[Federal Register: May 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 93)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 25933-26165]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14my03-17]                         
 

[[Page 25933]]

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

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 60 Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and Kahoolawe, 
HI; Final Rule


[[Page 25934]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH70

 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for 60 Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe, HI

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for 60 of 70 listed plant species known historically 
from the Hawaiian islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. A total of 
approximately 37,717 hectares (ha) (93,200 acres (ac)) of land on the 
island of Maui and 1,180 ha (2,915 ac) of land on the island of 
Kahoolawe fall within the boundaries of the 139 critical habitat units 
designated for the 60 species. This critical habitat designation 
requires the Service to consult under section 7 of the Act with regard 
to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. 
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other 
relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects 
of the proposed rule, including data on economic and other impacts of 
the designation.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on June 13, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation, used in the preparation of this final rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 
Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific 
Islands Office at the above address (telephone 808/541-3441; facsimile 
808/541-3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)), 
there are 70 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported 
from the islands of Maui and/or Kahoolawe (Table 1).

                                     Table 1.--Summary of Island Distribution of 70 Species From Maui and Kahoolawe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Island distribution
         Species (common name)          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Kauai         Oahu         Molokai        Lanai         Maui         Hawaii     NW Isles, Kahoolawe, Niihau
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acaena exigua (liliwai)................            H   ............  ............  ............            H   ............  ...........................
Adenophorus periens (pendent kihi fern)             C             C             C            R             R              C  ...........................
Alectryon macrococcus (mahoe)..........             C             C             C  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.           ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
 macrocephalum (ahinahina).
Asplenium fragile var. insulare (NCN)..  ............  ............  ............  ............             C             C  ...........................
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha          ............  ............  ............            H              C  ............  ...........................
 (kookoolau).
Bonamia menziesii (NCN)................             C             C            H              C             C             C  ...........................
Brighamia rockii (pua ala).............  ............  ............             C            H             H   ............  ...........................
Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano)....  ............             C  ............            H              C            R   NW Isles (H)
Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)..........             C             C             C             C             C  ............  ...........................
Clermontia lindseyana (oha wai)........  ............  ............  ............  ............             C             C  ...........................
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis   ............  ............  ............             C             C  ............  ...........................
 (oha wai).
Clermontia peleana (oha wai)...........  ............  ............  ............  ............            H              C  ...........................
Clermontia samuelii (oha wai)..........  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Colubrina oppositifolia (kauila).......  ............             C  ............  ............             C             C  ...........................
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)............            H              C             C             C             C            H   ...........................
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis    ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
 (haha).
Cyanea glabra (haha)...................  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana        ............             C             C             C             C  ............  ...........................
 (haha).
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora      ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
 (haha).
Cyanea lobata (haha)...................  ............  ............  ............            H              C  ............  ...........................
Cyanea mceldowneyi (haha)..............  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale).............  ............  ............  ............             C             C  ............  ...........................
Delissea undulata (NCN)................             C  ............  ............  ............            H              C  Ni (H)
Diellia erecta (asplenium-leaved                   H             H              C            H              C             C  ...........................
 diellia).
Diplazium molokaiense (NCN)............            H             H             H             H              C  ............  ...........................
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis        ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
 (naenae).
Flueggea neowawraea (mehamehame).......             C             C            H   ............             C             C  ...........................
Geranium arboreum (nohoanu)............  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Geranium multiflorum (nohoanu).........  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Gouania vitifolia (NCN)................  ............             C  ............  ............            H              C  ...........................
Hedyotis coriacea (kioele).............  ............            H   ............  ............             C             C  ...........................
Hedyotis mannii (pilo).................  ............  ............             C             C             C  ............  ...........................
Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)........  ............             C             C            H              C  ............  ...........................

[[Page 25935]]


Hesperomannia arbuscula (NCN)..........  ............             C  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)..            H              C            H              C             C             C  Ka (R)
Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum)......             C            H              C  ............             C             C  ...........................
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho      ............            H             H             H             H              C  Ni (H)
 kula).
Kanaloa kahoolawensis (kohe malama       ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  Ka (C)
 malama o kanaloa).
Lipochaeta kamolensis (nehe)...........  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Lysimachia lydgatei (NCN)..............  ............            H   ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Mariscus pennatiformis (NCN)...........            H             H   ............  ............             C            H   NW Isles (C)
Melicope adscendens (alani)............  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Melicope balloui (alani)...............  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Melicope knudsenii (alani).............             C  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Melicope mucronulata (alani)...........  ............  ............             C  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Melicope ovalis (alani)................  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Neraudia sericea (NCN).................  ............  ............             C            H              C  ............  Ka (H)
Nototrichium humile (kului)............  ............             C  ............  ............            H   ............  ...........................
Peucedanum sandwicense (makou).........             C             C             C  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Phlegmariurus mannii (wawaeiole).......            H   ............  ............  ............             C             C  ...........................
Phyllostegia mannii (NCN)..............  ............  ............             C  ............            H   ............  ...........................
Phyllostegia mollis (NCN)..............  ............             C            H   ............             C  ............  ...........................
Phyllostegia parviflora (NCN)..........  ............             C  ............  ............            H             H   ...........................
Plantago princeps (laukahi kuahiwi)....             C             C             C  ............             C            H   ...........................
Platanthera holochila (NCN)............             C            H              C  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Pteris lidgatei (NCN)..................  ............             C            H   ............             C  ............  ...........................
Remya mauiensis (NCN)..................  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Sanicula purpurea (NCN)................  ............             C  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Schiedea haleakalensis (NCN)...........  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Schiedea hookeri (NCN).................  ............             C  ............  ............            H   ............  ...........................
Schiedea nuttallii (NCN)...............             C             C             C  ............            R   ............  ...........................
Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)..............             C             C             C            H              C             C  Ni (H), Ka (C), NW Isles
                                                                                                                              (C)
Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)....            H   ............            H             H             H              C  ...........................
Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)..........             C             C             C             C             C             C  ...........................
Tetramolopium arenarium (NCN)..........  ............  ............  ............  ............            H              C  ...........................
Tetramolopium capillare (pamakani).....  ............  ............  ............  ............             C  ............  ...........................
Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)..............  ............  ............  ............             C            H   ............  ...........................
Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)................  ............            H              C             C             C             C  Ni (H), Ka (C)
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae)............             C  ............             C            H              C             C  ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
C (Current)--population last observed within the past 30 years
H (Historical)--population not seen for more than 30 years
R (Reported)--reported from undocumented observations
NCN--no common name

    Eighteen of these species are endemic to the islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe, while 42 species are reported from one or more other 
islands, as well as Maui and/or Kahoolawe. Each of these species is 
described in more detail below in the section, ``Discussion of Plant 
Taxa.'' Although we considered designating critical habitat on Maui and 
Kahoolawe for each of the 70 plant species, for the reasons described 
below, the final designation includes critical habitat for 60 of 70 
plant species. Species that also occur on other islands may have 
critical habitat designated on other islands in previous or subsequent 
rulemakings.

The Islands of Maui and Kahoolawe

    Maui, the second largest island in Hawaii at 1,888 square 
kilometers (sq km) (729 square miles (sq mi)) in area, was formed from 
the remnants of two large shield volcanoes, the older West Maui volcano 
(1.3 million years) on the west and the larger, but much younger, 
Haleakala volcano on the east. Stream erosion has cut deep valleys and 
ridges into the originally shield-shaped West Maui volcano. The highest 
point on West Maui is Puu Kukui at 1,764 meters (m) (5,787 feet (ft)) 
elevation, which has an average rainfall of 1,020 centimeters (cm) (400 
inches (in)) per year, making it the second wettest spot in Hawaii 
(Department of Geography 1998). Having erupted just 200 years ago, East 
Maui's Haleakala crater, reaching 3,055 m (10,023 ft) in elevation, has 
retained its classic shield shape and lacks the diverse vegetation 
typical of the older and more eroded West Maui mountain. Rainfall on 
the slopes of Haleakala is about 89 cm (35 in) per year, with its 
windward (northeastern) slope receiving the most precipitation. 
However, Haleakala's crater is a dry cinder desert because it is above 
the level at which precipitation develops and is sheltered from 
moisture-laden winds (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999).
    The island of Kahoolawe measures about 17.7 km (11 mi) long by 11.3 
km (7 mi) wide, comprising some 11,655 ha (28,800 ac). Located in the 
lee of

[[Page 25936]]

Haleakala, the island lies approximately 11 km (6.7 mi) from East Maui. 
The highest point is the rim of an extinct volcano at 450 m (1,477 ft) 
above sea level. The estimated annual precipitation is approximately 50 
cm (20 in), with most of it falling from November through March. In 
addition to the low precipitation, Kahoolawe is the windiest of the 
Hawaiian Islands (Gon et al. 1992).

Discussion of Plant Taxa

Species Endemic to Maui or Kahoolawe

Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum (Ahinahina)

    Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, a long-lived 
perennial and a member of the aster family (Asteraceae), is called the 
Haleakala silversword. It is a distinctive, globe-shaped rosette plant 
with a dense covering of silver hairs. This subspecies is distinguished 
from A. sandwicense ssp. sandwicense by the shape and ratio of the 
dimensions of the inflorescence (flowering part of plant), the number 
of ray florets per head, and the combination of its longer, three-
angled leaves; its silvery leaf hairs, which completely hide the leaf 
surface; and its longer achenes (dry fruits) (Carr 1985, 1999a).
    This monocarpic (flowers only once, at the end of its lifetime) 
plant matures from seed to its final stage in approximately 15 to 50 
years. The plant remains a compact rosette until it sends up an erect, 
central flowering stalk, sets seed, and dies. Flowering occurs from 
June to September, with annual numbers of flowering plants varying 
dramatically from year to year. Reliable counts of flowering plants 
were made in 1935 (217 flowered) and in 1941 (815 flowered). Numbers 
recorded flowering in recent years have ranged from zero in 1970 to 
6,632 in 1991. The environmental stimulus for synchronous flowering is 
as yet unknown. An apparent relationship of the 1991 mass flowering 
event to stratospheric alteration by the eruption of Pinatubo Volcano 
in the Philippines has been considered. Investigations are underway by 
R. Pharis of the University of Calgary and L.L. Loope of the U.S. 
Geological Survey--Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD) to explore 
whether enhanced flowering is related to increased UV-B radiation 
caused by temporary reduction of stratospheric ozone. Flying insects, 
especially native bees, moths, flies, bugs, and wasps, many of which 
are pollinators, are attracted in large numbers to the giant, aromatic 
inflorescences. Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum cannot 
fertilize itself and is reliant on insect pollinators for reproduction. 
Rarely, hybrids between A. sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum and Dubautia 
menziesii (naenae) have been observed. Primarily found within Haleakala 
Crater, especially on Puu o Pele and Puu o Maui cinder cones, these 
hybrid individuals can flower for several years before dying (Carr 
1985; Loope and Crivellone 1986; Loope and Medeiros, in press; Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Currently, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum occupies 
all of its historic range, a 1,000 ha (2,500 ac) area at 2,100 to 3,000 
m (6,890 to 9,840 ft) elevation in the crater and outer slopes of 
Haleakala Volcano, within Haleakala National Park and The Nature 
Conservancy of Hawaii's (TNCH) Waikamoi Preserve. There are a total of 
7 occurrences on Federal and privately owned land, with a total of 
39,025 to 44,025 individual plants (Geographic Decision Systems 
International (GDSI) 2001; Hawaii Natural Heritage Program (HINHP) 
Database 2001; Loope and Crivellone 1986; Service 1997; TNCH 1998; 57 
FR 20772).
    The habitat of this species consists primarily of lava flows and 
otherwise barren, unstable slopes of recent (less than several thousand 
years old) volcanic cinder cones or in Deschampsia nubigena (hair 
grass) grasslands at elevations between 1,508 and 3,053 m (4,947 and 
10,016 ft). Mean annual precipitation is approximately 75 to 250 cm 
(29.6 to 98.4 in). The substrate has almost no soil development and is 
subject to frequent formation of ice at night and extreme heating 
during cloudless days. This species is found in alpine dry shrubland 
with native species, including Agrostis sandwicensis (bent grass), 
Dubautia menziesii, Leptecophylla tameiameiae (pukiawe), Silene 
struthioloides (catchfly), Tetramolopium humile (NCN), or Trisetum 
glomeratum (pili uka) (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; Robert Hobdy, Hawaii 
Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species are loss of pollinators caused by the 
nonnative Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) and yellow jackets 
(Vespula pennsylvanica); native seed-eating and herbivorous insects 
such as the tephritid fly (Trupanea cratericola); limited natural 
range, which makes it vulnerable to extinction due to catastrophic 
events, such as a natural disaster; competition from the nonnative 
plant species Verbascum thapsus (mullein); and human impacts (trampling 
and site degradation). Although goats (Capra hircus) and cattle (Bos 
taurus) have been removed from the park, they remain a potential threat 
(Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Clermontia samuelii (Oha wai)

