lowland dry 
ecosystem essential to the conservation of the three species. We also 
agree that the areas designated require special management 
considerations or protections. (e.g., firebreaks, fencing, control of 
nonnative plant species). In addition, active management of the species 
themselves (e.g., ex situ (off-site) germplasm storage, and collection, 
propagation, outplanting and maintenance) will likely be necessary for 
the conservation of the three species (USFWS 1994, pp. 39-48; USFWS 
1999, pp. 71, 117-119, 126). With protection and active management, we 
expect the areas identified in this final rule to provide the areas 
essential to the conservation of the three species. While development 
adjacent to protected areas may include paved or landscaped areas that 
may reduce the potential for invasion by or the harmful effects of 
nonnative plant species, higher levels of human activity associated 
with development also creates the potential of ignition sources, 
vandalism, and theft. During the proposed rule's comment periods and in 
the development of this final rule, we worked with the State, County, 
and affected landowners in a cooperative planning process that 
addressed development and the areas essential to the conservation of 
the three species.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters stated the possibility that other 
potential conservation areas and resources are available for protection 
of the target species throughout west Hawaii and Hawaii Island, and 
that the Service's methods of only using available historical surveys 
and past studies prepared by landowners unnecessarily skews the 
designation of possible critical habitat areas toward areas that are 
being slated for development, such as the Kona Urban Area. A commenter 
suggested that a proper scientific method would include a contemporary 
analysis of the entire island of Hawaii for the areas that have the 
necessary physical and biological attributes necessary for establishing 
a critical habitat area.
    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 three species by identifying the occurrence data for each species 
and determining the ecosystems upon which they depend. The information 
we used is described in our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 
63928) and in this final rule (see Methods, above). In response to the 
commenter's suggestion that our analysis consider areas across the 
entire Hawaii Island, we did not consider including areas outside the 
species' known historic range as critical habitat. The introduction of 
a species outside its historically known range may cause additional 
concerns, such as hybridization with other closely related species (in 
the case of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla) (Giffin 2011, pers. 
comm.), or exposing species to other known or unknown threats. 
Regarding the consideration of available habitat on State and Federal 
lands, the final designation includes significant areas of State and 
Federal lands, totaling 11,613 ac (4,699 ha) out of the 11,640-ac 
(4,711-ha) designation.
    (21) Comment: One commenter stated that areas with soil types 
classified as pahoehoe lava flows or aa lava flows are not suitable for 
critical habitat designation because such areas do not provide the PCEs 
of the lowland dry ecosystem substrate, which consists of ``weathered 
silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges, and little-weathered lava.''
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's statements that 
pahoehoe and aa lava provide neither the PCEs of the lowland dry 
ecosystem nor suitable habitat for the three species. As described by 
Gagne and Cuddihy (1999, pp. 67-74), the substrate of the lowland dry 
ecosystem ranges from weathered reddish silty loams to stony clay 
soils, rocky ledges with very shallow soil, or relatively recent, 
little-weathered lava. In addition, all three species are known from 
primarily pahoehoe and aa soil types on relatively recent lava flows 
(51 FR 24672, July 8, 1986; 59 FR 10305, March 4, 1994; HBMP 2010a, 
HBMP 2010b, HBMP 2010c).
    (22) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no benefit of 
critical habitat designation in areas occupied by the species. The 
commenter stated that according to information presented in the 
Service's DEA, in areas where the species is present, the level of 
protection afforded by a critical habitat designation is similar to the 
level of protection already present without the designation.
    Our Response: This comment may be in reference to discussion of 
incremental economic impacts in the DEA (also discussed in the FEA) 
which recognizes that the presence of listed

[[Page 42410]]

plants provides extensive baseline protection because projects or 
activities with a Federal nexus would be subject to section 7 
consultation regardless of critical habitat designation. It is, 
therefore, unlikely that critical habitat designation will change the 
outcome of future section 7 consultations within areas occupied by the 
species. However, critical habitat provides other benefits. One of the 
benefits of a critical habitat designation is that it serves to educate 
landowners, State and local governments, and the public regarding the 
potential conservation value of an area. This can help focus and 
promote conservation efforts by identifying areas of high conservation 
value for the listed plants. Any additional information about the needs 
of the listed plants or their habitat that reaches a wider audience is 
of benefit to future conservation efforts. See also the second half of 
our response to Comment (8) regarding the benefit of critical habitat.
    (23) Comment: One commenter stated that by focusing on areas where 
there are perceived threats caused by urbanization, the resulting 
proposed critical habitat identifies areas in and around areas planned 
for urbanization. The commenter suggested that the Service first 
consider lands within the State Conservation District and the 
protections afforded these lands in identification of potential 
critical habitat. Consideration of urban lands or lands planned for 
urban growth for critical habitat designation should only occur after 
all other sites protected through zoning have been thoroughly 
exhausted.
    Our Response: As stated previously, the State is a valued 
conservation partner in the recovery of endangered species and their 
habitats and we appreciate their strategic approach. Species that occur 
in the lowland dry ecosystem face numerous threats in addition to urban 
development, including habitat destruction by ungulates, nonnative 
plants, fire, and climate change; predation or herbivory by ungulates, 
nonnative vertebrates, and invertebrates; and other threats such as 
hybridization (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Hawaii Revised Statute 
(HRS) 183C establishes the authority of the Hawaii DLNR to regulate 
uses and permitting within the Conservation District but does not 
address endangered and threatened species or designated critical 
habitat. In the case of species such as Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla, the historical range of the species may be extremely 
restricted (see Current Status of the Species, above), and, therefore, 
areas that contain the physical and biological features or areas 
determined to be essential for their conservation may not correspond to 
the existing Conservation District. The best available scientific 
information led us to a proposed designation of critical habitat 
wherein ten percent fell within the Urban District (1,921 ac (778 ha)), 
16 percent within the Conservation District (2,955 ac (1,196 ha)), and 
74 percent in the Agricultural District (13,892 ac (5,622 ha)). See our 
response to Comment (12), above, regarding our analysis and the 
information used to determine the areas of critical habitat for the 
three species in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) and 
in this final rule (see also Methods and Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat, above).
    (24) Comment: One commenter questioned the Service's consideration 
for exclusion of certain groups with plans for commercial or 
residential development within the proposed critical habitat 
designation, stating that such development would undoubtedly degrade 
and destroy the physical and biological features, and the resulting 
traffic would have detrimental effects on the species' habitat. Another 
commenter opposed the Service's consideration of the areas proposed for 
exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for 
the purposes of widespread urban development and sprawl that further 
fragment, modify, and destruct these species' critical habitat.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenters' concern for possible 
impact to and assurances of conservation for areas considered for 
exclusion from the proposed critical habitat designation in the 
proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must 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 he determines that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical 
habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species. The Secretary may exclude 
an area from critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts to 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In this final rule, 
the Service carefully considered the factors above and present the 
results of our analysis for each area excluded under 4(b)(2) of the Act 
(see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, above).
    (25) Comment: Two commenters stated that lands within the critical 
habitat designation will have limited access and thereby not allow 
people to malama aina (care for the land).
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a wilderness area, preserve, or wildlife 
refuge, nor does it open or restrict a privately-owned area to human 
access or use. Past or ongoing activities to care for the land, such as 
habitat management, reduction of species' threats, and increasing 
species numbers are expected to benefit the species recovery, and, 
therefore, such activities would be encouraged within designated 
critical habitat.
Comments Regarding Regulatory Authority and Requirements
    (26) Comment: Two commenters stated that designating non-Federal 
land (Kamakana Villages, Kaloko Makai) as critical habitat will provide 
no benefit to any listed or proposed endangered species that is not 
already provided under Hawaii State law. The commenter stated that 
section 9 of the Act does not prohibit the ``taking'' of federally 
listed plants from non-Federal lands and cited 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(2)(B), 
which defers to State laws and regulations. The commenter stated that 
under HRS 195D-4(e), it is unlawful to ``take'' any endangered or 
threatened plant species in the State of Hawaii, and, therefore, with 
respect to plants, the State law is more protective than the Act and 
critical habitat designation on non-Federal land. Another commenter 
stated that the DEA clearly indicates no additional protection of 
endangered species will be afforded by the proposed critical habitat 
designation other than that which already exists under State law.
    Our Response: Unlike the automatic conferral of State law 
protection for all federally listed species (see HRS 195D-4(a)), there 
are no provisions in State law (HRS 195D-4(e)) that reference federally 
designated critical habitat. When considering the benefits of inclusion 
of an area in critical habitat, we consider the regulatory benefits 
that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification 
or destruction as a result of consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act for actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of 
mapping habitat essential for recovery of the listed species; and any 
benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal 
laws that may apply to critical habitat. Benefits could include public 
awareness of the presence of listed

[[Page 42411]]