    Clermontia samuelii, a short-lived perennial in the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), is a terrestrial shrub with elliptical leaves 
which are sometimes broader at the tips. C. s. ssp. hanaensis is 
differentiated from C. s. ssp. samuelii by the greenish white to white 
flowers; longer, narrower leaves with the broadest point near the base 
of the leaves; and fewer hairs on the lower surface of the leaves. This 
species is separated from other members of this endemic Hawaiian genus 
by the size of the flowers and the hypanthium (base of flower) (Lammers 
1999; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Clermontia samuelii. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Historically, Clermontia samuelii has been reported from Haleakala 
and from Keanae Valley on the windward side to Manawainui on the 
leeward (southeastern) side of Haleakala. Currently, C. samuelii is 
known from Papanalahoa Point, Kuhiwa Valley, the ridge north of Palike 
Stream, Kawaipapa, and Mokulehua Gulch. There are 7 occurrences with 
309 individual plants on State and Federal lands within Haleakala 
National Park, Hanawi Natural Area Reserve (NAR), Hana Forest Reserve, 
and within the East Maui Watershed Partnership (GDSI 2001, HINHP 
Database 2001, Medeiros and Loope 1989, Service 2001, Warshauer 1998, 
64 FR 48307, R. Hobdy, DOFAW, in litt. 2000, Ken Wood, National 
Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG), in litt. 2000).
    Clermontia samuelii is found at elevations between 723 and 2,244 m 
(2,372 and 7,362 ft). Clermontia samuelii ssp. hanaensis is found in 
wet Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe) forest containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Adenophorus tamariscinus 
(wahine no mauna); Broussaisia arguta (kanawao); Carex alligata (NCN); 
Cheirodendron trigynum (olapa); Cibotium spp. (hapuu); Diplazium 
sandwichianum (hoio); Dubautia spp. (naenae); Hedyotis hillebrandii 
(manono); Hedyotis terminalis (manono); Melicope clusiifolia (kolokolo 
mokihana); Melicope spp. (alani); Peperomia obovatilimba (ala ala wai 
nui); Psychotria mariniana (kopiko);

[[Page 25937]]

Tetraplasandra oahuensis (ohe mauka); or Vaccinium spp. (ohelo). In 
addition, Clermontia samuelii ssp. samuelii is found in wet 
Metrosideros polymorpha and M. polymorpha-Cheirodendron trigynum forest 
containing one or more of the following native plant species: 
Broussaisia arguta; Carex alligata; Cibotium spp.; Clermontia 
arborescens ssp. waihiae (oha wai nui); Clermontia spp. (oha wai); 
Diplazium sandwichianum; Dubautia spp.; Hedyotis hillebrandii; Hedyotis 
spp. (NCN); Melicope spp.; Rubus hawaiensis (akala); or Vaccinium spp. 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; R. Hobdy pers. comm., 
2001; K. Wood, in litt. 2000).
    Threats to Clermontia samuelii ssp. hanaensis include habitat 
degradation and destruction by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and competition 
with nonnative plant species such as Hedychium coronarium (white 
ginger), Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili ginger), Juncus spp. (NCN), 
Paspalum urvillei (vasey grass), Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass), or 
Tibouchina herbacea (glorybush). In addition, two extremely invasive 
nonnative plant species, Miconia calvescens (velvet tree) and Clidemia 
hirta (Koster's curse), are found in nearby areas and may invade this 
habitat if not controlled. The habitat of Clermontia samuelii ssp. 
samuelii was extensively damaged by pigs in the past, and pigs are 
still a major threat to the populations on State-owned lands. The 
occurrence within the National Park has been fenced, and pigs have been 
eradicated. However, due to the large populations of pigs in adjacent 
areas, the park occurrences must constantly be monitored to prevent 
further ingress. Competition with nonnative plant species such as 
Holcus lanatus (velvet grass) and Juncus planifolius (NCN) is also a 
major threat to this subspecies. In addition, rats (mainly black rats 
(Rattus rattus)) and slugs (mainly Milax gagetes) are known to eat 
leaves, stems, and fruits of other members of this genus and therefore 
are a potential threat to both subspecies (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; 
K. Wood, in litt. 2000).

Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis (Haha)

    Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, a short-lived perennial 
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a vine-like shrub 
with sprawling stems and tan latex (sap). This subspecies is 
differentiated from C. c. ssp. copelandii by its shorter elliptical 
leaves. The species differs from others in this endemic Hawaiian genus 
by the vine-like stems and the yellowish flowers that appear red caused 
by the covering of hairs (Lammers 1999; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Historically, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis was reported 
from the windward side of Haleakala and from Waikamoi to Kipahulu 
Valley. Currently, this species is known from 5 occurrences with a 
total of 204 individuals on Federal and privately owned land within the 
East Maui Watershed Partnership in Haiku Uka, the ridge above Kuhiwa 
Valley, and Kipahulu Valley within Haleakala National Park and Hanawi 
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Lammers 
1999; Service 2001; Warshauer 1998; 64 FR 48307).
    Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis is found on stream banks or 
wet scree (a sloping mass of rocks at the base of a cliff) slopes or in 
forest understory in montane wet or mesic forests dominated by Acacia 
koa (koa) and Metrosideros polymorpha at elevations between 616 and 
1,411 m (2,021 and 4,630 ft). Associated species include Broussaisia 
arguta, Cibotium spp., Hedyotis acuminata (au), Perrottetia 
sandwicensis (olomea), and Psychotria hawaiiensis (kopiko ula) (HINHP 
Database 2001; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    The major threats to this species are habitat degradation and 
destruction by feral pigs; competition with several nonnative plant 
species; rats; slugs; human activities; and potential extinction caused 
by random environmental events due to small occurrence sizes (Service 
2001; 64 FR 48307).

Cyanea glabra (Haha)

    Cyanea glabra, a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), 
is a short-lived, perennial shrub, with the leaves of juvenile plants 
deeply pinnately lobed, while those of the adult plants are more or 
less entire and elliptical. This species is differentiated from others 
in this endemic Hawaiian genus by the size of the flower and the 
pinnately lobed juvenile leaves (Lammers 1999; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Cyanea glabra. Flowering 
cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Historically, Cyanea glabra has been reported from West Maui and on 
Haleakala, East Maui. Currently, this species is known from a single 
occurrence of 12 individual plants on privately owned land in Kauaula 
Valley (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Cyanea glabra is found on soil and rock stream banks in wet lowland 
forests dominated by Acacia koa and Metrosideros polymorpha, at 
elevations between 413 and 1,572 m (1,355 and 5,156 ft). Associated 
native plants include Boehmeria grandis (akolea), Cheirodendron 
trigynum, Christella cyatheoides (kikawaio), Cibotium spp., Clermontia 
kakeana (ohai wai), Coprosma spp. (pilo), Diplazium spp. (NCN), 
Dodonaea viscosa (aalii), Dubautia plantaginea (naenae), Perrottetia 
sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus (mamaki), Psychotria spp. (kopiko), 
Sadleria spp. (amau), Touchardia latifolia (olona), and Xylosma 
hawaiiense (maua) (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; Joel Lau, HINHP, pers. 
comm., 2001; HINHP Database 2001; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species are slugs; habitat degradation and 
destruction by feral pigs; flooding; competition with several nonnative 
plant species; rats; the two-spotted leafhopper (Saphonia rufofascia); 
and extinction caused by random environmental events caused by the 
small number of individuals in the only remaining occurrence (Service 
2001; 64 FR 48307).

Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora (Haha)

    Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, a short-lived perennial member 
of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a palm-like tree with tan 
colored latex. This subspecies is differentiated from the other listed 
subspecies (C. hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) by its longer calyx lobes 
and shorter individual flower stalks. This species is separated from 
others in this endemic Hawaiian genus by fewer flowers per 
inflorescence and narrower leaves (Lammers 1999; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Historically, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora was known from 
the windward side of Haleakala, stretching from Puu o Kakae to 
Manawainui. Currently, this species is known from 9

[[Page 25938]]

occurrences with a total of 12 individuals within the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership in Honomanu, Wailuaiki, Kipahulu Valley, 
Koukouai, and Puu Ahulili, on Federal (Haleakala National Park) and 
privately owned lands (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 2001; 
Warshauer 1998; 64 FR 48307).
    Typical habitat for this species is montane wet forest dominated by 
Metrosideros polymorpha, with a Cibotium spp. and/or native shrub 
understory, or closed Acacia koa-M. polymorpha wet forest, containing 
one or more of the following associated native plant species: Athyrium 
microphyllum (akolea), Broussaisia arguta, Cheirodendron trigynum, 
Cyanea aculeatiflora (haha), Cyanea kunthiana (haha), Dicranopteris 
linearis, Diplazium sandwichianum, Melicope spp., Myrsine spp. (kolea), 
or Vaccinium spp.; and at elevations between 767 and 1,553 m (2,515 and 
5,095 ft) (HINHP Database 2001; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; Service 
2001; 64 FR 48307).
    The threats to this species are habitat degradation and destruction 
by feral pigs; landslides; competition with the nonnative plant 
Ageratina adenophora (Maui pamakani); rats; and slugs (Service 2001; 64 
FR 48307).

Cyanea mceldowneyi (Haha)

    Cyanea mceldowneyi, a member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is a short-lived, unbranched perennial shrub with 
rough to prickly stems. This species is distinguished from other 
species of Cyanea by the combination of a densely armed trunk; long (4 
cm (1.6 in)), white corollas; and leaf blade size and shape (Lammers 
1999; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Cyanea mceldowneyi. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Cyanea mceldowneyi was known from rainforest west of 
Waikamoi to Honomanu on northwestern Haleakala. Currently, this species 
is known from 11 occurrences with a total of 36 individuals on State 
(Makawao Forest Reserve and Hanawi NAR) and privately owned lands 
within the East Maui Watershed Partnership at Kahakapao Gulch, Opana 
Gulch, Waikamoi, Puohokamoa, Makapipi, and the flats above Kuhiwa 
Valley (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Lammers 1999; Service 1997; 
Warshauer 1998; 57 FR 20772).
    The habitat of this species is montane wet and mesic forest with 
mixed Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Broussaisia arguta, 
Cheirodendron trigynum, Cibotium spp., Clermontia arborescens, 
Cyrtandra spp. (haiwale), Dicranopteris linearis, Diplazium 
sandwichianum, Hedyotis spp., or Melicope clusiifolia, at elevations 
between 779 and 1,357 m (2,555 and 4,453 ft) (R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 
2001, Service 1997, 57 FR 20772).
    The threats to this species are habitat degradation and physical 
destruction by feral pigs, small number of occurrences and individuals, 
human activities, and competition with nonnative plant species, 
especially Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass) (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis (Naenae)

    Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, a short-lived perennial of the 
aster family (Asteraceae), is a dwarf shrub less than 80 cm (30 in) 
tall with hairless or strigillose (bulbous-based hairs, all pointing in 
the same direction) stems. This species differs from other Hawaiian 
members of the genus by the number of veins in the leaves and by the 
close resemblance of the leaves to the genus Plantago. The subspecies 
humilis differs from the other two subspecies (D. plantaginea ssp. 
magnifolia and D. plantaginea ssp. plantaginea) by having fewer heads 
per inflorescence, but more florets per head (Carr 1985; Carr 1999b; 
Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Dubautia plantaginea ssp. 
humilis. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis has only been reported from Iao 
Valley on West Maui. The two occurrences with 60 to 65 individuals in 
total are on privately owned land (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    The typical habitat of the species is wet, barren, steep, rocky, 
wind-blown cliffs containing one or more of the following associated 
native plant species: Bidens spp. (kookoolau), Carex spp. (NCN), 
Eragrostis variabilis (kawelu), Hedyotis formosa (NCN), Lysimachia 
remyi (NCN), Metrosideros polymorpha, Pipturus albidus, Plantago 
princeps (laukahi kuahiwi), or Pritchardia spp. (loulu), at elevations 
between 266 and 1,593 m (873 and 5,226 ft) (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    Threats to Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis include landslides and 
competition from nonnative plant species. Random environmental events, 
such as landslides, are a threat because of the limited number of 
individuals and occurrences and their narrow distribution (Service 
2001; 64 FR 48307).

Geranium arboreum (Nohoanu)

    Geranium arboreum, a long-lived perennial member of the geranium 
family (Geraniaceae), is a many branched, spreading, woody shrub about 
1.8 to 3.7 m (6 to 12 ft) tall. This species can be distinguished from 
other Geranium species by its red petals with the upper three petals 
erect and the lower two reflexed, causing the flower to appear curved 
(Wagner et al. 1999).
    Geranium arboreum is the only species in its genus that appears to 
be adapted to bird-pollination. Native honeycreepers appear to be a 
major pollination vector. Geranium arboreum from the southwest area of 
Haleakala in the Kula Forest Reserve produce seeds that are larger and 
fuller than seeds from the northwest extension of its distribution. 
Native honeycreepers are reasonably abundant in both areas. Little else 
is known about the life history of Geranium arboreum. Flowering cycles, 
other pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Funk 
1982, 1988; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    The original range and abundance of the species is unknown, but 
late 19th and early 20th century collections indicate that it once grew 
on the southern slopes of Haleakala and that its distribution on the 
northern slopes extended beyond its presently known range. Currently, 
there are 12 occurrences totaling 158 individuals, within the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership on State (Kula and Kahikinui Forest Reserves), 
private, and federally owned or leased (Haleakala National Park) lands. 
These occurrences are found in Kahua, Kanahau, Waiohuli, Kaipoioi 
Gulch, Hapapa Gulch, Keauaiwi Gulch, Kalialinui, and south of Puu Luau 
and east of Puu Nianiau (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 
Warshauer 1998; 57 FR 20772).
    Geranium arboreum grows in steep, damp, and shaded narrow canyons 
and gulches, steep banks, and intermittent streams in Sophora 
chrysophylla (mamane) subalpine dry shrubland or Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane forest containing one or more of the

[[Page 25939]]

following associated native plant species: Dryopteris wallichiana (io 
nui); Dodonaea viscosa; Leptecophylla tameiameiae; Rubus hawaiiensis; 
or Vaccinium reticulatum (ohelo ai), at elevations between 1,451 and 
2,184 m (4,760 and 7,164 ft) (R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    The greatest immediate threat to the survival of this species is 
encroachment and competition from naturalized, nonnative vegetation, 
chiefly grasses and trees. Soil disturbance, caused by trampling cattle 
and rooting by feral pigs, also is a major threat as it destroys plants 
and facilitates the encroachment of competing species of naturalized 
plants. Other less important threats include browsing by cattle; fires; 
and pollen from nonnative pine trees, which at certain times of the 
year completely covers the stigmas of the geraniums, precluding any 
fertilization by its own pollen. The small number of individual plants 
increases the potential for extinction from random environmental 
events, and the limited gene pool may depress reproductive vigor (Funk 
1982, 1988; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Geranium multiflorum (Nohoanu)

    Geranium multiflorum, a long-lived member of the geranium family 
(Geraniaceae), is a perennial many-branched shrub 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft) 
tall. Flowers are in clusters of 25 to 50 and have 5 white petals that 
are 10 to 15 millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 0.6 in) long with purple veins or 
bases. This species is distinguished from others of the genus by its 
white, regularly symmetrical flowers and by the shape and pattern of 
teeth on its leaf margins (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Geranium multiflorum. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Geranium multiflorum was known from Ukulele, 
Waieleele, and Waianapanapa on East Maui. This species is now known 
from Federal (Haleakala National Park), State (Hanawi NAR and Koolau 
Forest Reserve), and private lands within the East Maui Watershed 
Partnership in Haiku Ula, Kalialinui, Koolau Gap, between East Waiuaki 
and Kopiliula Streams, near Puu Alaea along Kalapawili Ridge, Kipahulu 
Valley, Waiakekeehia, and Haleakala Crater. The 13 known occurrences 
extend over a distance of about 10.5 by 5.5 km (6.5 by 3.5 mi). Due to 
the inaccessibility of the occurrences, and the difficulty in 
determining the number of individuals (caused by the plant's multi-
branched form), the total number of individuals of this species is not 
known; however, it probably does not exceed 3,000 plants (GDSI 2001; 
HINHP Database 2001; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1997; 
Warshauer 1998; 57 FR 20772).
    Geranium multiflorum is found in wet or mesic Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane forest or alpine mesic forest, Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae shrubland, Sophora chrysophylla subalpine dry forest, open 
sedge swamps, fog-swept lava flows, or montane grasslands containing 
one or more of the following associated native plant species: Coprosma 
montana (pilo); Dryopteris glabra (hohui); Dryopteris wallichiana; 
Hedyotis spp.; Rubus hawaiiensis; Sadleria cyatheoides; or Vaccinium 
spp. (amau), at elevations between 1,499 and 2,710 m (4,918 and 8,890 
ft) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; Wagner et al. 1999; 57 FR 
20772).
    The major threat to Geranium multiflorum is competition with 
encroaching nonnative plant species, particularly Rubus argutus 
(prickly Florida blackberry). A potential threat is habitat destruction 
by feral pigs and goats in unfenced areas (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Kanaloa kahoolawensis (Kohe malama malama o kanaloa)

    Kanaloa kahoolawensis, a short-lived perennial member of the legume 
family (Fabaceae), is a densely branched shrub 0.75 to 1 m (2.5 to 3.5 
ft) tall. The leaves are divided into three pairs of leaflets, with a 
leaf nectary (nectar-bearing gland) at the joint between each pair of 
leaflets. One to three inflorescences are found in the leaf axils 
(joint between leaf and stem), developing with the flush of new leaves. 
The inflorescence is a globose head with 20 to 54 white flowers. No 
other species of legume in Hawaii bears any resemblance to this 
species, which is why it is the only one in this genus (Lorence and 
Wood 1994; Service 2001).
    Little is known about the life history of Kanaloa kahoolawensis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
    Kanaloa kahoolawensis was unknown to science until its discovery by 
Steve Perlman and Ken Wood of NTBG in 1992 on a steep rocky spire on 
the coast of Kahoolawe. The only known location of K. kahoolawensis is 
this rocky stack on the southern coast of Kahoolawe, in an area which 
is owned by the State of Hawaii. While there are no previous records of 
the plant, pollen core studies on Oahu revealed a legume pollen that 
could not be identified but is most likely this species. The pollen 
cores indicate that this previously unidentified species was a 
codominant with Dodonaea viscosa and Pritchardia spp. from before 1210 
B.C. to 1565 A.D., at which point K. kahoolawensis disappeared from the 
pollen record and D. viscosa and Pritchardia spp. declined 
dramatically. Only one occurrence with two living individuals is known 
(Athens et al. 1992; Athens and Ward 1993; Lorence and Wood 1994; 
Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; Paul Higashino, Kahoolawe Island Reserve 
Commission (KIRC), pers. comm., 2000).
    The only known habitat is steep rocky talus slopes in mixed coastal 
shrubland at elevations between 0 and 305 m (0 and 1,000 ft) and 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Bidens mauiensis (kookoolau); Capparis sandwichiana 
(maiapilo); Melanthera lavarum (nehe); Portulaca molokiniensis (ihi); 
Senna gaudichaudii (kolomona); or Sida fallax (ilima) (Service 2001; 64 
FR 48307; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Kanaloa kahoolawensis are landslides and 
competition with the nonnative plant species Emilia fosbergii (pualele) 
and Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco). Goats played a major role in the 
destruction of vegetation on Kahoolawe before they were removed, and K. 
kahoolawensis probably survived only because the rocky stack is almost 
completely separated from the island and inaccessible to goats. Rats 
are a potential threat to K. kahoolawensis, because the species has 
seeds similar in appearance and presentation to the seeds of the 
federally endangered Caesalpinia kavaiensis (uhiuhi), which are eaten 
by rats. Rats may have been the cause of the decline of this species 
over 400 years ago. Trampling and habitat degradation from introduced 
cats and native seabirds are also potential threats. Random 
environmental events and reduced reproductive vigor are also threats to 
this species, because only two individuals are known (Cuddihy and Stone 
1990; Lorence and Wood 1994; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307; P. Higashino, 
pers. comm., 2000).

Lipochaeta kamolensis (Nehe)

    Lipochaeta kamolensis, a short-lived perennial herb of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), has trailing or climbing stems that are woody at 
the base and reach a length of 0.3 to 3 m (1 to 10 ft). This species is 
distinguished from others of the genus by the simple leaves, which are 
pinnately lobed or cut, and by

[[Page 25940]]

the size of the flower heads (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Lipochaeta kamolensis has been observed flowering from December 
through February, as well as in April. The growing season coincides 
with the wet season between November and April to May. Plants are 
deciduous and appear to be metabolically inactive during the dry 
season. Little else is known about the life history of L. kamolensis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are otherwise unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Lipochaeta kamolensis was known from Kamole Gulch, 
west of Kepuni Gulch, and 7.2 km (11.8 mi) southeast of Ulupalakua 
Ranch Office. This species still occurs in Kamole Gulch, on State-owned 
(Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)) land. The only known 
occurrence, which extends over an area of about 40 ha (100 ac), is 
estimated to contain fewer than 500 individuals (GDSI 2001; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; Wagner et al. 1999; 57 FR 20772; K. Wood, 
in litt. 1999).
    Lipochaeta kamolensis typically grows in gulches or on gentle 
slopes outside gulches in dry shrubland at elevations between 40 and 
602 m (132 and 1,974 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa; Ipomoea indica 
(koali awa); or Plumbago zeylanica (iliee) (Service 1997; Wagner et al. 
1999; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, in litt. 
1999).
    The major threats to Lipochaeta kamolensis are habitat destruction, 
predation by cattle and goats, competition with nonnative plants such 
as Lantana camara (lantana), fire, and the one occurrence being subject 
to extinction by random environmental events (Service 1997; 57 FR 
20772).