species and the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection due to the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical 
habitat. Also, State law only protects existing plants from take. If an 
area is unoccupied, there are no provisions for protection under State 
law. See also the second half of our response to Comment (8).
    (27) 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 HRS 195D-5.1 and HRS 205-1(3). The commenters 
stated that critical habitat designation will put the State of Hawaii 
Land Use Commission (LUC) Urban District classification at risk because 
under HRS 195D-5.1, the DLNR is required to initiate land use district 
boundary amendments to put lands that are considered habitat for flora 
and fauna into the State LUC Conservation District. Multiple commenters 
stated that the proposed critical habitat designation will result in a 
redistricting or ``down-zoning'' of the designated area to the 
conservation district due to HRS section 195D-5.1, resulting in the 
loss of projects and associated investments, entitlements, and other 
benefits.
    Our Response: HRS section 195D-5.1 states that the 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, to our knowledge, DLNR has not 
proposed amendments in the past to include all designated critical 
habitat in the conservation district. State law only permits other 
State departments or agencies, the county in which the land is 
situated, and any person with a property interest in the land to 
petition the State LUC for a change in the boundary of a district (HRS 
section 205-4).
    The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism's 
(DBEDT) Office of Planning also conducts a periodic review of district 
boundaries taking into account current land uses, environmental 
concerns, and other factors, and may propose changes to the LUC. The 
State LUC determines whether changes proposed by DLNR, DBEDT, other 
State agencies, counties, or landowners should be enacted. In doing so, 
State law requires LUC to take into account specific criteria, set 
forth at HRS section 205-17. While the LUC is specifically directed to 
consider the impact of the proposed reclassification on ``the 
preservation or maintenance of important natural systems or habitats,'' 
it is also specifically directed to consider five other impacts in its 
decision: (a) Maintenance of valued cultural, historical, or natural 
resources; (b) maintenance of other natural resources relevant to 
Hawaii's economy, including, but not limited to, agricultural 
resources; (c) commitment of State funds and resources; (d) provision 
for employment opportunities and economic development; and (e) 
provision for housing opportunities for all income groups, particularly 
the low, low-moderate, and gap groups (HRS section 205.17). Approval of 
redistricting requires six affirmative votes from the nine 
commissioners, with the decision based on a ``clear preponderance of 
the evidence that the proposed boundary is reasonable'' (HRS section 
205-4). In addition, the LUC must hold a hearing on all petitions to 
redistrict areas greater than 15 ac (6 ha), and must admit as 
intervening parties all persons who have some property interest in the 
land, thus giving private property owners opposing redistricting the 
opportunity to present evidence (HRS section 205-4). The relevant State 
endangered and threatened species statute contains no reference to 
designated critical habitat. Also, as stated above, 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 (HRS section 195D-5.1, HRS 
section 195D-4(a)).
    (28) Comment: One commenter stated that the consequences of 
critical habitat designation are broader than section 7 consultation. 
The commenter stated that the existence of the critical habitat 
designation would undoubtedly be used to oppose any ongoing or proposed 
actions in the designated area by State and county agencies.
    Our Response: See response to Comment (27) above regarding critical 
habitat and State and County land use processes. In addition, 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. HRS 343 does not trigger land reclassification as a 
result of critical habitat designation, nor does it stipulate 
prohibitions against proposed actions or proposed land use changes in 
areas designated as critical habitat, whether or not these areas are in 
the conservation district. It states that an EIS 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 already classified as conservation.
    (29) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must also 
consider its designation of critical habitat for plants in the context 
of the Hawaii Endangered Species Act, HRS 195 (Hawaii ESA). The 
commenter stated that ``impacts of plant designations in Hawaii are 
consequently more sweeping than in the rest of the nation because the 
Hawaii ESA makes it broadly unlawful for any person to `take' a `land 
plant''' under HRS 195D-4(e)(2), subjecting violators to the full force 
of civil and criminal penalties under the Hawaii ESA (citing HRS 195D-2 
which defines ``Taking'' to include collecting, cutting, uprooting, 
destroying, injuring, or possessing the endangered land plant, without 
regard to where it is located, including private property).
    Our Response: HRS 195D covers conservation of aquatic life, 
wildlife, and land plants in the State of Hawaii. The sections of HRS 
195D relevant to this discussion are HRS sections 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, as 
well as prohibitions regarding endangered and threatened species on 
both Federal and non-Federal land, but makes no mention of critical 
habitat under HRS 195D-4. 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 high-quality native forests

[[Page 42412]]

and the habitat for rare native species of flora and fauna within the 
conservation district. Neither of these sections of HRS 195D includes 
statements invoking automatic prohibitions against adverse modification 
of critical habitat on private lands.
    (30) Comment: Several commenters claimed that the regulatory 
flexibility analysis provided in the proposed rule was flawed and 
inadequate. One commenter cited the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which states that an agency must 
either certify that a rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, or it must complete an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (see 5 U.S.C. 603). The 
commenters stated that the Service did not perform an adequate analysis 
of the impacts on small businesses, as required by law, stating that 
under the RFA a ``small business'' has the same meaning as a ``small 
business concern'' (see 5 U.S.C. 601).
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider 
the economic impact of designating a particular area as critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species. We also evaluate 
potential economic impacts of a rulemaking pursuant to both Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), which states that a rulemaking will be 
determined to be economically significant if it will result in an 
impact of more than $100 million in any given year, and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.). Under the RFA, when an agency is required to publish a 
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule of these sections of HRS 195D 
includes statements invoking automatic prohibitions against adverse 
modification of critical habitat on private lands.
    (30) Comment: Several commenters claimed that the regulatory 
flexibility analysis provided in the proposed rule was flawed and 
inadequate. One commenter cited the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which states that an agency must 
either certify that a rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, or it must complete an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (see 5 U.S.C. 603). The 
commenters stated that the Service did not perform an adequate analysis 
of the impacts on small businesses, as required by law, stating that 
under the RFA a ``small business'' has the same meaning as a ``small 
business concern'' (see 5 U.S.C. 601).
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider 
the economic impact of designating a particular area as critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species. We also evaluate 
potential economic impacts of a rulemaking pursuant to both Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), which states that a rulemaking will be 
determined to be economically significant if it will result in an 
impact of more than $100 million in any given year, and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.). Under the RFA, when an agency is required to publish a 
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), 
except when the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    To understand the potential impacts of a critical habitat 
designation, we evaluate in our economic analysis the incremental 
impacts of the designation as identified by evaluating the additional 
protections or conservation measures afforded the species through the 
designation beyond those that the species receives by being federally 
listed. Under E.O. 12866, we are required to evaluate the direct and 
indirect impacts of the designation. The evaluation of these potential 
impacts is discussed in our DEA and FEA. Additionally, under the RFA 
and following recent case law, we are to evaluate the potential impacts 
to small businesses, but this evaluation is limited to impacts to 
directly regulated entities. The designation of critical habitat only 
has regulatory impact only through section 7 of the Act, under which a 
Federal action agency is required to consult with us on any project 
that is funded, permitted, or otherwise authorized that may affect 
designated critical habitat. In other words, critical habitat only has 
a regulatory impact if a Federal nexus exists. Critical habitat has no 
regulatory effect or impact 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, 
it is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that the designation of 
critical habitat does not directly regulate small business entities 
and, therefore, does not significantly impact them. As a result, we 
believe that we have accurately assessed potential impacts to small 
business entities in the rulemaking, and can reasonably certify that 
this designation will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities. For a further discussion of our 
rationale, please see Required Determinations, below.
    (31) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat is in 
violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 8, based on the 
assertion that critical habitat designation would constitute Federal 
ownership of private property within the State of Hawaii. Several 
commenters stated that the designation of critical habitat is a taking 
of property without just compensation. One commenter stated that the 
proposed designation involves a significant amount of private land that 
has already been granted land use entitlements to allow for development 
of housing, schools, and commercial and other important uses, and the 
designation will significantly compromise and perhaps eliminate the 
ability for those private individuals to develop their land, thereby 
rendering those land use entitlements void.
    Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not confer 
ownership of private property to the Federal Government, nor does the 
Act restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes 
restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may 
result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 
habitat. The mere promulgation of a regulation, like the enactment of a 
statute, does not take private, State, Federal, or county property, 
unless the regulation on its face denies the property owners all 
economically beneficial or productive use of their land. The 
designation of critical habitat does not deny anyone economically 
viable use of their property. The Act does not automatically restrict 
all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes restrictions under 
section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may result

[[Page 42413]]

in 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.
    While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Regarding the assertion that 
critical habitat constitutes a taking, the Act does not authorize the 
Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate 
private property as a result of critical habitat designation. 
Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or 
establish any closures, or restrictions on use or access to the 
designated areas. Critical habitat designation also does not establish 
specific land management standards or prescriptions, although Federal 
agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing 
actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    (32) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule did 
not include a DEA, as would be required under the February 28, 2012, 
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior, ``Memorandum 
on Proposed Revised Habitat for the Spotted Owl: Minimizing Regulatory 
Burdens.'' One commenter further stated that the Service's proceeding 
with the proposed critical habitat rule without a timely DEA, contrary 
to President Obama's directive, ``is arbitrary and capricious, does not 
meet the requirements for transparency, and compounds the uncertainty 
and economic dislocation that has been identified as a defect in the 
current critical habitat designation process.''
    Our Response: The February 28, 2012, Presidential Memorandum 
directed the Secretary of the Interior to propose revisions to the 
current regulations (which were promulgated in 1984, and required that 
an economic analysis be completed after critical habitat has been 
proposed) to provide that the economic analysis be completed and made 
available for public comment at the time of the publication of a 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat. As directed, the Service 
published a proposed rule for revisions to the regulations for impact 
analyses for critical habitat on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51503) and 
accepted comments for 60 days, ending October 23, 2012. While we were 
still accepting public comments on the August 24, 2012, proposed rule, 
we published the proposed rule to list 15 species, including Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, as endangered, and to designate critical 
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
and Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii Island (77 FR 63928; October 17, 
2012). Therefore, in publishing the proposed rule, we followed the 
regulations in place at that time. The public, including landowners 
within proposed critical habitat, were provided with an opportunity to 
comment on the proposed rule and DEA (see our response to Comment (37) 
for more information regarding the timing and duration of comment 
periods for the proposed rule). In this final rule, we have fully 
considered and included responses to all substantive comments related 
to the DEA (see Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis, below).
Comments Regarding Partnership and Collaboration
    (33) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Service convene 
a stakeholders meeting or task force to develop a comprehensive 
conservation plan for the region that balances protection of species 
and sustainable urban development to truly embrace the ecological 
approach for identifying critical habitat. Multiple commenters stated 
that more can be done through cooperative partnerships between the 
Service and the affected landowners to contribute to the recovery of 
the three species while ensuring the mission and work of the Service 
and various stakeholders will be achieved. Several commenters cited 
Hawaii House Concurrent Resolution 96 H.D. 2 S.D. 1 passed by the 2013 
Hawaii State Legislature requesting the Service work with the affected 
persons and counties in establishing reasonable critical habitat 
designations for endangered species in the State.
    Our Response: The Service has worked cooperatively with the State, 
County, and private landowners to conserve the lowland dry ecosystem in 
the North Kona region by participating on working groups, contributing 
cost-share funding, and providing technical assistance. Prior to 
publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, the Service 
conducted informational meetings with several affected State agencies, 
landowners, and other interested parties. The Service, along with the 
County of Hawaii, DHHL, DLNR, and other parties with an interest in 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, participated in a series 
of meetings where the long-term goals and objectives of each party were 
presented. The process provided a forum to discuss species protection 
and recovery and development on a regional scale. Although goals and 
objectives for development are not always reconcilable with goals and 
objectives of a critical habitat designation, we have considered the 
information presented in these meetings, as well as public comments, in 
making this final critical habitat designation. These discussions 
resulted, in some instances, a cooperative approach to setting aside 
acreage adjacent to other landowners in order to protect larger areas 
of contiguous habitat from development. The Service and several 
landowners have worked in partnership to execute MOUs that are intended 
to benefit the three critical habitat species and the lowland dry 
ecosystem. See our analysis above (Consideration of Impacts Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act) for a description of several areas that are 
excluded from the critical habitat designation in this final rule.
    (34) Comment: One commenter expressed concern whether proper 
monitoring and oversight protocols were in place to ensure for 
successful implementation of conservation agreements between the 
Federal Government and its partners. The same commenter expressed 
concern regarding the fate of the areas protected or managed following 
the expiration or termination of the current partnerships and/or 
agreements.
    Our Response: The conservation agreements between the Service and 
our public and private partners include specific obligations for 
implementation of voluntary conservation actions, monitoring, and 
reporting, and review by the Service. Upon expiration or termination of 
the agreement, it is our hope that the parties will seek to continue 
the partnership and all possible opportunities for the continued care 
and maintenance of listed species and their habitats. Endangered and 
threatened species in the areas covered by conservation agreements will 
be afforded protection under State and Federal laws. To the extent such 
lands are being excluded from critical habitat