Melicope adscendens (Alani)

    Melicope adscendens, a long-lived perennial of the rue family 
(Rutaceae), is a sprawling shrub with long, slender branches covered 
with gray hairs when young, which become hairless when older. Melicope 
adscendens is distinguished from other species of the genus by its 
growth habit, the distinct follicles (chambers) of its fruit, and the 
persistent (remaining attached) sepals and petals (Stone et al. 1999).
    Melicope adscendens fruits have been collected in March and July. 
Little else is known about the life history of M. adscendens. Flowering 
cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1997; 59 FR 62346).
    Melicope adscendens has been found only on the southwestern slope 
of Haleakala; two plants, separated by an unspecified distance, were 
found by Forbes in 1920. Today, there are 16 occurrences on State 
(Kanaio NAR) and privately owned lands at Puu Ouli and on the border of 
the Hana and Makawao Districts (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1997; 59 FR 62346).
    This species typically grows on aa lava (a particular type of lava 
flow with very sharp edges) with pockets of soil in Nestegis 
sandwicensis (olopua)-Pleomele auwahiensis (hala pepe)-Dodonaea viscosa 
lowland mesic forest or open dry forest containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Alphitonia ponderosa 
(kauila); Chamaesyce celastroides var. lorifolia (akoko); Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia (ulei); Pouteria sandwicensis 
(alaa); Santalum ellipticum (iliahialoe); or Xylosma hawaiiense (maua) 
at elevations between 761 and 1,209 m (2,497 and 3,967 ft) (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 62346; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; 
K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    Major threats are habitat damage and trampling by cattle; 
competition with nonnative plant species, including Bocconia frutescens 
(NCN), Lantana camara, and Pennisetum clandestinum (kikuyu grass); and 
reduced reproductive vigor or extinction from random environmental 
events caused by the small number of individuals and narrow 
distribution. Potential threats include habitat degradation and damage 
to plants by axis deer (Axis axis), feral goats, feral pigs, black twig 
borer (Xylosandrus compactus), fire, and ranch activities (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 62346).

Melicope balloui (Alani)

    Melicope balloui, a long-lived perennial of the rue family 
(Rutaceae), is a small tree or shrub. New growth has yellowish brown 
woolly hairs and waxy scales; plant parts later become nearly hairless. 
Melicope balloui is distinguished from other species of the genus by 
the partially fused carpels of its four-lobed capsule (dry fruit) and 
usually persistent sepals and petals (Stone et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Melicope balloui. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 59 FR 62346).
    Melicope balloui has been found only on the northern and 
southeastern slopes of Haleakala. There are 3 known occurrences with a 
total of approximately 50 individuals on private and federally owned 
(Haleakala National Park) lands within the East Maui Watershed 
Partnership at Puu O Kakae and Palikea Stream (GDSI 2001; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 62346; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    Melicope balloui typically grows in mesic to wet forest between 781 
and 1,596 m (2,561 and 5,267 ft) in elevation and containing one or 
more of the following associated native plant species: Acacia koa; 
Cibotium chamissoi (hapuu); Cibotium glaucum (hapuu); Diplazium 
sandwichianum; Melicope clusiifolia; Metrosideros polymorpha; or 
Sadleria pallida (amau) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 
62346; J. Lau, Hawaii Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm., 2001).
    Major threats are habitat degradation and damage to plants by feral 
pigs and axis deer and reduced reproductive vigor or extinction caused 
by random environmental events caused by the small number of existing 
occurrences and individuals. Potential threats include competition with 
nonnative plant species such as Clidemia hirta, Paspalum conjugatum, 
Paspalum urvillei, and Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava); 
susceptibility to black twig borer; and predation by rats (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 62346).

Melicope ovalis (Alani)

    Melicope ovalis, a long-lived perennial of the rue family 
(Rutaceae), is a tree growing up to 5 m (16 ft) tall. New growth has 
fine, short, brownish hairs, but soon becomes hairless. Leaves are 
opposite, leathery, and broadly elliptic. Bruised foliage has an anise 
odor similar to that of M. anisata (mokihana). Melicope ovalis is 
distinguished from other species of the genus by the almost entirely 
fused carpels of its capsule, its nonpersistent sepals and petals, and 
its well-developed petioles (leaf stems) (Stone et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Melicope ovalis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 59 FR 62346).
    Melicope ovalis has been found only on the eastern and southeastern 
slopes of Haleakala. There are two occurrences with approximately 200 
individuals,

[[Page 25941]]

found on federally owned land along Palikea Stream in Haleakala 
National Park within the East Maui Watershed Partnership (GDSI 2001; 
HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 59 FR 62346; K. Wood, in litt. 
1999).
    This species typically grows in Acacia koa and Metrosideros 
polymorpha-dominated montane wet forests along streams at elevations 
between 753 and 1,537 m (2,469 and 5,042 ft). Associated plant species 
include: Broussaisia arguta; Cheirodendron trigynum; Dicranopteris 
linearis; Dubautia plantaginea; Hedyotis hillebrandii; Labordia 
hedyosmifolia (kamakahala); Machaerina angustifolia (uki); Perrottetia 
sandwicensis; or Wikstroemia oahuensis (akia) (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1997; 59 FR 62346; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    Major threats to the only known population are habitat degradation 
and damage to plants by feral pigs and reduced reproductive vigor and/
or extinction caused by random environmental events. Competition with 
introduced plants such as Clidemia hirta, Paspalum conjugatum, Psidium 
cattleianum and Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry); seed predation by 
rats; and susceptibility to black twig borer are also threats to this 
species. Habitat degradation and damage to plants by feral goats and 
axis deer are potential threats if the integrity of the fence currently 
surrounding the occurrence is compromised (HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1997; 59 FR 62346; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).

Remya mauiensis (NCN)

    Remya mauiensis is a short-lived perennial member of the aster 
family (Asteraceae). The genus Remya is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands. This species is a small perennial shrub, about 90 cm (3 ft) 
tall, with many slender, sprawling, or scandent (climbing) to weakly 
erect branches. It is distinguished from the other two members of the 
genus by its hairy stems and foliage, leaf shape, and length of the 
petiole (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Remya mauiensis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 56 FR 1450).
    Remya mauiensis was collected twice on West Maui by William 
Hillebrand between 1851 and 1871, and again in 1920 by Charles Forbes, 
also on West Maui. It was thought to be extinct until its rediscovery 
in 1971 by L.E. Bishop, W. Gagne, and S. Montgomery on the slopes of 
Manawainui Gulch, West Maui. Currently, R. mauiensis is known from five 
occurrences on State-owned land within the West Maui Mountains 
Watershed Partnership at Paupau, Kokuula, Kanaulaiki, and Maunawainui 
Gulch in the Panaewa section of the West Maui NAR, the West Maui Forest 
Reserve, and the Manawainui Plant Sanctuary. Because of the sprawling 
habit of this species, and the often dense growth of the surrounding 
vegetation, it is difficult to determine the exact number of 
individuals; however, there is an estimated total of 21 individuals 
(GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 56 FR 1450).
    Remya mauiensis grows chiefly on steep, north or northeast-facing 
slopes in mixed mesophytic forests or Metrosideros polymorpha montane 
wet forests containing one or more of the following associated native 
species: Alyxia oliviformis (maile); Diospyros sandwicensis (lama); 
Diplazium sandwichianum; Dodonaea viscosa; Leptecophylla tameiameiae; 
Lysimachia remyi; Melicope spp.; Microlepia strigosa (palapalai); 
Myrsine lessertiana (kolea lau nui); Nestegis sandwicensis; Pleomele 
auwahiensis; Psychotria mariniana; Wikstroemia spp. (akia); or Xylosma 
hawaiiense at elevations between 400 and 1,228 m (1,312 and 4,029 ft) 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 56 FR 1450; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 
2001).
    This species is threatened by extinction caused by random 
catastrophic environmental events by virtue of the extremely small size 
of the occurrences coupled with their limited distribution. The limited 
gene pool may depress reproductive vigor, or a single environmental 
disturbance could destroy a significant percentage of the known 
individuals. However, the primary threat to this species is the loss 
and degradation of its habitat caused by the introduction of nonnative 
plants, such as Adiantum hispidulum (rough maidenhair fern), Rubus 
rosifolius, Schinus terebinthifolius (Christmas berry), or Tibouchina 
herbacea; human activities; and feral goats and pigs (Service 1997; 56 
FR 1450).

Schiedea haleakalensis (NCN)

    Schiedea haleakalensis, a short-lived perennial of the pink family 
(Caryophyllaceae), is a hairless shrub, with slightly fleshy, narrow 
leaves and a single vein. Flowers are in clusters at the ends of the 
branches. This species differs from other species of the genus on East 
Maui by its crowded, hairless inflorescence composed of bisexual 
flowers (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Schiedea haleakalensis is gynodioecious (individuals either have 
only female flowers or only bisexual flowers) and so likely requires 
cross-pollination by small insects. Small, short-flighted flies and 
moths have been observed visiting flowers. Fruits and seeds have been 
observed from August through September. Little else is known about the 
life history of S. haleakalensis. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 
20772).
    Due to the lack of early collections or sightings, the historical 
range of Schiedea haleakalensis is unknown. This species is known only 
from Leleiwi Pali and Kaupo Gap in Haleakala National Park within the 
East Maui Watershed Partnership. The two occurrences are estimated to 
contain a total of 100 to 200 individuals, which together extend over a 
total area of 11 ha (28 ac) (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Schiedea haleakalensis typically grows in rock cracks on sheer 
cliffs adjacent to barren lava and subalpine shrublands and grasslands 
with cinder, weathered volcanic ash, or in bare lava substrate with 
little or no soil development and periodic freezing temperatures, and 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Artemisia mauiensis (hinahina), Bidens micrantha (kookoolau), 
Dubautia menziesii, Leptecophylla tameiameiae, Vaccinium reticulatum, 
or Viola chamissoniana (pamakani) at elevations between 1,678 and 2,434 
m (5,505 and 7,986 ft) (HINHP Database 2001, Service 1997, 57 FR 20772 
R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The greatest threats to Schiedea haleakalensis are fire and other 
catastrophic events that could severely impact the species due the 
small number and restricted distribution of remaining individuals and 
occurrences (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Tetramolopium capillare (Pamakani)

    Tetramolopium capillare, a short-lived perennial of the sunflower 
family (Asteraceae), is a sprawling shrub with stems measuring 50 to 80 
cm (20 to 31 in) long and covered with many glands when young. 
Tetramolopium capillare differs from other species of the genus by its 
very firm leaves with edges rolled under, its solitary flower heads, 
the color of its disk florets, and its shorter pappus. It differs from 
T. remyi, with which it sometimes grows, by its more sprawling habit 
and the shorter stalks of its smaller flower heads (Lowrey 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Tetramolopium capillare. 
Flowering

[[Page 25942]]

cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Lowrey 
1999).
    Historically, Tetramolopium capillare is known from Lahaina Luna to 
Wailuku on West Maui. Currently, 5 known occurrences with a total of 
166 individuals are known from State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and 
privately owned lands within the West Maui Mountains Watershed 
Partnership, south of Kanaha Stream, Kauaula, Ulaula, and Koia (GDSI 
2001; Lowrey 1999; Service 1997; 59 FR 49860).
    Tetramolopium capillare typically grows on rocky substrates in 
Heteropogon contortus (pili grass) lowland dry forest containing 
Dodonaea viscosa or Myoporum sandwicense (naio); or in Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Leptecophylla tameiameiae montane mesic or wet shrubland and 
wet cliff faces containing one or more of the following associated 
plant species: Dodonaea viscosa, Leptecophylla tameiameiaem or 
Metrosideros polymorpha, at elevations between 131 and 1,432 m (430 and 
4,698 ft) (Service 1997; 59 FR 49860; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Tetramolopium capillare are fires; competition 
from nonnative plant species, particularly Lantana camara, Leucaena 
leucocephala (koa haole), or Melinus repens (natal redtop); and reduced 
reproductive vigor and/or extinction from random environmental events 
caused by the small number of existing occurrences and individuals 
(Service 1997; 59 FR 49860).

Multi-Island Species

Acaena exigua (Liliwai)

    Acaena exigua is a small perennial rosette herb in the rose family 
(Rosaceae) with narrow, fern-like, divided leaves. It is easily hidden 
among the other low, tufted bog plants with which it grows. It is 
distinguished from other Hawaiian rose family members by its lack of 
petals and by the urn-shaped, constricted base of the flower, that 
encloses the fruit (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Acaena exigua. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Acaena exigua was known from Puu Kukui on West Maui 
and from Mount Waialeale on Kauai. On Maui, A. exigua was last seen by 
Hank Oppenheimer and Steve Perlman in 1999 within the Puu Kukui 
Watershed Management Area. It has not been seen in the wild since March 
2000 (Hank Oppenheimer, Maui Pineapple Company Limited, pers. comm., 
2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Acaena exigua is known only from montane bogs characterized by a 
thick peat substrate overlying an impervious clay substrate, with 
hummocks of sedges and grasses, stunted trees, and shrubs at elevations 
between 1,178 and 1,764 m (3,865 and 5,787 ft). Associated native 
species include the sedges and grasses Carex montis-eeke (NCN), 
Deschampsia nubigena, Dichanthelium cynodon (NCN), Dichanthelium 
hillebrandianum (NCN), Dichanthelium isachnoides (NCN), Oreobolus 
furcatus (NCN), or Rhynchospora chinensis (kuolohia), and the shrubs 
Lagenifera maviensis (howaiaulu), Metrosideros polymorpha, Myrsine 
spp., Vaccinium spp., or Viola maviensis (pamakani) (R. Hobdy, pers. 
comm., 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    The reason for the disappearance of this species is not known. The 
main current threats to Acaena exigua, if it exists, are believed to 
include small occurrence size; human impacts (collecting and site 
degradation); consumption of vegetative or floral parts by nonnative 
slugs and rats; predation and habitat disturbance by feral pigs; and 
competition with nonnative plant species (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Adenophorus periens (Pendent kihi fern)

    Adenophorus periens, a member of the grammitis family 
(Grammitidaceae) and a short-lived perennial, is a small, pendent, 
epiphytic (not rooted in the ground) fern. This species differs from 
others in this endemic Hawaiian genus by having hairs along the pinna 
(leaflet) margins, by the pinnae being at right angles to the midrib 
axis, by the placement of the sori (spore-bearing structures) on the 
pinnae, and by the degree of dissection of each pinna (Linney 1989).
    Little is known about the life history of Adenophorus periens, 
which seems to grow only in closed canopy dense forest with high 
humidity. Its breeding system is unknown, but outbreeding is very 
likely to be the predominant mode of reproduction. Spores are dispersed 
by wind, possibly by water, and perhaps on the feet of birds or 
insects. Spores lack a thick resistant coat which may indicate their 
longevity is brief, probably measured in days at most. Due to the weak 
differences between the seasons, there seems to be no evidence of 
seasonality in growth or reproduction. Additional information on 
reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, 
and limiting factors is not known (Linney 1989).
    Historically, Adenophorus periens was reported from Kauai, Oahu, 
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is known from 
Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii. On Maui, it has not been seen in the wild 
since 1929 (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Adenophorus periens on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Adenophorus periens on the 
island of Maui (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Alectryon macrococcus (Mahoe)

    Alectryon macrococcus, a long-lived perennial member of the 
soapberry family (Sapindaceae), consists of two varieties, macrococcus 
and auwahiensis, both trees with reddish-brown branches and leaves with 
one to five pairs of sometimes asymmetrical egg-shaped leaflets. The 
underside of the leaf has dense brown hairs, persistent in A. 
macrococcus var. auwahiensis but only on leaves of young A. macrococcus 
var. macrococcus. The only member of its genus found in Hawaii, this 
species is distinguished from other Hawaiian members of its family by 
being a tree with a hard fruit 2.5 cm (1 in) or more in diameter 
(Service 1997; Wagner et al. 1999; 57 FR 20772).
    Alectryon macrococcus is a relatively slow-growing, long-lived tree 
that grows in xeric to mesic sites and is adapted to periodic drought. 
Little else is known about the life history of A. macrococcus. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, and specific environmental requirements are unknown (Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically and currently, Alectryon macrococcus var. macrococcus 
is known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and Maui. On Maui, 10 occurrences 
with a total of 10 individuals are found along the Honokowai Ditch 
Trail, Launiupoko Valley, and Iao Valley on privately owned land within 
the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership. Currently, A. 
macrococcus var. auwahiensis is known from 3 occurrences with 22 
individuals on leeward East Maui in Auwahi in the Hana District and on 
the ridge east of Pahihi Gulch on private and State-owned (Kahikinui 
Forest Reserve) lands (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001;

[[Page 25943]]

Medeiros et al. 1986; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    The habitat of Alectryon macrococcus var. macrococcus on Maui is 
mesic forests with Antidesma platyphyllum (hame), Antidesma pulvinatum 
(hame), Bobea sandwicensis (ahakea), Nestegis sandwicensis, Pittosporum 
confertiflorum (hoawa), Pittosporum glabrum (hoawa), Pouteria 
sandwicensis, or Xylosma spp. (maua) at elevations between 1,017 and 
3,562 m (1,168 and 3,337 ft). The habitat of Alectryon macrococcus var. 
auwahiensis is mesic to wetter mesic and upper dryland forest 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Alphitonia ponderosa; Diospyros sandwicensis; Dodonaea 
viscosa; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia; Pleomele auwahiensis; Pouteria 
sandwicensis; Santalum ellipticum; Streblus pendulinus (aiai); or 
Xylosma hawaiiense, at elevations between 333 and 1,210 m (1,092 and 
3,969 ft) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, 
pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    The threats to Alectryon macrococcus var. macrococcus on Maui 
include feral goats and pigs; nonnative plant species, such as Melinus 
minutiflora (molasses grass), Pennisetum clandestinum, Psidium 
cattleianum, or Schinus terebinthifolius; damage from the black twig 
borer; seed predation by rats and mice (Mus musculus); fire; seed 
predation by insects (probably the endemic microlepidopteran Prays cf. 
fulvocanella); loss of pollinators; depressed reproductive vigor; and 
caused by the very small remaining number of individuals and their 
limited distribution, the likelihood that a single natural or human-
caused environmental disturbance could easily be catastrophic. The 
threats to A. macrococcus var. auwahiensis on Maui are damage from the 
black twig borer; seed predation by rats and mice; habitat degradation 
by feral pigs, deer, and escaped cattle; seed predation by insects 
(probably Prays cf. fulvocanella); nonnative plant species; loss of 
pollinators; depressed reproductive vigor; and caused by the very small 
remaining number of individuals and their limited distribution, the 
likelihood that a single natural or human-caused environmental 
disturbance could be catastrophic (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Asplenium fragile var. insulare (NCN)

    Asplenium fragile var. insulare, a short-lived perennial member of 
the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is a fern with a short sub-erect 
stem with a dull gray or brown main axis with two greenish ridges. This 
species is most similar to A. macraei. The two can be distinguished by 
the size and shape of the pinnae and the number of sori (spore-bearing 
structures) per pinna (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little life history information is available for Asplenium fragile 
var. insulare. Reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are largely unknown. Researchers 
have collected information on species composition, extent of cover, and 
age-class structure in six sub-populations at Pohakuloa Training Area 
on the island of Hawaii in order to describe the populations. No 
gametophytes (gamete-producing life stage) were found, and the age-
class structure of the sub-populations sampled was determined to be 100 
percent reproductive adults because all the sporophytes (spore-
producing life stage) had sori on some fronds (Service 1998a; 59 FR 
49025).
    Asplenium fragile var. insulare was known historically and 
currently from East Maui and the island of Hawaii. Currently, on Maui 
there are two occurrences with 18 individuals found in Kalialinui 
within the East Maui Watershed Partnership on private and federally 
(Haleakala National Park) owned lands (GDSI 2001; Service 1998a; 59 FR 
49025).
    On Maui, Asplenium fragile var. insulare is found in streamside 
hollows and grottos in gulches that occur in mesic to dry subalpine 
shrubland dominated by Leptecophylla tameiameiae and Sadleria 
cyatheoides, with scattered Metrosideros polymorpha, between 1,682 and 
2,407 m (5,518 and 7,896 ft). Associated native plant species include 
Dryopteris wallichiana and Grammitis hookeri (makue lau lii) (Service 
1998a; 59 FR 49025; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threat to Asplenium fragile var. insulare on the island 
of Maui is the risk of extinction caused by random naturally occurring 
events due to the small number of existing individuals (Service 1998a; 
Shaw 1992; 59 FR 49025).

Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (Kookoolau)

    Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, a short-lived member of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is an erect perennial herb. This subspecies can be 
distinguished by the shape of the seeds, the density of the flower 
clusters, the numbers of ray and disk florets per head, differences in 
leaf surfaces, and other characteristics (Ganders and Nagata 1999; 57 
FR 20772).
    Bidens micrantha is known to hybridize with other native Bidens, 
such as B. mauiensis and B. menziesii, and possibly B. conjuncta. 
Little else is known about the life history of B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, and specific environmental requirements are unknown 
(Ganders and Nagata 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha was known from Lanai, 
the south slope of Haleakala on East Maui, and from one location on 
West Maui. Currently, this species remains only on East Maui in Kahua, 
Nakula, and Haleakala Crater and Kaupo Gap, on State (Kahikinui Forest 
Reserve) and Federal (Haleakala National Park) lands within the East 
Maui Watershed Partnership. There are a total of 4 occurrences with 
less than a total of 2,000 individuals (Ganders and Nagata 1999; GDSI 
2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    The habitat of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha on Maui is blocky 
lava flows with little or no soil development; deep pit craters; sheer 
rock walls in open canopy Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa forest; 
montane shrubland; Sophora chrysophylla forests or cliff faces, and 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Coprosma montana (pilo); Dodonaea viscosa; Dubautia 
platyphylla (naenae); Leptecophylla tameiameiae; Santalum haleakalae 
(iliahi); or Vaccinium reticulatum. In addition, the habitat of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha is at elevations between 1,317 and 2,565 m 
(4,321 and 8,414 ft) (Ganders and Nagata 1999; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Maui are habitat destruction by 
feral goats, pigs, and cattle; competition from a variety of invasive 
plant species; and fire (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
Bonamia menziesii (NCN)
    Bonamia menziesii, a short-lived perennial member of the morning-
glory family (Convolvulaceae), is a vine with twining branches that are 
fuzzy when young. This species is the only member of the genus that is 
endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and differs from other genera in the 
family by its two styles, longer stems and petioles, and rounder leaves 
(Austin 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Bonamia menziesii. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and

[[Page 25944]]

limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Bonamia menziesii was known from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, one location on West Maui, and the island of Hawaii. 
Currently, this species is known from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and 
Hawaii. On Maui, there are six occurrences containing a total of eight 
individuals on State (Kanaio NAR) and privately owned lands within the 
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership at Honokawai, Keokea, 
Haunauhane, and Kanaio (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 
59 FR 56333; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    Bonamia menziesii on Maui is found on a lava in mixed open dry 
forest, Erythrina sandwicensis (wiliwili) lowland dry forest, or in 
mesic mixed Metrosideros polymorpha forest containing one or more of 
the following associated native plant species: Acacia koaia (koaia); 
Achyranthes splendens (Maui hinahina ewa); Alphitonia ponderosa; Alyxia 
oliviformis; Diospyros sandwicensis; Dodonaea viscosa; Lipochaeta 
rockii (nehe); Myoporum sandwicense; Nestegis sandwicensis; 
Nothocestrum latifolium (aiea); Nototrichium spp. (kului); Pleomele 
auwahiensis; Pouteria sandwicensis; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia; 
Reynoldsia sandwicensis (ohe); Santalum ellipticum; Sicyos spp. 
(anunu); Sida fallax; or Xylosma hawaiiense, at elevations between 184 
and 906 m (604 and 2,971 ft) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    The primary threats to this species on Maui are habitat degradation 
and possible predation by feral pigs, goats, axis deer, and cattle; 
competition with a variety of nonnative plant species, particularly 
Bocconia frutescens or Lantana camara; and an nonnative beetle 
(Physomerus grossipes) (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
Brighamia rockii (Pua ala)
    Brighamia rockii, a long-lived perennial member of the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), grows as an unbranched stem-succulent with a 
thickened stem that tapers from the base. This species is a member of a 
unique endemic Hawaiian genus with only one other species, found on 
Kauai, from which it differs by the color of its petals, its longer 
calyx (fused sepals) lobes, and its shorter flower stalks (Lammers 
1999).
    Observations of Brighamia rockii have provided the following 
information: The reproductive system is protandrous, meaning male 
flower parts are produced before female parts, in this case, separated 
by several days; only five percent of the flowers produce pollen; very 
few fruits are produced per inflorescence; there are 20 to 60 seeds per 
capsule; and plants in cultivation have been known to flower at nine 
months of age. This species has been observed in flower during August. 
Little else is known about the life history of B. rockii. Flowering 
cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    Historically, Brighamia rockii ranged along the northern coast of 
East Molokai and may possibly have grown on Lanai and Maui. Currently, 
it is only extant on Molokai (HINHP Database 2001; Lammers 1999; 
Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; K. Wood, in litt. 2000).
    Brighamia rockii occurs in rock crevices on steep sea cliffs, often 
within the spray zone, in coastal dry to mesic forests and shrublands 
between 0 and 195 m (0 and 640 ft). Associated plant species include 
Diospyros sandwicensis, Psydrax odorata (alahee), Osteomeles 
anthyllidifolia, and Scaevola taccada (naupaka kahakai) (Service 1996b; 
57 FR 46325; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Brighamia rockii on the island 
of Maui (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
Cenchrus agrimonioides (Kamanomano, =sandbur, agrimony)
    Cenchrus agrimonioides is a short-lived perennial member of the 
grass family (Poaceae) with leaf blades that are flat or folded and 
have a prominent midrib. There are two varieties, C. agrimonioides var. 
laysanensis and C. agrimonioides var. agrimonioides. They differ from 
each other in that var. agrimonioides has smaller burs, shorter stems, 
and narrower leaves. This species is distinguished from others in the 
genus by the cylindrical to lance-shaped bur and the arrangement and 
position of the bristles (O'Connor 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Cenchrus agrimonioides. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown. This species has been observed to produce fruit year-round 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically, Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was known 
from Oahu, Lanai, the south slope of Haleakala and Ulupalakua on Maui, 
and (in an undocumented report) the island of Hawaii. Historically, C. 
agrimonioides var. laysanensis was known from Laysan, Kure, and Midway, 
all within what is now the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National 
Wildlife Refuge, but has not been seen since 1973. This variety was 
never known from Maui. Currently, C. agrimonioides var. agrimonioides 
is known from Oahu and Maui. On Maui, this variety is known from one 
occurrence on State-owned land (Kanaio NAR) at Ukumehame and Kanaio, 
East Maui, containing an unknown number of individuals (Corn 1980; 
HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides is found in mid-elevation 
dry forest or Pleomele-Diospyros forest associated with Alyxia 
oliviformis, Dodonaea viscosa, Osteomeles anthyllidifolia, or Santalum 
ellipticum at elevations between 471 and 1,091 m (1,544 and 3,579 ft) 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 
2001).
    The major threats to the only known occurrence of Cenchrus 
agrimonioides var. agrimonioides on Maui are competition with nonnative 
plant species, browsing and habitat degradation by goats and cattle and 
a risk of extinction from naturally occurring events and/or reduced 
reproductive vigor caused by the small number of existing individuals 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
Centaurium sebaeoides (Awiwi)
    Centaurium sebaeoides is an annual herb in the gentian family 
(Gentianaceae) with fleshy leaves and stalkless flowers. This species 
is distinguished from C. erythraea (bitter herb), which is naturalized 
in Hawaii, by its fleshy leaves and the unbranched arrangement of the 
flower cluster (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Centaurium sebaeoides has been observed flowering in April. 
Flowering may be induced by heavy rainfall. Occurrences are found in 
dry areas, and plants are more likely to be found following heavy 
rains. Little else is known about the life history of this plant. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 56 FR 55770).
    Historically and currently, Centaurium sebaeoides is known from 
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. On Maui, there are 3 occurrences 
of this species, with a total of more than 50 individuals, on State and 
privately owned lands at Kahakuloa Head, Lahoole, and Kupaa Gulch 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; Wagner et al. 1999; 56 FR 55770).

[[Page 25945]]

    This species typically grows in volcanic or clay soils or on cliffs 
in windward coastal areas at elevations between 0 and 194 m (0 and 636 
ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Bidens mauiensis; Lycium sandwicense (ohelo kai); Lysimachia 
mauritiana (kolokolo kuahiwi); Melanthera integrifolia (nehe); Panicum 
torridum (kakonakona); Scaevola taccada; or Schiedea globosa (NCN) 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; Wagner et al. 1999; 56 FR 55770; R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to this species on Maui are habitat degradation 
by feral goats and cattle, competition from the nonnative plant species 
Leucaena leucocephala, trampling by humans on or near trails, and fire 
(Service 1999; 56 FR 55770).
Clermontia lindseyana (Oha wai)
    Clermontia lindseyana, a short-lived perennial member of the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a small, branched tree that grows 
2.5 to 6 m (8.2 to 20 ft) tall. Clermontia lindseyana is either 
terrestrial or epiphytic. Clermontia lindseyana is easily distinguished 
from the other species within this genus by several characters: Much 
larger leaves and flowers; petals similar to sepals; and spreading 
floral lobes. Rock (1962) commented on the leaves being conspicuously 
hairy beneath (Cuddihy et al. 1983; Lammers 1999).
    This species has been observed in fruit from June to October and in 
flower from February to August. Little else is known about the life 
history of Clermontia lindseyana. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Historically, Clermontia lindseyana was known from Maui and the 
island of Hawaii. The two Maui occurrences are located in Waiopai and 
Wailaulau Gulches in the Kahikinui and Kula Forest Reserves on State 
and private lands, and are estimated to total about 330 individuals 
(GDSI 2001, HINHP Database 2001, Service 1996a, 59 FR 10305; Arthur 
Medeiros, USGS-BRD, in litt. 2000).
    On Maui, Clermontia lindseyana grows in Acacia koa mesic forest 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Coprosma spp.; Cyrtandra spp.; Ilex anomala (kawau); Myrsine 
spp.; or native fern species, at elevations between 1,142 and 1,870 m 
(3,747 and 6,134 ft) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; 
R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to Clermontia lindseyana are trampling and grazing by 
cattle, trampling and browsing by goats, and trampling and rooting by 
pigs; competition with the nonnative plant Pennisetum clandestinum; and 
consumption of berries, flowers, and vegetation by black rats (Service 
1996a; 59 FR 10305).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (Oha wai)
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, a short-lived perennial 
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub or tree 
with oblong to lance-shaped leaves with petioles. Clermontia 
oblongifolia is distinguished from other members of the genus by its 
calyx and corolla, which are similar in color and are each fused into a 
curved tube that falls off as the flower ages. The species is also 
distinguished by the leaf shape, the male floral parts, the shape of 
the flower buds, and the lengths of the leaf and flower stalks, the 
flower, and the smooth green basal portion of the flower (the 
hypanthium). Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is reported from 
Maui and Lanai, while ssp. oblongifolia is only known from Oahu and 
ssp. brevipes is only known from Molokai (Lammers 1988, 1999; 57 FR 
20772).
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is known to flower from 
November to July. Little else is known about the life history of this 
species. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Rock 1919; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis was known from 
Lanai and Honomanu Valley on Haleakala, East Maui. Currently, it is 
known from Lanai and West Maui. This species is currently known from 
one occurrence with an unknown number of individuals, at Kaulalewelewe 
on privately owned land within the West Maui Mountains Watershed 
Partnership (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Lammers 1999; Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    This plant typically grows on the sides of ridges and ridge tops in 
Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated montane wet forests at elevations 
between 414 and 1,764 m (1,358 and 5,787 ft) and containing one or more 
of the following associated native plant species: Cheirodendron spp. 
(NCN); Clermontia spp.; Coprosma spp.; Dicranopteris linearis; Hedyotis 
spp.; Ilex anomala; Melicope spp.; or Myrsine spp. (HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The only known population of this species on Maui is vulnerable to 
extinction from a natural or human-caused environmental disturbance 
caused by its small size; depressed reproductive vigor; competition 
with the nonnative plant species Tibouchina herbacea; and habitat 
degradation by feral pigs (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
Clermontia peleana (Oha wai)
    Clermontia peleana, a member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae) and a short-lived perennial, is an epiphytic shrub or 
tree that grows on native trees and tree ferns. Two subspecies are 
recognized: C. peleana ssp. singuliflora (with greenish-white petals) 
and C. peleana ssp. peleana (with blackish-purple petals). This species 
can be separated from other Hawaiian members of the genus by its 
epiphytic growth, small triangular green calyx lobes, and single-lipped 
flowers (Lammers 1999).
    Clermontia peleana has been observed in flower during June and 
November, and in fruit during November. Little else is known about the 
life history of C. peleana. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).
    Clermontia peleana ssp. singuliflora was formerly found on the 
island of Hawaii and on East Maui, but has not been seen in either 
place since the early 1900s (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; Wagner 
et al. 1999; 59 FR 10305; Lyman Perry, DOFAW, pers. comm., 2000).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Clermontia peleana on the island of Maui (R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305) or of the threats 
to Clermontia peleana on the island of Maui (Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).

Colubrina oppositifolia (Kauila)

    Colubrina oppositifolia, a member of the buckthorn family 
(Rhamnaceae), is a long-lived tree with extremely hard, red wood. This 
species is readily distinguished from the other species in Hawaii by 
the opposite leaf position, dull leaf surface, and entire leaf margins 
(Wagner et al. 1999).
    This species has been observed in fruit and flower in September and 
June, and in flower during December and January. Little else is known 
about the

[[Page 25946]]

life history of Colubrina oppositifolia. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Historically and currently, Colubrina oppositifolia is known from 
Oahu, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently on Maui, there are two 
occurrences containing one individual each on privately owned land in 
Honokawai in Lahaina District and in Auwahi in Hana District (GDSI 
2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; Warshauer 1998; 59 FR 10305).
    The habitat of this species is lowland dry and mesic forest 
dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis, at elevations between 192 and 929 
m (630 and 3,047 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated native plant species: Bidens micrantha ssp. micrantha 
(kookoolau); Canavalia spp. (awikiwiki); Dodonaea viscosa; Freycinetia 
arborea (ieie); Metrosideros polymorpha; Microlepia strigosa; Pleomele 
auwahiensis; Psydrax odorata; Reynoldsia sandwicensis; or Wikstroemia 
spp. (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; R. Hobdy, pers. 
comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Maui are habitat destruction by 
feral pigs, competition with the nonnative plants Lantana camara and 
Schinus terebinthifolius, the black twig borer, Chinese rose beetle 
(Adoretus sinicus), fire; and its small number of occurrences and 
limited distribution (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Ctenitis squamigera (Pauoa)

    Ctenitis squamigera is a short-lived perennial of the woodfern 
family (Dryopteridaceae). Ctenitis squamigera can be readily 
distinguished from other Hawaiian species of Ctenitis by the dense 
covering of tan-colored scales on its frond (Degener and Degener 1957; 
Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Ctenitis squamigera. Its 
reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1998a; 59 FR 49025).
    Historically, Ctenitis squamigera was recorded from the islands of 
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. It is currently found on 
Oahu, Lanai, Molokai, and Maui. On Maui, there are 12 occurrences with 
41 individuals on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
lands at Honolua, Kahana, Honokawai, Wahikuli, Kapilau Ridge, Paupau, 
and Hukoula within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (GDSI 
2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025; J. Lau in litt. 
2000; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2000; H. Oppenheimer, in litt. 2000; K. 
Wood, pers. comm., 2000).
    This species is found in the forest understory of Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane wet forest or diverse mesic forest at elevations 
between 74 and 1,593 m (243 and 5,226 ft) and containing one or more of 
the following native plant species: Alyxia oliviformis; Antidesma spp. 
(hame); Bobea spp. (ahakea); Canavalia spp.; Coprosma spp.; 
Dicranopteris linearis; Doodia spp. (okupukupu lauii); Dryopteris spp. 
(NCN); Freycinetia arborea; Hedyotis terminalis; Hibiscus kokio ssp. 
kokio (kokio); Myrsine spp.; Peperomia spp. (ala ala wainui); 
Pittosporum spp. (hoawa); Pleomele spp. (hala pepe); Pritchardia spp.; 
Psychotria spp.; Remya mauiensis; Sadleria spp.; Schiedea pubescens 
var. pubescens (NCN); or Xylosma spp. (HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1998a; 59 FR 49025; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; H. Oppenheimer, pers. 
comm., 2000).
    The primary threats to Ctenitis squamigera are habitat degradation 
by feral pigs, goats, and axis deer; competition with nonnative plant 
species, especially Psidium cattleianum and Schinus terebinthifolius; 
fire; and extinction from naturally occurring events caused by the 
small number of existing occurrences and individuals (Service 1998a; 59 
FR 49025).