[[Page 42414]]

by this rule, we may reconsider designating critical habitat should our 
partnership for the conservation of listed species prove to be 
unsuccessful or short-lived.
    (35) Comment: One commenter recommended that the transfer of 
development rights to the Federal Government be considered as a means 
for the protection and survival of endangered plants.
    Our Response: It is the landowner's discretion to consider whether 
an easement or other transfer of development rights to another entity 
is appropriate given the landowner's current and future planned uses 
for their land. Several of the conservation agreements contain 
landowner commitments to ``No Development Areas'' and allow for actions 
to benefit the recovery of the three species and the lowland dry 
ecosystem during the term of the agreements. The Service is willing to 
provide technical assistance to partners who indicate an interest to 
protect native species and their habitats by voluntarily putting a 
conservation easement on their property. The Service also remains 
committed to working cooperatively with landowners who may not be 
interested in a conservation easement but want to manage their lands 
for the conservation of listed species and their habitats.
Comments Regarding the Accuracy and Adequacy of the Rule
    (36) Comment: The DOFAW stated that the maps in the Federal 
Register could be improved as they are difficult to read and understand 
because: (a) The maps are unclear as to whether each map is for all 
three species or if species are mapped separately, and (b) the maps are 
not precise enough to determine exactly where the boundaries fall, so 
it is difficult to make substantive comments as to their 
appropriateness for the species involved.
    Our Response: The maps provided in the final rule identify the 
areas designated as critical habitat and identify the species for which 
each unit is designated. The species are not mapped separately; 
therefore, each ecosystem unit may contain both occupied and/or 
unoccupied critical habitat for one or more species as provided in the 
unit descriptions in the preamble of this rule and in the October 17, 
2012, proposed rule, as well as in the map titles. We have limited 
ability to provide finer-scale maps in a regulatory document due to 
required Federal Register printing standards; however, we provided the 
DOFAW with more detailed maps showing the level of detail requested as 
well as the ArcGIS layer of the proposed critical habitat units.
    (37) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule contained 
insufficient information for the public to determine the extent and 
location of unoccupied habitat that is being proposed for designation 
and that the proposal does not provide sufficient detail, including 
maps and descriptions, to allow the landowners to readily identify the 
extent of their land holdings that may be impacted by the proposed 
designation. The commenter expressed concern that the inadequacy of the 
information may result in the failure of interested parties to provide 
comment because they were not aware that their land was included in the 
proposed critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: On October 17, 2012, we published the proposed rule 
to list 15 Hawaii Island species as endangered throughout their ranges, 
and to designate critical habitat for three species in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 63928). We sent letters to all appropriate State and 
Federal agencies, county governments, elected officials, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties notifying them of the 
proposed rule and invited them to comment. Due to the scale of map 
required for publishing in the Federal Register, we were unable to 
provide finer-scaled maps in the proposed rule. However, we sent 
personalized letters with an enclosed map showing each landowner's 
property, Tax Map Key (TMK) parcel information, and the proposed 
critical habitat designation to all landowners whose property 
overlapped with the proposed critical habitat. In addition, the 
proposed rule directed reviewers to contact the Service for further 
clarification on any part of the proposed rule, and provided contact 
information.
    During the initial comment period on our proposed rule (77 FR 
63928; October 17, 2012), we became aware that there were errors in the 
landownership information in the geospatial data sets associated with 
parcel data from Hawaii 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. We received updated information on land ownership 
from Kaloko Makai in their December 17, 2012, comment letter, from the 
Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation (HHFDC) in their 
November 29, 2012, comment letter, and from the DHHL through meetings 
and correspondence following publication of the October 17, 2012, 
proposed rule (77 FR 63928). We incorporated all updated land ownership 
information into this final rule.
    Shortly after publishing our April 30, 2013, document announcing 
the availability of and seeking public comments on the DEA of the 
proposed critical habitat, reopening the comment period on the October 
17, 2012, proposed rule, and announcing the public information meeting 
and public hearing held on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 25243), 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 (77 FR 63928; 
October 17, 2012), the DEA, and the public hearing held on May 15, 
2013, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. In addition, we contacted all appropriate 
Federal and State agencies, county governments, elected officials, 
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them 
to comment. In addition, on October 20, 2012, we published a public 
notice of the proposed rule in the local Honolulu Star Advertiser, 
Hawaii Tribune Herald, and West Hawaii Today newspapers.
    (38) Comment: One commenter noted that Table 5B in the proposed 
rule identified 679 ac (275 ha) under consideration for exclusion on 
lands owned by Kaloko Properties Corp., Lanihau Properties, SCD TSA 
Kaloko Makai, and TSA Corporation; however, the proposed rule failed to 
identify the 29 ac (8 ha) of the 702 ac (284 ha) privatel owned land of 
the proposed designation within Unit 34 that were not considered for 
exclusion and requested clarification on the location of these lands.
    Our Response: The information in our files indicates that the 29 
privately owned acres referenced by the commenter are located within 
TMK parcel 3-7-3-009:013. These lands are located north of Hulikoa 
Street and are not excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation.
    (39) Comment: One commenter noted that Figure 5-C in the proposed 
rule incorrectly identified a portion of Unit 34 as being owned by TSA 
Corporation (77 FR 63995); the correct owner is SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai 
LLC. The commenter noted that, of the 702 ac (284 ha) of private lands 
proposed for critical habitat designation in Unit 34, more than 83 
percent of that land (606 ac (245 ha)) is owned by SCD-TSA and planned 
for development as part of the Kaloko Makai project.

[[Page 42415]]

    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the 
commenter. The landowners in Figures 5-A and 5-C in the proposed rule 
were incorrectly identified. We apologize for this error and any 
confusion this may have caused. We updated ownership information in our 
files regarding the lands owned SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai and notified the 
correct owners of the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed 
rule during three additional comment periods (78 FR 25243, April 30, 
2013; 78 FR 39698, July 2, 2013; 81 FR 31900, May 20, 2016).
    (40) Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the quality 
and completeness of the scientific materials the Service relied on to 
prepare the proposed rule and suggested that a public hearing would 
also provide an opportunity for the scientific community to provide 
input into the decision making.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we make a 
determination whether a species is endangered or threatened solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. All 
scientific materials are available for review. Although not included 
with the proposed rule itself, information on how to obtain a list of 
our supporting documentation used was provided in the proposed rule 
under Public Comments and References Cited (77 FR 63928; October 17, 
2012). In addition, lists of references cited in the proposed rule (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012) and in this final rule are available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov, and upon request from the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above). We also solicited scientific peer review of the 
proposed listing and critical habitat designation from 14 qualified 
reviewers and received responses from 11 reviewers regarding the 
proposed listing and 2 of these reviewers also commented on the 
proposed critical habitat designation (see our responses to Comments 
(1) and (2), above). Finally, in addition to the initial 60-day public 
comment period, the Service reopened the public comment period three 
times on the proposed critical habitat rule and draft economic 
analysis, allowing the public an additional 30, 60, and 15 days to 
submit comments, for a total of 165 days to comment on our proposed 
critical habitat designation. We also held a public information meeting 
and hearing in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, on May 15, 2013, and another public 
information meeting in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, on August 7, 2013.
    (41) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule is silent 
on whether Unit 36 is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense.
    Our Response: In the Descriptions of Proposed Critical Habitat 
discussion in the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, we identified the 
species within each unit for which the unit was considered occupied. In 
the unit description for Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36, we stated that 
the unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla. Therefore, 
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36 is not occupied by the other two species, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense. In addition, in the 
Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of the October 17, 2012, 
proposed rule, proposed 50 CFR 17.99(k)(121), the Table of Protected 
Species Within Each Critical Unit for the Island of Hawaii, set forth 
the unit name and occupancy status of each unit.
    (42) Comment: One commenter stated that Service has not provided 
any analysis on the minimum amount of land needed to justify 
designation of 18,766 total ac (7,597 ha) in proposed critical habitat 
for West Hawaii (Kona area).
    Our Response: Our final designation of critical habitat includes 
11,640 ac (4,711 ha) for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense in West Hawaii (Kona area). The 
designated acres meet the definition of critical habitat for these 
three species, and our analyses determined them to be essential for the 
conservation of these species. As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 
we used the best scientific data available in determining those areas 
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the three species, and for which designation of 
critical habitat is considered prudent, by identifying the occurrence 
data for each species and determining the ecosystems upon which they 
depend. The information we used is described in our proposed rule (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012) and in this final rule (see Methods, 
above). See also our response to Comment (12) and Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat.
    (43) Comment: One commenter stated that the description of Unit 35 
does not suggest reintroduction of the three species for which critical 
habitat is proposed as a means of increasing the populations of any 
species, but instead attempts to justify the proposed designation by 
relying exclusively on the land within Unit 35 as ``providing the PCEs 
necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations.'' The 
commenter stated that this is in stark contrast to the Service's 
rationale for other units, for which it relies upon additional space 
for the reintroduction of the species.
    Our Response: We did not include a statement regarding 
reintroduction of the three species because Unit 35 is occupied by the 
three species for which critical habitat is proposed. However, because 
of the small numbers of individuals of the three species in Unit 35 and 
low population sizes, we have determined, similar to other units, that 
the three species do require suitable habitat and space for expansion 
or reintroduction within Unit 35 to achieve population levels that 
could approach recovery. However, the entirety of Unit 35 has been 
excluded from this final critical habitat designation for the reasons 
described in Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (44) Comment: Two commenters stated that the proposed rule has 
significant takings implications; therefore, a takings implications 
assessment is required. The two commenters further stated that the 
takings analysis presented in the proposed rule is inadequate and 
violates the letter and intent of Executive Order 12630 (``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights''). They stated that 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 not pose significant takings 
implications within or affected by the proposed designation.''
    Our Response: Executive Order 12630 requires that a taking 
implications assessment (TIA) 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 63928; October 
17, 2012) we stated that we analyzed the potential takings implications 
of critical habitat designation for three 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 prepared a TIA for this final rulemaking and have affirmed that the 
designation of critical habitat for three Hawaii Island species does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designation.

[[Page 42416]]

Comments Regarding Landowner Notification
    (45) Comment: One commenter claimed that due to inconsistencies in 
property identification, and lack of notice to landowners, such as 
Stanford Carr Development--TSA (SCD-TSA), the proposed rule has not 
been fairly presented for public comment. The commenter cited 50 CFR 
424.16, which states that in the case of any proposed rule to list a 
species or to designate or revise critical habitat, the Secretary shall 
give notice of the proposed regulation to any Federal agencies, local 
authorities, or private individuals or organizations known to be 
affected by the rule.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (37) regarding adequate 
notification of the publication of the proposed rule, opportunity for 
public comment, and availability of information and resources in order 
for the public to comment on the proposed rule. In addition, we have 
incorporated information received during the public comment period and 
updated the information on land ownership accordingly. The Service 
provided adequate notification of the publication of the proposed rule, 
opportunity for public comment, and availability of information and 
resources in order for the public to comment on the proposed rule. We 
also sent personalized letters and with an enclosed map showing each 
landowner's property, Tax Map Key (TMK) parcel information, and the 
proposed critical habitat designation to all landowners whose property 
overlapped with the proposed critical habitat. We sent letters to the 
addresses contained in the landownership information in the geospatial 
data sets associated with parcel data from Hawaii County (2008). We 
became aware that representatives of SCD-TSA to whom the letters were 
addressed may not have notified SCD-TSA upon receipt of the 
correspondence sent shortly after publication of the October 17, 2012, 
proposed rule. During each subsequent comment period, the Service sent 
letters directly to this landowner providing notification of the 
comment period and information on the proposed designation.
    (46) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service failed to 
notify Hualalai PIA-Kona, LLC (PIA) of the proposed critical habitat 
designation as required by 50 CFR 424.16, which requires the Secretary 
to give notice to ``private individuals or organizations known to be 
affected by the rule.'' The commenters added that PIA is listed as an 
owner of record in the County of Hawaii real property tax records on 
lands leased from Kamehameha Schools within Unit 31 of the proposed 
critical habitat designation. The commenters noted that this is 
contrary to the Service's collaboration with PIA's predecessor during 
preparation of two Service recovery plans (USFWS 1994, USFWS 1996).
    Our Response: We sent a letter notifying Kamehameha Schools, the 
owner of the lands leased by PIA, of the proposed critical habitat 
designation based on the addresses contained in the landownership 
information in the geospatial data sets associated with parcel data 
from Hawaii County (2008). We have updated our landownership 
information with PIA's address and contact information, and they 
received notification regarding opportunity to comment on the proposed 
designation during subsequent comment periods on the proposed rule (78 
FR 25243, April 30, 2013; 78 FR 39698, July 2, 2013; 81 FR 31900, May 
20, 2016). See also our response to Comment (37) concerning 
notifications of, and opportunities to comment on, the proposed rule.
Other Comments
    (47) Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether 
federally funded programs administered by a State agency such as the 
State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) management of the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, a county 
agency such as the County of Hawaii Planning Department management of 
the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)/Special Management Area (SMA), or 
connections to a highway improvement or utility infrastructure 
improvements approval process will trigger the Act's section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process.
    Our Response: The State of Hawaii DOH, Clean Water Branch is given 
the authority to implement the NPDES permits process. The NPDES Multi 
Sector General Permit (MGP) (EPA 2008) Construction General Permit 
(CGP) (EPA 2012) requires applicants to provide a determination 
regarding the protection of federally listed endangered or threatened 
species or their designated critical habitat(s) and the supporting 
documentation, if necessary (MGP 2008, Appendix E; CGP 2012, Appendix 
D). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) guidelines also 
direct applicants to follow similar guidelines for protection of 
federally listed endangered and threatened species or designated 
critical habitat(s) similar to those included in the MGP and CGP. The 
CZM/SMA program is administered by the Office of State Planning within 
the State of Hawaii Department of Business Economic Development and 
Tourism. Neither CZM policy (Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 205A-2(c)) 
nor SMA guidelines (HRS 205A-26) for the review of developments address 
the protection of endangered and threatened species or designated 
critical habitat(s). We are unaware of any requirements of the NPDES or 
SWPPP permit processes that would require consultation under section 7 
of the Act.
    (48) Comment: Several commenters stated that recent critical 
habitat designations have been initiated primarily as a result of the 
Service's 2011 Multi-District Litigation settlement with environmental 
groups. One commenter added that the settlement unfairly places the 
burden on landowners and other stakeholders affected by the critical 
habitat designations.
    Our Response: We agree that the final listing rule for Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (78 FR 64638; October 29, 2013) meets a 
requirement under the Service's 2011 Multi District Litigation 
settlement. In accordance with 4(a)(3)(A)(i), we are required to 
designate critical habitat concurrently with making a determination 
that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species to the 
maximum prudent and determinable. When the final listing rule for 
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla published (78 FR 64638; October 29, 
2013), we had already proposed critical habitat for Bidens micrantha 
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012), but we had not yet finished developing 
this final rule. In the intervening time, we repeatedly reopened the 
comment period on the proposed critical habitat designation (78 FR 
25243, April 30, 2013; 78 FR 39698, July 2, 2013; 81 FR 31900, May 20, 
2016) to ensure that we had the best scientific and commercial 
information for our final determination of critical habitat. In this 
rule, we designate critical habitat for the three plant species. Please 
also see our response to Comment (31) regarding the regulatory 
consequences of a critical habitat designation.
    (49) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service considered the 
1999 mitigation plan (``Mitigation Plan for Endangered Species at 
Villages of La'i'opua, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii'' prepared for the 
Hawaii Housing and Community Development Corporation (HCDCH) (Belt 
Collins 1999)) during its development of the critical habitat 
designation, even though Service did not mention they were

[[Page 42417]]

considering this document in previous correspondence regarding Forest 
City Kona's development; the commenter specifically cited the Service's 
April 8, 2008, and March 12, 2010, comment letters.
    Our Response: The 1999 mitigation plan that the commenter mentions 
identifies a framework of specific conservation actions to mitigate 
impacts of the development on Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. At a May 2013 
meeting, representatives of the Service, Forest City Kona, and HHFDC 
discussed the 1999 mitigation plan only as a possible framework to 
address the concerns of Forest City Kona related to their development 
and conservation of the three species in the proposed Hawaii--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 35. The information we used to determine the proposed 
critical habitat designation of Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 was 
described in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). See 
also our response to Comments (1) and (12) above, and Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat. Finally, as discussed in our response to 
Comment (14) above and for the reasons described in Consideration of 
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the lands owned by Forest 
City Kona have been excluded from this critical habitat designation.
    (50) Comment: One commenter stated that a disproportionate amount 
of Federal land is being considered for designation when compared with 
the amount of Federal land in the State of Hawaii. The commenter stated 
the Federal Government owned approximately 321,400 ac (130,066 ha) of 
land in 2007, out of the total approximately 4,112,388 ac (1,664,224 
ha) in the State, or approximately 7.82 percent, and said the 
percentage of Federal lands proposed as critical habitat for the three 
plant species involves approximately 2.11 percent of the total acreage.
    Our Response: According to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we designate 
critical habitat based on the best available scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat; land ownership is not one of the 
criteria we consider when identifying areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat. See our response to Comments (12) and (18) above 
regarding our analysis and the information used to determine critical 
habitat boundaries in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) 
and in this final rule (see also Methods and Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat, above).
    (51) Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to the designation 
of critical habitat and instead supported focusing efforts and 
government resources on good species management and recovery planning: 
The keys to long-term protection and species recovery. The commenter 
stated that by working with community-based, natural resources 
nongovernmental organizations (such as the Aha Moku Council) and 
landowners (such as the QLT), plants and animals will benefit more than 
they would from a critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We recognize the importance of partnerships and 
voluntary conservation efforts for species protection and recovery. The 
Service welcomes information and contributions of place-based 
knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, and community-based 
natural resource management and planning organizations such as the Aha 
Moku Council in efforts to conserve listed species. We notified the 
DLNR and other organizations that possess traditional ecological, 
place-based knowledge, such as the DHHL, the OHA, the QLT, the 
Kamehameha Schools, and The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance (KAHEA), 
during the multiple public comment periods on the proposed critical 
habitat designation. Ongoing partnerships with the DHHL, the Kamehameha 
Schools, and the QLT are described below (see ``Private or Other Non-
Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and Partnerships,'' above).

Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis

Comments by State Agencies
    (52) Comment: Several commenters, including the State of Hawaii 
Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), HHFDC, OHA, DHHL, 
the County Planning Department, County Department of Parks and 
Recreation, the Office of the Mayor, the Office of the Prosecuting 
Attorney, and the State House of Representatives, commented that the 
DEA underestimates the incremental impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designation. The commenters stated that the DEA does not take 
into consideration that the designation will result in the elimination 
of ongoing or planned projects in the Kona Urban Area, including Kaloko 
Makai, Kamakana Villages, the Judiciary project, Laiopua 2020, the QLT 
project, and other major development cores within Transit Oriented 
Development Areas, identified in the KCDP. The commenters provided 
information about expenditures that have been made thus far for these 
projects, and state that these expenditures, along with the value of 
any entitlements attached to the projects, will be lost as a result of 
critical habitat designation. In addition, they commented that the 
designation will result in the redistricting of critical habitat to the 
Conservation District due to HRS section 195D-5.1, resulting in the 
loss of projects and associated investments, entitlements, and other 
benefits.
    Our Response: While consultations on planned projects may result in 
conservation recommendations such as those described in section 1.4 of 
the DEA and FEA, critical habitat does not preclude the implementation 
of these projects. With respect to the requirements of the Act, as 
described in section 1.4 of the DEA and FEA, the presence of the plants 
across the proposed designation may result in conservation 
recommendations for projects in these areas regardless of the critical 
habitat designation. Where the plants are present, projects or 
activities with a Federal nexus would be subject to section 7 
consultation even absent critical habitat designation, and it is 
unlikely that critical habitat designation would change the outcome of 
these section 7 consultations. Only two projects are identified as 
likely to occur where plants are not present (as described in section 
2.3 of the DEA) and, for reasons described in Consideration of Impacts 
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, these lands are excluded from final 
critical habitat designation in this rule.
    The DEA acknowledges, however, that critical habitat designation 
may affect the other State and local land management authorities, as 
well as the behavior of individual landowners or buyers. Additional 
discussion of these potential indirect impacts is included in the FEA 
(see section 2.6). While information limitations prevent the 
quantification of such impacts, the qualitative discussion is 
considered in evaluating impacts of the designation. Section 2.6 of the 
DEA and FEA also includes a discussion of the potential for critical 
habitat designation to result in redistricting to the Conservation 
district (for more information, please see our response to Comment (7) 
above).
    (53) Comment: Several commenters, including DAGS, OHA, and the 
County Planning Department, commented that the DEA does not take into 
consideration the significant project delays that will result from the 
designation of critical habitat. One