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (Haha)

    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, a short-lived member of the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a perennial shrub with pinnately 
divided leaves. This species is distinguished from others in this 
endemic Hawaiian genus by the pinnately lobed leaf margins and the 
width of the leaf blades. This subspecies is distinguished from the 
other two subspecies by the shape and size of the calyx lobes, which 
overlap at the base (Lammers 1990).
    On Molokai, flowering plants have been reported in July and August. 
Little else is known about the life history of Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically and currently, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana is 
known from Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and scattered locations on Maui. 
Currently on Maui, there are two occurrences with a total of five 
individuals on privately owned land in Iao Valley and Kapilau Ridge 
(GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    This species is typically found on rocky or steep slopes of stream 
banks in wet forest gulch bottoms often dominated by Metrosideros 
polymorpha at elevations between 312 and 1,617 m (1,024 and 5,305 ft) 
and containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Antidesma spp.; Bobea spp.; Myrsine spp.; Nestegis 
sandwicensis; Psychotria spp.; or Xylosma spp. (Service 1999; 61 FR 
53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Maui are habitat degradation and/or 
destruction caused by axis deer, goats, and pigs; competition with 
various nonnative plants; random naturally occurring events that could 
cause extinction caused by the small number of existing individuals; 
trampling by hikers; landslides; rats; and slugs (Service 1999; 61 FR 
53108).

Cyanea lobata (Haha)

    Cyanea lobata, a short-lived member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is a sparingly branched perennial shrub with smooth to 
somewhat rough stems and oblong, irregularly lobed leaves. This species 
is distinguished from other species of Cyanea by the size of the flower 
and the irregularly lobed leaves with petioles (Lammers 1990).
    Cyanea lobata is known to flower from August to February, even in 
individuals as small as 50 cm (20 in) in height. Little else is known 
about the life history of Cyanea lobata. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Degener 1936; Rock 
1919; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Cyanea lobata was known from Lanai and West Maui. It 
is no longer extant on Lanai. On Maui, there are currently 5 
occurrences with a total of 12 individuals on privately owned land 
within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership at Kaulalewelewe, 
Honolowai, Honokohau, and Waikapu (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Lammers 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    This species has been seen and collected on steep stream banks in 
deep shade in wet forest at elevations between 204 and 1,530 m (669 and 
5,020 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native 
plant species: Antidesma spp.; Athyrium spp. (akolea); Clermontia 
kakeana; Cyrtandra spp.; Freycinetia arborea; Metrosideros polymorpha; 
Morinda trimera (noni

[[Page 25947]]

kuahiwi); Peperomia spp.; Pipturus albidus; Pleomele spp.; Psychotria 
spp.; Touchardia latifolia; or Xylosma spp. (HINHP Database 2001; 
Lammers 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Maui are habitat degradation by 
feral pigs, depressed reproductive vigor, and natural or human-caused 
environmental disturbance that could easily be catastrophic caused by 
the small number of remaining individuals and the limited and scattered 
distribution of the species (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Cyrtandra munroi (Haiwale)

    Cyrtandra munroi, a short-lived perennial and member of the African 
violet family (Gesneriaceae), is a shrub with opposite, elliptic to 
almost circular leaves that are sparsely to moderately hairy on the 
upper surface and covered with velvety, rust-colored hairs underneath. 
This species is distinguished from other species of the genus by the 
broad opposite leaves, the length of the flower cluster stalks, the 
size of the flowers, and the amount of hair on various parts of the 
plant (Wagner et al. 1999).
    The reproductive biology of some species of Cyrtandra has been 
studied, but not on C. munroi specifically. Studies of other members of 
the genus suggest that a specific pollinator may be necessary for 
successful pollination. Seed dispersal may be via birds that eat the 
fruits. Flowering time, longevity of plants and seeds, specific 
environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown 
(Service 1995b; 57 FR 20772).
    Cyrtandra munroi was historically and is currently known from Lanai 
and West Maui. Currently on Maui, there are 5 occurrences with a total 
of approximately 1,000 individuals on private and State (West Maui 
Forest Reserve) owned lands within the West Maui Mountains Watershed 
Partnership in Kahanaiki Gulch, Pulepule Gulch, Honokahua Gulch, along 
Makamakaole Stream, and Hahakea (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1995b; Wagner et al. 1999; 57 FR 20772).
    The habitat of this species is rich, moist to wet, moderately steep 
talus slopes in lowland wet Metrosideros polymorpha forest at 
elevations between 390 and 1,108 m (1,280 and 3,635 ft) and containing 
one or more of the following associated native plant species: Alyxia 
oliviformis; Bobea spp.; Clermontia spp.; Coprosma spp.; Cyrtandra 
spp.; Diospyros spp. (lama); Freycinetia arborea; Hedyotis acuminata; 
Melicope spp.; Myrsine spp.; Perrottetia sandwicensis; Pipturus spp. 
(mamaki); Pittosporum spp.; Pouteria sandwicensis; Psychotria spp.; 
Sadleria spp.; Scaevola spp. (naupaka); Sicyos spp.; Strongylodon ruber 
(nuku iiwi); Xylosma spp.; or Zanthoxylum kauense (ae) (HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1995b; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Maui are from competition with the 
nonnative plant species Melinis minutiflora, Paspalum conjugatum, 
Pluchea carolinensis (sourbush), Psidium cattleianum, and Rubus 
rosifolius; loss of appropriate pollinators; a very small number of 
extant individuals which can cause depressed reproductive vigor; and 
the effects of random environmental events that could easily be 
catastrophic caused by the small number of occurrences on Maui (Service 
1995b; 57 FR 20772).

Delissea undulata (NCN)

    Delissea undulata, a member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae) and a short-lived perennial, is an unbranched, palm-
like, woody-stemmed tree with a dense cluster of leaves at the tip of 
the stem. One or two knob-like structures often occur on the back of 
the flower tube. Three subspecies, all but the last of which are 
considered extinct, may be separated on the basis of leaf shape and 
margin characters: In D. undulata var. kauaiensis, the leaf blades are 
oval and flat-margined with sharp teeth; in D. undulata var. 
niihauensis, the leaf blades are heart shaped and flat-margined with 
shallow, rounded teeth; and in D. undulata var. undulata, the leaf 
blades are elliptic to lance-shaped and wavy-margined with small, 
sharply pointed teeth. This species is separated from the other closely 
related members of the genus by its large flowers and berries and broad 
leaf bases. Delissea undulata ssp. undulata is the only subspecies 
known from Maui (Lammers 1990).
    Delissea undulata var. undulata has been observed in fruit and 
flower during December. Little else is known about the life history of 
D. undulata var. undulata. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 61 FR 
53124).
    Delissea undulata var. undulata was known from southwestern Maui, 
western Hawaii, and Niihau. Currently it occurs on Kauai and the island 
of Hawaii (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 61 FR 53124; 
Linda Pratt, USGS-BRD, pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Delissea undulata var. undulata on the island 
of Maui (Service 1996a; 61 FR 53124; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001) or of 
the threats to Delissea undulata var. undulata on the island of Maui 
(Service 1996a; 61 FR 53124).

Diellia erecta (Asplenium-leaved diellia)

    Diellia erecta, a short-lived perennial fern in the spleenwort 
family (Aspleniaceae), grows in tufts of three to nine lance-shaped 
fronds emerging from a rhizome covered with brown to dark gray scales. 
This species differs from other members of the genus in having brown or 
dark gray scales usually more than 2 cm (0.8 in) in length, fused or 
separate sori along both margins, shiny black midribs that have a 
hardened surface, and veins that do not usually encircle the sori 
(Degener and Greenwell 1950; Smith 1934; Wagner 1952).
    Little is known about the life history of Diellia erecta. 
Reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Diellia erecta was known on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is known from 
Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Maui, there are 5 known 
occurrences with a total of 35 individual plants on State (West Maui 
Forest Reserve, Manawainui Plant Sanctuary, and Department of Hawaiian 
Home Lands) and privately owned lands within the West Maui Mountains 
Watershed Partnership in Iao Valley, Hanaulaiki, Manawainui Gulch, near 
Polipoli in Kamaole, and west of Waiopai Gulch (GDSI 2001; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    This species is found in steep slopes or gulch sides in deep shade 
in Acacia koa-Metrosideros polymorpha low-to mid-elevation mesic 
forests between 338 and 1,744 m (1,109 and 5,722 ft) and containing one 
or more of the following associated native plant species: Coprosma 
spp.; Dodonaea viscosa; Dryopteris unidentata (akole); Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae; Melicope spp.; Myrsine spp.; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia; 
or Psychotria spp. (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Diellia erecta on Maui are habitat degradation 
by pigs, goats, and cattle; competition with nonnative plant species, 
including

[[Page 25948]]

Blechnum occidentale (NCN); and random naturally occurring events that 
could cause extinction and/or reduced reproductive vigor caused by the 
small number of existing individuals (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Diplazium molokaiense (NCN)

    Diplazium molokaiense, a short-lived perennial member of the 
woodfern family (Dryopteridaceae), has a short prostrate rhizome and 
green or straw-colored leaf stalks with thin-textured fronds. This 
species can be distinguished from other species of Diplazium in the 
Hawaiian Islands by a combination of characteristics, including 
venation pattern, the length and arrangement of the sori, frond shape, 
and the degree of dissection of the frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Diplazium molokaiense. 
Reproductive cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1998a; 59 FR 49025).
    Historically, Diplazium molokaiense was found on Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Lanai, and East and West Maui. Currently, this species is only 
known from Maui. Four occurrences with a total of 23 individuals are 
found on State (Kula and Kahikinui Forest Reserves) and privately owned 
lands within the East Maui Watershed Partnership near Polipoli in 
Kamaole, between Kahakapao Gulch and Puu O Kakae, Honomanu, and Waiopai 
Gulch (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; Warshauer 1998; 
59 FR 49025).
    This species occurs near water courses, often in proximity to 
waterfalls, in lowland or montane mesic Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia 
koa forest at elevations between 273 and 1,917 m (896 and 6,289 ft) 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025; R. Hobdy, pers. 
comm., 2001).
    The primary threats on Maui are habitat degradation by feral goats, 
cattle, pigs, and axis deer; competition with nonnative plant species; 
decreased reproductive vigor; and extinction from randomly occurring 
natural events caused by the small number of occurrences and 
individuals (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025).