[[Page 42418]]

commenter stated that the Hawaii State Legislature has delayed the 
funding for the Kona Judiciary project due to the uncertainty caused by 
the designation.
    Our Response: Section 2.6 of the FEA includes a discussion of the 
potential for the critical habitat designation to result in impacts 
associated with time delays. We recognize that both public and private 
entities may experience time delays for projects and other activities 
due to requirements associated with the section 7 consultation process. 
However, it is highly uncertain to what degree the critical habitat 
designation might cause incremental project delays above and beyond 
those that would be experienced due to the listing of the species and 
other review processes that are not related to the Act (e.g., 
environmental assessments, EISs, etc.). Due to the degree of 
uncertainty with respect to whether incremental project delays will 
occur and, if so, to what extent, the economic analysis does not 
quantify impacts associated with delays but instead describes the 
potential impacts qualitatively for the Service's consideration 
alongside the quantified impacts in this report. The FEA notes that 
should incremental project delays occur, incremental costs may include 
carrying costs on project-related debt due to the delays.
    (54) Comment: Several commenters, including HDOA, DAGS, the County 
Planning Department, the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, and the Land Use 
Research Foundation, commented that the DEA does not take into 
consideration the indirect effects of the designation, including 
perceptional effects and regulatory uncertainty that result in the loss 
of property value and that may deter investment in the designated area 
and beyond. The commenters stated that these effects will jeopardize 
planned projects and result in the loss of investors, developers, 
property value, market value, future economic benefits, project 
components, economic activities related to development, jobs, tax 
revenue, and other potential benefits.
    Our Response: The DEA and FEA include a discussion of the potential 
for regulatory uncertainty and perception effects (see section 2.6 of 
the FEA). We acknowledge that public attitudes about the limits and 
costs that the Act may impose can cause real economic effects to the 
owners of property, regardless of whether such limits are actually 
imposed. Over time, as public understanding grows regarding the exact 
parameters of regulatory requirements placed on designated lands, 
particularly where no Federal nexus compelling section 7 consultation 
exists, the uncertainty and perception effects of critical habitat 
designation on properties may subside. Ideally, to estimate the amount 
by which land values may be diminished and the duration of this effect, 
we would conduct a retrospective study of existing critical habitat 
designations. We would use statistical analysis of land sales 
transactions to compare the value of similar parcels located within and 
outside of critical habitat. However, such primary research, which 
requires substantial collection and generation of new data, is beyond 
the scope of this effort. Furthermore, while some research has been 
conducted on the effect of the Act on perception and land use 
decisions, the results of these studies are not transferrable to this 
situation (see section 2.6 of the FEA for more information). As no 
studies exist that have evaluated the potential perceptional effect of 
critical habitat on land values in Hawaii, and because significant 
uncertainty exists regarding whether these perceptional impacts will 
occur and, if they do, the magnitude of the impacts, the FEA does not 
quantify these potential indirect effects, but instead presents this 
qualitative description of their potential for consideration alongside 
the quantified impacts in this report.
    (55) Comment: The DHHL commented that by concluding that the 
critical habitat designation is unlikely to change the outcome of 
future section 7 consultations in occupied areas, the DEA essentially 
concludes that critical habitat has no effect on occupied areas and 
that, therefore, there is no benefit in designation. Further, DHHL 
stated that the DEA is fundamentally flawed in its gross 
underestimation of the economic impact to DHHL based on the cost of 
conservation measures (i.e., offsets of 50 to 150 ac (20 to 61 ha) of 
land) that the FWS may require as a result of section 7 consultation on 
DHHL lands within Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 of the proposed critical 
habitat designation, and that such requirements would severely affect 
its ability to fulfill its mission to native Hawaiians.
    Our Response: Please see the second half of our response to Comment 
(8) regarding the benefits of designating critical habitat. The 
potential conservation offset described (of 50 to 150 ac (20 to 61 ha)) 
is relevant to this project regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated, and the costs are accordingly not described as costs of the 
critical habitat rule in the DEA or FEA. In addition, for reasons 
described above in Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, 315 ac (127 ha) of lands owned by DHHL in Unit 35 are excluded 
from the critical habitat designation in this final rule. The FEA has 
been updated to include additional information on the Kalaoa Homestead 
Development in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33. These lands are also 
excluded from the critical habitat designation in this final rule (see 
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
    (56) Comment: The DOFAW expressed concern that the DEA does not 
mention the presence of cattle grazing in the proposed critical habitat 
units 10 and 31. It stated that the designation could affect the 
ability of permittees to receive Federal agricultural aid. In addition, 
DOFAW stated that the DEA does not mention the effects of critical 
habitat designation on public hunting opportunities in these areas, and 
that the designation could affect the ability of DOFAW to utilize 
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration grant funds to manage and implement 
hunting activities in the area. Lastly, the comment states that the 
costs of administrative effort to participate in section 7 
consultations and other costs of the designation should be included in 
the costs of units 10 and 31 presented in the DEA.
    Our Response: The FEA highlights the presence of grazing areas 
within proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31 and 10. 
We expect that critical habitat would trigger only minor, if any, 
administrative costs of consultation with respect to these grazing 
activities. The only section 7 consultations that have occurred on 
grazing activities are associated with Federal assistance programs, 
such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) 
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Wildlife Habitat 
Incentive Program (WHIP) programs, which generally support ecologically 
beneficial projects that are unlikely to negatively affect critical 
habitat. As a result, we do not anticipate that the critical habitat 
designation would prevent permittees from receiving aid through the 
programs. 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 
in the case that grazers work with Federal programs. In addition, the 
Service does not anticipate that the critical habitat designation will 
result in changes to the management of hunting activities in the case 
that the State receives Federal Aid program funding; as a result, the 
designation would generate only minor, if any, additional 
administrative costs of section 7 consultation. Furthermore,

[[Page 42419]]

both units are occupied by listed plant species, so a section 7 
jeopardy analysis would already be required, and any conservation 
measures that resulted from such a consultation would likely be the 
same measures that would result from a section 7 consultation on 
critical habitat for these three plant species.
Public Comments
    (57) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the 
designation of critical habitat in the Kona Urban Area would constrain 
community and infrastructure growth; would constrain development of 
affordable housing, job opportunities, and hospitals; and would result 
in the loss of development investments and entitlements. The commenters 
stated that the proposed rule fails to take in to account the adverse 
economic and social impacts of the critical habitat designation on the 
long-planned development activities along transit routes and the urban 
corridor as identified in the KDCP.
    Our Response: The DEA assessed the potential impacts of the 
proposed critical habitat designation on the ongoing and planned 
projects in the Kona Urban Area (see our response to Comment (52), 
above). Subsequently, the Service, along with the County of Hawaii, 
DHHL, DLNR, and other stakeholders in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Units 31, 
33, 34, and 35, participated in a series of meetings facilitated by a 
professional mediator. The mediation process provided a forum to 
address species protection and recovery, and development on a regional 
scale. The Service continued to reach out to State, County, and private 
stakeholders to continue ongoing and develop new voluntary cooperative 
partnerships. In this rule, a total of 5,268 ac (2,132 ha) is excluded 
from critical habitat designation in proposed Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Units 31, 33, 34, and 35 (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, above).
    (58) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to consider 
independent economic analysis of the ``Socio-Economic impact of 
critical habitat designation for the Keahuolu Lands of the Queen 
Liliuokalani Trust (QLT)'' by John M. Knox & Associates (2013).
    Our Response: Information provided in the analysis cited by the 
commenter (John M. Knox & Associates 2013) was included in the DEA (IEc 
2013, pp. 2-11-2-13, 2-16-2-18). In the case that critical habitat 
designation results in changes to the planned development, the DEA 
identifies the several impacts that may result; these include impacts 
to the development's revenue-generating capacity, regional socio-
economic benefits, and the need for alternative programs to provide the 
services to beneficiaries (IEc 2013, pp. 2-16-2-17). For reasons 
described above, these lands are excluded from the critical habitat 
designation in this final rule (see Consideration of Impacts Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
    (59) Comment: Commenters stated that no economic analysis was 
conducted on the proposed Kealakehe Regional Park and the Hawaii Health 
Systems Corporation's (HHSC) hospital project.
    Our Response: The FEA included an assessment of the potential 
impacts of the proposed designation on the Kaloko Makai project, 
identified in Exhibit 2-4 of the FEA, which includes the HHSC's 
hospital project. The FEA clarifies that Kaloko Makai project is a 
mixed-use project that includes the hospital. In addition, the FEA 
included an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed 
designation on the Kealakehe Regional Park Project; it is identified as 
the Regional Park Project in Exhibit 2-4. The FEA clarifies that the 
name of the project is the Kealakehe Regional Park Project. For the 
reasons described above (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act), Kaloko Entities land is excluded from this final 
critical habitat designation.
    (60) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA did not address the 
impacts of the critical habitat designation on the proposed Laiopua 
2020 (L2020) project. The commenter stated that costs will include 
mitigating for adverse modification of critical habitat, which they 
guess will be on the order of tens of millions of dollars, and 
negotiating agreements with the Service, which they estimate at tens of 
thousands of dollars. For example, they commented that the cost through 
acquisition or foregone development for 50 to 150 ac (20 to 61 ha) is 
alone millions of dollars, with ongoing management expenses of at least 
$150,000, likely in perpetuity. The commenter also stated that the 
designation will have an immediate economic impact by delaying 
employment opportunities for numerous construction jobs. The commenter 
also stated that the DEA does not recognize the 52-ac (21-ac) project 
area as unoccupied.
    Our Response: The L2020 project occurs on land (TMK parcels: (3)7-
4-021:002, 003, and 023), leased from DHHL and within a portion of the 
DHHL Villages of Laiopua Project in Unit 35 (IEc 2013, pp. 2-6-2-9). We 
disagree with the commenter's statements that the L2020 project site is 
unoccupied. The lands owned by DHHL within Unit 35, including the L2020 
project area, are considered occupied by one or more of the three 
species for which critical habitat is proposed (77 FR 63928, October 
17, 2012; Gerrish and Leonard Bisel Associates LLC 2008, p. 2). As 
such, the DEA concludes that the project is unlikely to be affected by 
the designation beyond potential additional administrative effort as 
part of section 7 consultation. Section 2.6 of the FEA addresses the 
potential for other impacts generated by the designation, including 
time delays.
    The Service and DHHL have worked in partnership to execute a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is intended to benefit the three 
plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. For the reasons described 
above (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act), 
lands owned by DHHL and leased to L2020 are excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation.
    (61) Comment: The Kaupulehu Water Company stated that a significant 
portion of their current water source and transmission infrastructure 
(i.e., wells and transmission lines), as well as proposed water service 
infrastructure, falls within a portion of Unit 31 being considered for 
exclusion. They stated that this infrastructure is essential to the 
continued operations of the Kaupulehu Water Company, and that the 
proposed designation will adversely affect their ability to complete 
new facilities in a timely manner, impede their ability to serve 
customers, increase the cost and expense of operating their water 
system, result in increased rates and charges to customers, and result 
in a significant economic impact to their small business. They stated 
that the DEA does not include these impacts.
    Our Response: For the reasons described above (see Consideration of 
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act), areas that were being 
considered for exclusion in Unit 31 in the proposed rule are excluded 
from this final critical habitat designation.
    (62) Comment: One commenter commented that the DEA notes that 
section 7 consultation is likely for the Kaloko Makai Project, but does 
not explain what would trigger that consultation (IEc 2013, p. A-4). 
The commenter added that consultation could be required for a number of 
reasons, including funding from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (commonplace for 
large scale residential housing projects). The commenter further stated 
that a single

[[Page 42420]]

section 7 consultation would, at a minimum, stall development. 
Additional consultations, as would be required over the life of this 
30-year project, and the related mitigation measures would likely 
preclude development altogether. The commenter cited an average annual 
cost of $370.3 million estimated for mitigation expenditures required 
by habitat conservation plans (HCPs) and associated with incidental 
take permits (ITPs) pursuant to section 10 of the Act (ELI 2007, pp. 
52-53).
    Our Response: The DEA quantified costs associated with one future 
section 7 consultation for the Kaloko Makai project. To the extent that 
the development plans change over the life of the 30-year project, 
additional consultations or reinitiation of the initial consultation 
may occur. It is difficult to predict whether and how often additional 
review will occur absent information on whether and how plans for this 
land may evolve over time. However, we expect any effect of critical 
habitat designation on any future consultations would be similarly 
limited to additional administrative effort. As described in section 
2.3 of the DEA, the project is located in an occupied area of the 
proposed designation, and consultation is therefore unlikely to result 
in additional conservation recommendations. For the reasons described 
above (see Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act), 
Kaloko Entities land is excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation.
    (63) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule fails to 
recognize the cultural and economic consequences of the critical 
habitat designation on the lands owned by a native Hawaiian trust 
(QLT), contrary to the purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis. 
Two commenters representing Kamakana Villages (Forest City Kona land) 
and Kaloko Makai (Koloko Entities land) stated that the Service did not 
perform an adequate analysis of the impacts on small businesses, as 
required by law.
    Our Response: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a 
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) 
directly regulated by the rulemaking. The regulatory mechanism through 
which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the 
Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, 
to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency 
is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Only 
Federal action agencies are subject to a regulatory requirement (i.e., 
to avoid adverse modification) as the result of the designation. 
Because Federal agencies are not small entities, the Service certified 
that the proposed critical habitat rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents 
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a 
section 7 consultation and thus may be indirectly affected. Therefore, 
the focus of the DEA's threshold analysis of impacts to small entities 
pursuant to the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA of 1996, is to identify 
the third-party entities likely to be involved and potentially 
indirectly affected by the future section 7 consultations on 
development and transportation projects likely to occur within proposed 
critical habitat (IEc 2013, chapter 2, p. A-4). As described in section 
2.5 of the DEA, the QLT project is unlikely to have a Federal nexus 
that would lead to section 7 consultation with the Service. In 
addition, for the reasons described above (see Consideration of Impacts 
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act), the lands owned by QLT, Forest City 
Kona, and Koloko Entities are excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation.
    (64) Comment: Two commenters stated that the DEA's analysis of only 
the incremental impacts resulting from critical habitat designation is 
flawed and does not comport with the law. One commenter stated that 
because the DEA uses a review of consultation records conducted in 2002 
to estimate consultation costs, the analysis is not based on the best 
available cost information.
    Our Response: While the research undertaken to inform the estimates 
of administrative effort for consultations was conducted in 2002, the 
cost model relies on current wage rate information and continued 
communication with the Service and participating agencies to 
groundtruth the estimates. The research undertaken in 2002 focused on 
the range of hours spent in different types of consultation. However, 
the costs assigned to this effort reference current hourly wage rates 
for participating agency personnel.
    (65) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service must prepare a 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
analysis on the proposed rule to ensure that we make an informed 
decision regarding the impact of critical habitat designation on the 
environment.
    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 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)). The designation of critical habitat for 
the three Hawaii Island species is entirely within the Ninth Circuit 
jurisdiction; therefore, we did not prepare an environmental analysis 
in connection with this critical habitat designation.
    (66) Comment: One commenter expressed support for the examples of 
conservation recommendations to offset habitat loss (i.e., acquire, 
restore, and manage habitat in perpetuity to compensate habitat 
disturbed as a result of a project or activity), citing those 
identified by the County of Hawaii Planning Department where the 
presence of listed species resulted in conservation requirements 
including: (1) Setting aside land for conservation; (2) establishing 
buffer zones around individual species; (3) requiring that landscaping 
be done using native plant species; and (4) relocating roadways or 
buildings to avoid species (IEc 2013, p. 2-16).
    Our Response: We support the conservation requirements identified 
by the County and look forward to continuing to work together with the 
County to conserve endangered species and their habitats.
    (67) Comment: One commenter stated that the baseline assumptions of 
the Service's economic analysis are flawed. The commenter stated that 
section 9 and 10 of the Act are irrelevant on non-Federal land that 
contains no endangered species of fish or wildlife. The commenter 
argues that the Service dismisses section 7 costs as part of the 
baseline and, therefore, is conflating the jeopardy prohibition with 
the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat, in 
disregard of the plain language in 16 U.S.C. 1536.
    Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act states that ``[e]ach 
Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of 
the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried 
out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued

[[Page 42421]]

existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such 
species . . .'' If jeopardy or adverse modification is determined, 
reasonable and prudent alternatives are recommended. These 
recommendations focus on avoiding jeopardy and adverse modification by 
creating measures to restore and conserve temporarily disturbed areas 
and incorporating those measures into project plans (IEc 2013, p. E-8). 
Project modifications recommended to avoid jeopardy are similar to 
those recommended to avoid adverse modification of habitat, and include 
such modifications as ``avoid destruction of individual listed 
plants,'' ``control feral ungulates,'' and ``propagate and outplant'' 
(IEc 2013, p. E-14). However, the DEA and FEA recognize 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 DEA and 
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 2013, p. 1-4).
    (68) Comment: A commenter claimed that the Service based its 
analysis on insufficient information and limited consultation, and that 
information relating to the economic impact on all affected parties, 
particularly property and business owners in the designation area be 
solicited, reviewed, and considered.
    Our Response: The DEA was prepared for the Service by Industrial 
Economics, Incorporated (IEc). The primary sources of information for 
the DEA are communications with, and data provided by, personnel from 
the Service, State and local government agencies, private landowners, 
and other stakeholders. Specifically, in developing the DEA and 
finalizing the FEA, IEc referenced publicly available information, 
including relevant public comments submitted on the proposed rule (77 
FR 63928; October 17, 2012) and the DEA, and agency planning documents 
(e.g., development plans). A complete list of references is provided in 
the FEA (IEc 2016, pp. R-1--R-4).
    (69) Comment: Under the DEA, it is not clear if the Act and section 
7 limitations would be triggered by registering lots for sale under the 
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat establishes an 
affirmative obligation for Federal agencies to insure their activities 
do not destroy or adversely modify that critical habitat in accordance 
with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. In this case, the 
registration by a non-Federal entity of lots for sale in accordance 
with the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act does not in and of 
itself constitute an affirmative Federal agency action requiring 
compliance with section 7 of the Act. We are unaware of any section 7 
consultations occurring in Hawaii involving the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Interstate Land Sales Full 
Disclosure Act. We have completed numerous consultations with HUD 
involving grants or other funding actions, but none that we know of was 
triggered by the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.
    (70) Comment: One commenter noted that the economic impacts of the 
proposed critical habitat designation have not been thoroughly vetted. 
The proposed designation includes at least 6,364 ac (257 ha) of 
privately owned lands, and the commenter asserted the proposed 
designation will have a devastating impact on the value and use of 
those lands. The commenter also requested an extension of time to 
provide comments on the proposed rule and DEA.
    Our Response: In our April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), publication, we 
announced the availability of the DEA and reopened for 30 days (ending 
May 30, 2013) the comment period on our October 17, 2012, combined 
listing and critical habitat proposal (77 FR 63928). In the April 30, 
2013, publication, we also announced the public information meeting and 
public hearing held on May 15, 2013, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The DEA 
presented an analysis of the potential economic impacts associated with 
the proposed critical habitat designation for the three species.
    Shortly after publishing our April 30, 2013, document, 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 
published on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), the DEA, and the public 
hearing held on May 15, 2013, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. In addition, we 
contacted all appropriate Federal and State agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment.
    On July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39698), we again reopened the public comment 
period on the proposed critical habitat designation and DEA for another 
60 days, ending September 3, 2013, and then on May 20, 2016 (81 FR 
31900), we reopened the comment period for an additional 15 days, 
ending on June 6, 2016. In this final rule, we have fully considered 
and included responses to all substantive comments related to the DEA 
and the information in the FEA.
    (71) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the Ane 
Keohokalole Highway extension project will be negatively affected by 
the critical habitat designation. They state that the designation may 
result in project delays or prevent the project from occurring 
altogether.
    Our Response: In the DEA and FEA, the Ane Keohokalole Highway 
project (Phase 3) was identified as a future project occurring within 
occupied habitat in proposed critical habitat Unit 34, on lands owned 
by Kaloko Properties LLC and the State of Hawaii. Because areas 
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense 
and owned by Kaloko Properties LLC (now Kaloko Entities LLC) are being 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation, the only critical 
habitat the Ane Keohokalole Highway project will potentially impact is 
unoccupied habitat on lands owned by State of Hawaii. Therefore, we 
examined the potential effects of the designation of this now-
unoccupied critical habitat unit (because the occupied portion is 
excluded). This project is likely to have a Federal nexus that would 
lead to a section 7 consultation with the Service in the event the 
State and/or county receives Federal funding from the U.S. Department 
of Transportation, FHWA. A section 7 consultation for this project 
would include an analysis of whether effects of the project would 
likely jeopardize Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is present 
on the excluded lands and in the likely path of the highway project, 
and also whether the project would destroy or adversely modify the 
unoccupied critical habitat on State lands. Because FHWA would already 
be consulting on the presence of the species on Koloko Entities' land, 
the section 7 costs associated with this project in critical habitat in 
Unit 34 would be limited to the incremental costs of the additional 
adverse modification analysis and any resulting project modification 
recommendations. The project may potentially impact some of the 268 ac 
(109 ha) of critical habitat in Unit 34, but we have no information on 
specific acreage in the critical habitat unit that would actually be 
affected by the project. In addition, there is significant uncertainty 
regarding

[[Page 42422]]

effects attributable to critical habitat because potential conservation 
measures would likely be developed for the project as a whole. However, 
we acknowledge that the Service may recommend measures to avoid or 
minimize habitat destruction in the critical habitat unit including 
fencing to exclude ungulates, nonnative species control, out-planting 
of native species, and other related conservation activities, and/or 
mitigation in the form of habitat protection. Based on our Incremental 
Effects Memorandum (IEc 2016, Appendix E, p. 8), we estimate that the 
requested mitigation may be at a ratio of 2 or more acres preserved for 
every one acre impacted (depending on the severity of impact, type/
location/condition/rarity of habitat impacted, and the amount of 
habitat needed for recovery of the species). Therefore, while we cannot 
quantify the impacts, there may be some incremental economic effects 
directly attributable to the designation of this unoccupied critical 
habitat unit.
    Refer to Comments (52) and (53), above, and chapter 2 of the FEA 
for a discussion of potential indirect effects on projects such as 
this, including the possibility for delay. Since FHWA will likely need 
to consult under section 7 of the Act due to potential impacts of the 
project on the occupied habitat nearby, regardless of whether or not 
this unoccupied unit is designated, any delays due to the consultation 
process may not be solely attributable to critical habitat designation.
    Finally, with regard to the commenters' concerns that designation 
of critical habitat may prevent the highway extension from occurring, 
we cannot predict the outcome of the consultation process; however, if 
the Service concludes that the project is likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, as those terms 
are used in section 7, it must suggest reasonable and prudent 
alternatives which the Secretary believes would not violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act. If there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives 
and other criteria are met, the Act provides for an exemption process. 
See 16 U.S.C. 1536(e)-(p).
    (72) Comment: One commenter, on behalf of the Waikoloa Village 
Association (WVA), claimed that the WVA is a small entity negatively 
impacted by the proposed designation, and that the proposed rule will 
have a significant economic impact on the WVA. This impact must be 
considered in a regulatory flexibility analysis prepared pursuant to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. as amended by 
the SBREFA of 1996).
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (30) concerning our 
considerations under the RFA. We acknowledge, however, that in some 
cases, third-party proponents of the action subject to permitting or 
funding may participate in a section 7 consultation and thus may be 
indirectly affected. For these consultations, the DEA estimated that 
third parties incur approximately $900 in administrative costs to 
participate in the consultation (IEc 2013, Appendix B, Exhibit B-1). 
For projects located in occupied areas of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, such as the WVA, incremental impacts are likely limited to 
these administrative costs for participation in the consultations (IEc 
2013, chapter 1). In addition, for the reasons described above (see 
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act), the lands 
owned by WVA are excluded from the final critical habitat designation.
    (73) Comment: On behalf of the Hawaii Judiciary, DAGS requested 
that the Service exempt or exclude Unit 35 in its entirety based on the 
following: (a) Timely completion of the new Kona Judiciary complex will 
result in greater social and economic benefits than the assumed social 
and economic benefits associated with the critical habitat designation; 
(b) critical habitat designation will result in significant adverse 
impacts on ongoing and future developments due to the need for 
additional consultation at the Federal and State level, resulting in 
project delays and uncertainties; and (c) the Service has not provided 
any scientific documentation or justifications to substantiate that 
exclusion of Unit 35 will result in the extinction of the endangered 
species.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary 
must 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 he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. Any such exclusion is at the discretion of the Secretary; 
exclusion of any area is not a requirement of the Act. The entirety of 
Unit 35 is excluded from critical habitat designation in this final 
rule due in part to conservation partnerships established with each 
separate landowner in the unit; these partnerships and our analysis of 
the benefits of inclusion and exclusion are described above (see 
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).

Required Determinations

 Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 
13771)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The OIRA 
has determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, 
February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not 
significant under E.O. 12866.

 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) of 1996, whenever an agency is required 
to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it 
must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory 
flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small 
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small 
government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis 
is required if the head of the

[[Page 42423]]

agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 
to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the 
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this 
final rule, we are certifying that this critical habitat designation 
for the three species will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of 
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking 
itself. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat 
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires 
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely 
to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Consequently, only 
Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. 
There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment periods that may 
pertain to our consideration of the possible incremental impacts of 
this critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm 
our certification that this final critical habitat designation will not 
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

 Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration. Our economic analysis finds that none of 
these criteria is relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information 
in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with 
conservation activities for the three species within critical habitat 
are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. )

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligation on 
State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not 
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit 
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or 
uniquely affect small

[[Page 42424]]

government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for each of the three species in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act only regulates Federal actions and does not 
regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private 
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any 
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. 
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits. A 
takings implications assessment has been completed and concludes that 
this designation of critical habitat for the three species does not 
pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by 
the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact summary statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Hawaii. We received comments 
from Hawaii elected officials; Hawaii Department of Accounting and 
General Services; Hawaii Department of Agriculture; Hawaii Department 
of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, -Hawaii Housing Finance 
and Development Corporation; Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; 
Hawaii Department of Education; Hawaii Division of Forestry and 
Wildlife; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Hawaii County Office of the 
Prosecuting Attorney; Hawaii County Planning Department; and the 
University of Hawaii. We addressed these comments above, under Summary 
of Comments and Recommendations. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between national government and the States, or on the distribution of 
powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information may assist local 
governments in long-range planning.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding 
the habitat needs of the three species, this rule identifies the 
elements of physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the three species. The designated areas of critical 
habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options 
for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, 
if desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the national Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on 
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.99:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (k) introductory text and (k)(1);
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(40) through (52) as paragraphs 
(k)(41) through (53);
0
c. By adding new paragraph (k)(40);
0
d. By further redesignating newly designated paragraphs (k)(46) through 
(53) as paragraphs (k)(48) through (55);
0
e. By adding new paragraphs (k)(46) and (47);
0
f. By revising the map in paragraph (k)(97)(ii);
0
g. By revising paragraphs (k)(100), (101), and (102);
0
h. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(104) and (105) as paragraphs 
(k)(115) and (116);
0
i. By adding new paragraphs (k)(104) and (105) and paragraphs (k)(106) 
through (114);

[[Page 42425]]

0
j. By revising newly designated paragraph (k)(115); and
0
k. In paragraph (l)(1):
0
i. By adding entries for ``Family Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla'' and ``Family Fabaceae: Mezoneuron kavaiense'' in 
alphabetical order by family name; and
0
ii. By revising the entry for ``Family Violaceae: Isodendrion 
pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  17.99  Critical habitat; plants on the Hawaiian Islands.

* * * * *
    (k) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions for the island of 
Hawaii, HI. Critical habitat units are described below. Coordinates are 
in UTM Zone 4 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 
(NAD83). The following map shows the general locations of the critical 
habitat units designated on the island of Hawaii. Existing manmade 
features and structures, such as buildings, roads, railroads, airports, 
runways, utility facilities and infrastructure and their designated and 
maintained rights-of-way, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban 
landscaped areas are not included in the critical habitat designation. 
Federal actions limited to those areas, therefore, would not trigger a 
consultation under section 7 of the Act unless they may affect the 
species or physical or biological features in adjacent critical 
habitat.
    (1)Note: Map 1, Index map, follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
    (40) Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--a (1,179 ha; 
2,914 ac).
    (i) This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 10--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--a and Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense--a (see paragraphs 
(k)(46) and (47), respectively, of this section).
    (ii) Note: Map 39a follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42426]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
    (46) Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium--a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (47) Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense--a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
* * * * *
    (97) * * *
    (ii) Note: Map 97 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42427]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
    (100) Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c (267 ha, 659 ac).
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Note: Map 100 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42428]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.003

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (101) Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina--b (1,180 ha, 2,916 ac).
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Note: Map 101 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42429]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.004

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (102) Hawaii 30--Plantago hawaiensis--c (1,219 ha, 3,012 ac).
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Note: Map 102 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42430]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.005

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
    (104) Hawaii 31--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--b (2,860 ha; 
7,066 ac).
    (i) This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 31--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--b and Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron kavaiense--b (see paragraphs 
(k)(105) and (106), respectively, of this section).
    (ii) Note: Map 104 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42431]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.006

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (105) Hawaii 31--Isodendrion pyrifolium--b (2,860 ha; 7,066 ac). 
See paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (106) Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron kavaiense--b (2,860 ha; 7,066 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (107) Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--d (400 ha; 989 
ac).
    (i) This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 33-Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--d and Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--d (see paragraphs 
(k)(108) and (109), respectively, of this section).
    (ii) Note: Map 105 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 42432]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU18.007

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (108) Hawaii 33--Isodendrion pyrifolium--d (400 ha; 989 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (109) Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--d (400 ha; 989 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (110) Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--e (371 ha; 917 
ac).
    (i) This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 34--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--e and Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron

[[Page 42433]]

kavaiense-- e (see paragraphs (k)(111) and (112), respectively, of this 
section).
    (ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this 
unit.
    (111) Hawaii 34--Isodendrion pyrifolium--e (371 ha; 917 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (112) Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense--e (371 ha; 917 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (113) Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--g (163 ha; 402 
ac).
    (i) This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 36--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--g (see paragraph (k)(114) of this section).
    (ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this 
unit.
    (114) Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium--g (163 ha; 402 ac). See 
paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this unit.
    (115) Table of Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat Unit 
for the Island of Hawaii.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Unit name                Species occupied                       Species unoccupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana--  Clermontia            Clermontia lindseyana.
 a.                                 lindseyana.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a..  Clermontia peleana..  Clermontia peleana.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia--a  ....................  Clermontia pyrularia.
Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a....  Cyanea shipmanii....  Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa--  Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia racemosa.
 a.                                 racemosa.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia lindseyana--  Clermontia            Clermontia lindseyana.
 b.                                 lindseyana.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia--b  Clermontia pyrularia  Clermontia pyrularia.
Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa--  Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia racemosa.
 b.                                 racemosa.
Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana--b..  Clermontia peleana..  Clermontia peleana.
Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylla--a..  Cyanea platyphylla..  Cyanea platyphylla.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii--a.  Cyrtandra giffardii.  Cyrtandra giffardii.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra tintinnabula-- Cyrtandra             Cyrtandra tintinnabula.
 a.                                 tintinnabula.
Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia             Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia warshaueri.
 warshaueri--a.                     warshaueri.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--a.  ....................  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--b.  ....................  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--c.  ....................  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--d.  ....................  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--e.  ....................  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--f.  Isodendrion hosakae.  Isodendrion hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a...  ....................  Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--b...  ....................  Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c...  ....................  Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum             ....................  Nothocestrum breviflorum.
 breviflorum--a.
Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum             Nothocestrum          Nothocestrum breviflorum.
 breviflorum--b.                    breviflorum.
Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis--a  Pleomele hawaiiensis  Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 8--Clermontia               Clermontia            Clermontia drepanomorpha.
 drepanomorpha--a.                  drepanomorpha.
Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia             Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia warshaueri.
 warshaueri--b.                     warshaueri.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--a..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--b..  Achyranthes mutica..  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--c..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--d..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--e..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--f..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--g..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--h..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--i..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--j..  ....................  Achyranthes mutica.
Hawaii 10--Argyroxiphium kauense-- ....................  Argyroxiphium kauense.
 a.
Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp.   ....................  Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
 ctenophylla--a.
Hawaii 10--Bonamia menziesii--a..  ....................  Bonamia menziesii.
Hawaii 10--Colubrina               Colubrina             Colubrina oppositifolia.
 oppositifolia--a.                  oppositifolia.
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--a..  ....................  Delissea undulata.
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b..  Delissea undulata...  Delissea undulata.
Hawaii 10--Hibiscadelphus          Hibiscadelphus        Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis.
 hualalaiensis--a.                  hualalaiensis.
Hawaii 10--Hibiscus                Hibiscus              Hibiscus brackenridgei.
 brackenridgei--a.                  brackenridgei.
Hawaii 10--Isodendrion             ....................  Isodendrion pyrifolium.
 pyrifolium--a.
Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense--  Mezoneuron kavaiense  Mezoneuron kavaiense.
 a.
Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata--a.....  ....................  Neraudia ovata.
Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum            Nothocestrum          Nothocestrum breviflorum.
 breviflorum--c.                    breviflorum.
Hawaii 10--Pleomele hawaiiensis--  Pleomele hawaiiensis  Pleomele hawaiiensis.
 b.
Hawaii 10--Solanum incompletum--a  ....................  Solanum incompletum.
Hawaii 10--Zanthoxylum dipetalum   Zanthoxylum           Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp. tomentosum.
 ssp. tomentosum--a.                dipetalum ssp.
                                    tomentosum.
Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora      Cyanea hamatiflora    Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
 ssp. carlsonii--a.                 ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum--b  ....................  Solanum incompletum.
Hawaii 14--Cyanea hamatiflora      ....................  Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
 ssp. carlsonii--b.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea hamatiflora      ....................  Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
 ssp. carlsonii--c.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla--a  Cyanea stictophylla.  Cyanea stictophylla.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora      Cyanea hamatiflora    Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
 ssp. carlsonii--d.                 ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla--b  Cyanea stictophylla.  Cyanea stictophylla.
Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta--a.....  Diellia erecta......  Diellia erecta.
Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea--a  Flueggea neowawraea.  Flueggea neowawraea.
Hawaii 18--Colubrina               Colubrina             Colubrina oppositifolia.
 oppositifolia--b.                  oppositifolia.

[[Page 42434]]

 
Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta--b.....  Diellia erecta......  Diellia erecta.
Hawaii 18--Flueggea neowawraea--b  Flueggea neowawraea.  Flueggea neowawraea.
Hawaii 18--Gouania vitifolia--a..  Gouania vitifolia...  Gouania vitifolia.
Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--d.....  Neraudia ovata......  Neraudia ovata.
Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis--  Pleomele hawaiiensis  Pleomele hawaiiensis.
 c.
Hawaii 19--Mariscus fauriei--a...  Mariscus fauriei....  Mariscus fauriei.
Hawaii 20--Sesbania tomentosa--a.  Sesbania tomentosa..  Sesbania tomentosa.
Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone--a...  ....................  Ischaemum byrone.
Hawaii 22--Ischaemum byrone--b...  Ischaemum byrone....  Ischaemum byrone.
Hawaii 23--Pleomele hawaiiensis--  Pleomele hawaiiensis  Pleomele hawaiiensis.
 d.
Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa--b.  Sesbania tomentosa..  Sesbania tomentosa.
Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium kauense-- Argyroxiphium         Argyroxiphium kauense.
 b.                                 kauense.
Hawaii 24--Asplenium fragile var.  Asplenium fragile     Asplenium fragile var. insulare.
 insulare--a.                       var. insulare.
Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla--c  ....................  Cyanea stictophylla.
Hawaii 24--Melicope                ....................  Melicope zahlbruckneri.
 zahlbruckneri--a.
Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia velutina-- Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia velutina.
 a.                                 velutina.
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis--a  Plantago hawaiensis.  Plantago hawaiensis.
Hawaii 25--Argyroxiphium kauense-- Argyroxiphium         Argyroxiphium kauense.
 c.                                 kauense.
Hawaii 25--Plantago hawaiensis--b  Plantago hawaiensis.  Plantago hawaiensis.
Hawaii 25--Silene hawaiiensis--a.  Silene hawaiiensis..  Silene hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 26--Hibiscadelphus          Hibiscadelphus        Hibiscadelphus giffardianus.
 giffardianus--a.                   giffardianus.
Hawaii 26--Melicope                Melicope              Melicope zahlbruckneri.
 zahlbruckneri--b.                  zahlbruckneri.
Hawaii 27--Portulaca sclerocarpa-- Portulaca             Portulaca sclerocarpa.
 a.                                 sclerocarpa.
Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis--b.  Silene hawaiiensis..  Silene hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 28--Adenophorus periens--a  Adenophorus periens.  Adenophorus periens.
Hawaii 29--Clermontia peleana--c.  Clermontia peleana..  Clermontia peleana.
Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylla--b.  Cyanea platyphylla..  Cyanea platyphylla.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra giffardii--b  ....................  Cyrtandra giffardii.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra               ....................  Cyrtandra tintinnabula.
 tintinnabula--b.
Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium kauense-- Argyroxiphium         Argyroxiphium kauense.
 d.                                 kauense.
Hawaii 30--Clermontia lindseyana-- Clermontia            Clermontia lindseyana.
 c.                                 lindseyana.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b...  Cyanea shipmanii....  Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c...  ....................  Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea stictophylla--d  ....................  Cyanea stictophylla.
Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra giffardii--c  Cyrtandra giffardii.  Cyrtandra giffardii.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa-- ....................  Phyllostegia racemosa.
 c.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina-- Phyllostegia          Phyllostegia velutina.
 b.                                 velutina.
Hawaii 30--Plantago hawaiensis--c  Plantago hawaiensis.  Plantago hawaiensis.
Hawaii 30--Sicyos alba--a........  Sicyos alba.........  Sicyos alba.
Hawaii 31--Bidens micrantha ssp.   ....................  Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
 ctenophylla--b.
Hawaii 31--Isodendrion             ....................  Isodendrion pyrifolium.
 pyrifolium--b.
Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron kavaiense--  Mezoneuron kavaiense  Mezoneuron kavaiense.
 b.
Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp.   ....................  Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
 ctenophylla--d.
Hawaii 33--Isodendrion             ....................  Isodendrion pyrifolium.
 pyrifolium--d.
Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--  ....................  Mezoneuron kavaiense.
 d.
Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp.   ....................  Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
 ctenophylla--e.
Hawaii 34--Isodendrion             ....................  Isodendrion pyrifolium.
 pyrifolium--e.
Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense--  ....................  Mezoneuron kavaiense.
 e.
Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp.   Bidens micrantha      Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
 ctenophylla--g.                    ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 36---Isodendrion            ....................  Isodendrion pyrifolium.
 pyrifolium--g.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) * * *
* * * * *

FAMILY ASTERACEAE: Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (KOOKOOLAU)
    Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--a, Hawaii 31--Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--b, Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla--d, Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--e, and 
Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--g, identified in the 
legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of this section, constitute 
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla on Hawaii 
Island. In units Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--a, 
Hawaii 31--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--b, Hawaii 33--Bidens 
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--d, Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. 
ctenophylla--e, and Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla--g, 
the physical and biological features of critical habitat are:
    (i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
    (ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
    (iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges, 
little-weathered lava.
    (iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum, 
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
    (v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola, 
Wikstroemia.
    (vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium, 
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *

FAMILY FABACEAE: Mezoneuron kavaiense (UHIUHI)
    Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense--a, Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron 
kavaiense--b, Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--d, and Hawaii 34--
Mezoneuron kavaiense--e, identified in the legal descriptions in 
paragraph (k) of this

[[Page 42435]]

section, constitute critical habitat for Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii 
Island. In units Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense--a, Hawaii 31--
Mezoneuron kavaiense--b, Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--d, and Hawaii 
34--Mezoneuron kavaiense--e, the physical and biological features of 
critical habitat are:
    (i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
    (ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
    (iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges, 
little-weathered lava.
    (iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum, 
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
    (v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola, 
Wikstroemia.
    (vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium, 
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *

FAMILY VIOLACEAE: Isodendrion pyrifolium (WAHINE NOHO KULA)
    Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium--a, Hawaii 31--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--b, Hawaii 33---Isodendrion pyrifolium--d, Hawaii 34--
Isodendrion pyrifolium--e, and Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium--g, 
identified in the legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of this section, 
constitute critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrfolium on Hawaii Island. 
In units Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium--a, Hawaii 31--Isodendrion 
pyrifolium--b, Hawaii 33---Isodendrion pyrifolium--d, Hawaii 34--
Isodendrion pyrifolium--e, and Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium--g, 
the physical and biological features of critical habitat are:
    (i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
    (ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
    (iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges, 
little-weathered lava.
    (iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum, 
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
    (v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola, 
Wikstroemia.
    (vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium, 
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 29, 2018.
James W. Kurth,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising the 
authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17514 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P