Flueggea neowawraea (Mehamehame)

    Flueggea neowawraea, a long-lived perennial member of the spurge 
family (Euphorbiaceae), is a large tree with white oblong pores 
covering its scaly, pale brown bark. This species is the only member of 
the genus found in Hawaii and can be distinguished from similar 
Hawaiian species in the family by its hairless whitish lower leaf 
surfaces and round fruits (Hayden 1999; Linney 1982; Neal 1965; Service 
1999).
    Individual trees of Flueggea neowawraea bear only male or female 
flowers, and must be cross-pollinated from a different tree to produce 
viable seed. Little else is known about the life history of F. 
neowawraea. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Hayden 1999; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Flueggea neowawraea was known from the islands of 
Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii. Currently, occurrences are known from 
Kauai, Oahu, East Maui, and Hawaii. On Maui, there are four occurrences 
on State (DHHL) and privately owned lands at Auwahi, and above 
Lualailua and Alena (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 
FR 56333; Mahealani Kaiaokamalie, Ulupalakua Ranch, in litt. 2000).
    Flueggea neowawraea occurs in dry or mesic forest at elevations 
between 633 and 971 m (2,078 and 3,186 ft) and containing one or more 
of the following associated native plant species: Alectryon 
macrococcus; Antidesma pulvinatum; Bobea timonioides (ahakea); 
Charpentiera spp. (papala); Diplazium sandwichianum; Diospyros spp.; 
Myrsine lanaiensis (kolea); Nesoluma polynesicum (keahi); Nestegis 
sandwicensis; Pleomele auwahiensis; Pleomele spp.; Pouteria 
sandwicensis; Psydrax odorata; Rauvolfia sandwicensis (hao); or 
Tetraplasandra spp. (oheohe) (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to the populations on Maui are the black twig borer; 
habitat degradation by feral pigs, goats, deer, and cattle; competition 
with nonnative plant species; depressed reproductive vigor; the risk of 
extinction from a random environmental event caused by the small number 
of individuals; and predation of the fruit by rats (HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Gouania vitifolia (NCN)

    Gouania vitifolia, a member of the buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae) 
and a short-lived perennial, is a climbing shrub with tendriled 
flowering branches. This species differs from other members of its 
genus by having flowering branches with a tendril and coarsely wavy to 
toothed leaf margins (Wagner et al. 1999).
    In winter and late spring, the main vine of Gouania vitifolia 
produces new young side shoots which soon die. Plants have been 
observed flowering from late November to January, but flowering 
probably depends on precipitation. Little else is known about the life 
history of G. vitifolia. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 59 FR 32932).
    Historically, Gouania vitifolia was known from West Maui, the Kau 
District of the island of Hawaii, and Oahu. The species currently 
occurs on Oahu and on the island of Hawaii (GDSI 2001; Service 1998b; 
59 FR 32932; Jon Giffin, DOFAW, in litt. 2000).
    On Maui, Gouania vitifolia typically grows on the sides of ridges 
and gulches in dry to mesic forests at elevations between 155 and 1,326 
m (509 and 4,350 ft). Associated plant species include: Bidens spp.; 
Carex meyenii (NCN); Chamaesyce spp. (akoko); Diospyros sandwicensis; 
Dodonaea viscosa; Erythrina sandwicensis; Hedyotis spp.; Hibiscus spp.; 
Melicope spp.; Nestegis sandwicensis; Pipturus albidus; Psychotria 
spp.; or Urera glabra (opuhe) (Service 1998b; 59 FR 32932; J. Lau, 
pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Gouania vitifolia on the island 
of Maui (Service 1998b; 59 FR 32932).

Hedyotis coriacea (Kioele)

    Hedyotis coriacea, a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae), is a 
small, short-lived perennial shrub with leathery leaves which are 
generally elliptic to oblong in shape, 3 to 8 cm (1.2 to 3.1 in) long 
and usually 1.5 to 3 cm (0.6 to 1.2 in) wide. This species is 
distinguished from others of the genus by its small, triangular calyx 
lobes, which do not enlarge in fruit, and the combination of capsules 
which are longer than wide and flower buds which are square in cross-
section (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Hedyotis coriacea. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Hedyotis coriacea was known from Oahu and the island 
of Hawaii. Considered extinct on all islands in recent years, this 
species was discovered in 1990 by Steve Perlman in the State-owned 
Lihau section of the West Maui NAR and in 1991 on the 1859 lava flow in 
the Pohakuloa Training Area, island of Hawaii. Currently, only a single 
individual is known from West Maui on State-owned

[[Page 25949]]

land within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (GDSI 2001; 
HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Hedyotis coriacea is found on steep, rocky slopes in dry lowland 
Dodonaea viscosa-dominated shrublands at elevations between 110 and 937 
m (361 and 3,074 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated native plant species: Bidens menziesii (kookoolau); Gouania 
hillebrandii (NCN); Melanthera lavarum; Myoporum sandwicense; Schiedea 
menziesii (NCN); or Sida fallax (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1997; 57 
FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The single remaining individual of Hedyotis coriacea on Maui is 
threatened by extinction from a random naturally occurring event 
(Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Hedyotis mannii (Pilo)

    Hedyotis mannii, a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae), is a 
short-lived perennial plant with smooth, usually erect stems 30 to 60 
cm (1 to 2 ft) long, which are woody at the base and four-angled or 
winged. This species' growth habit; its quadrangular or winged stems; 
the shape, size, and texture of its leaves; and its dry capsule, which 
opens when mature, separate it from other species of the genus (Wagner 
et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Hedyotis mannii. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    Currently and historically, Hedyotis mannii is known from Lanai, 
West Maui, and Molokai. On Maui, there is a single occurrence of 
approximately 20 individuals located on private land in Kauaula Valley 
(GDSI 2001; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; K. Wood, in litt. 2000).
    The occurrence on Maui is found on basalt cliffs along stream banks 
in Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis montane wet forest at 
elevations between 340 and 1,593 m (1,115 and 5,226 ft) and containing 
one or more of the following associated native plant species: Boehmeria 
grandis; Carex meyenii; Cyanea spp. (haha); Cyrtandra grayi (haiwale); 
Cyrtandra hawaiensis (haiwale); Cyrtandra platyphylla (ilihia); 
Hedyotis acuminata; Isachne distichophylla (ohe); Machaerina spp. 
(uki); Phyllostegia spp. (NCN); Pipturus albidus; Psychotria spp.; 
Touchardia latifolia; or Urera glabra (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, in litt. 2000).
    Hedyotis mannii on Maui is threatened by landslides; competition 
with the nonnative plant species Ageratina adenophora, Buddleia 
asiatica (butterfly bush), Clidemia hirta, Pluchea carolinensis 
(sourbush), and Rubus rosifolius; and the low number of individuals 
which makes it extremely vulnerable to extinction by random naturally 
occurring events (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; K. Wood, in litt. 2000).

Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)

    Hesperomannia arborescens, a long-lived perennial of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is a small shrubby tree that usually stands 1.5 to 
5 m (5 to 16 ft) tall. This member of an endemic Hawaiian genus differs 
from other Hesperomannia species in having the following combination of 
characteristics: Erect to ascending flower heads; thick flower head 
stalks; and usually hairless and relatively narrow leaves (Wagner et 
al. 1999).
    This species has been observed in flower from April through June 
and in fruit during March and June. Little else is known about the life 
history of Hesperomannia arborescens. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 59 FR 
14482).
    Hesperomannia arborescens was formerly known from Oahu, Molokai, 
and Lanai. This species is now known from Oahu, Molokai, and Maui. 
There are four occurrences with a total of six individuals on State 
(Kahukuloa section of the West Maui NAR) and privately owned lands in 
Honokohau and Lanilii within the West Maui Mountains Watershed 
Partnership (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998b; 59 FR 
14482).
    Hesperomannia arborescens is found on slopes or ridges in lowland 
mesic or wet forest at elevations between 346 and 1,422 m (1,135 and 
4,665 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native 
plant species: Antidesma spp.; Bobea spp.; Cheirodendron spp.; 
Clermontia spp.; Cibotium spp.; Coprosma spp.; Dicranopteris linearis; 
Freycinetia arborea; Isachne distichophylla; Machaerina spp.; Melicope 
spp.; Metrosideros polymorpha; Myrsine sandwicensis (kolea); Pipturus 
spp.; Psychotria spp.; or Sadleria spp. (HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1998b; 59 FR 14482; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Hesperomannia arborescens on Maui are habitat 
degradation by feral pigs and goats; competition with nonnative plant 
species; impact by humans; and extinction caused by random 
environmental events or reduced reproductive vigor caused by the small 
number of remaining individuals (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998b; 59 
FR 14482).

Hesperomannia arbuscula (NCN)

    Hesperomannia arbuscula, a long-lived perennial member of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is a small shrubby tree, 2 to 3.3 m (7 to 11 ft) 
tall. This species can be distinguished from other members of the genus 
by the erect flower heads and the leaves, usually hairy beneath, which 
are one to two times as long as wide (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Hesperomannia arbuscula usually flowers in the spring, depending on 
precipitation. Seeds mature in about 6 weeks and trees live about 10 to 
15 years. Little else is known about the life history of H. arbuscula. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
    Historically and currently, Hesperomannia arbuscula is known from 
Oahu and West Maui. On Maui, there are 8 occurrences with a total of 37 
individuals, on privately owned land along Waihee Stream and Nakalaloa 
within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (GDSI 2001; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    Hesperomannia arbuscula typically grows on steep forested slopes 
and ridges in mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha or 
Diospyros sandwicensis at elevations between 354 and 1,453 m (1,161 and 
4,767 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native 
plant species: Alyxia oliviformis; Bidens spp.; Cheirodendron spp.; 
Clermontia spp.; Cyanea spp.; Psychotria spp.; or Tetraplasandra spp. 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770; R. Hobdy and J. Lau, 
pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Hesperomannia arbuscula on Maui are habitat 
degradation by feral pigs, competition from nonnative plant species, 
trampling by humans, and extinction from naturally occurring random 
events caused by the small number of occurrences (Service 1998b; 56 FR 
55770).

Hibiscus brackenridgei (Mao hau hele)

    Hibiscus brackenridgei, a short-lived perennial member of the 
mallow family (Malvaceae), is a sprawling to erect

[[Page 25950]]

shrub or small tree. This species differs from other members of the 
genus in having the following combination of characteristics: Yellow 
petals; a calyx consisting of triangular lobes with raised veins and a 
single midrib; bracts attached below the calyx, and thin stipules (leaf 
bracts) that fall off, leaving an elliptical scar. Two subspecies are 
currently recognized, Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei and H. 
brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus (Bates 1990).
    Hibiscus brackenridgei is known to flower continuously from early 
February through late May, and intermittently at other times of year. 
Intermittent flowering may possibly be tied to day length. Little else 
is known about the life history of H. brackenridgei. Pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333).
    Historically, Hibiscus brackenridgei was known from the islands of 
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii. Currently, H. 
brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus is known from Oahu and from undocumented 
observations on Kauai. Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei is 
currently known from Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Maui, H. brackenridgei 
ssp. brackenridgei is found in 5 occurrences, containing 40 
individuals, on State (Lihau section of West Maui NAR and DHHL) and 
privately owned lands at Lihau, Kaonohua, Keokea, and near Puu O Kali 
(Bates 1990; GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333).
    Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei occurs in lowland dry 
forest sometimes with Erythrina sandwicensis as the dominant tree at 
elevations between 43 and 771 m (141 and 2,530 ft) and containing one 
or more of the following associated native plant species: Achyranthes 
spp. (NCN); Chamaesyce celastroides var. lorifolia; Chenopodium spp. 
(aheahea); Diospyros spp.; Dodonaea viscosa; Melanthera lavarum; 
Myoporum sandwicense; Nototrichium spp.; annual Panicum spp.; Psydrax 
odorata; Schiedea salicaria (NCN); or Sida fallax (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei on 
Maui and Kahoolawe are habitat degradation and possible predation by 
pigs, goats, cattle, axis deer, and rats; competition with nonnative 
plant species; fire; and extinction caused by random environmental 
events or reduced reproductive vigor caused by small occurrence size 
and the limited number of individuals (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum)

    Ischaemum byrone, a short-lived member of the grass family 
(Poaceae), is a perennial species with creeping underground and erect 
stems. Ischaemum byrone can be distinguished from other Hawaiian 
grasses by its tough outer flower bracts; dissimilar basic flower 
units, which are awned (slender bristle) and two-flowered; and a two-or 
three-tiered-branching inflorescence (O'Connor 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Ischaemum byrone. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Historically, Ischaemum byrone was reported from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, East Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, this species 
is found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Maui, there are 6 
occurrences with less than 2,000 individuals found on State and 
privately owned lands at Keopuka Rock, Paupalu Point, Moku Huki, west 
of Kalahu Point, between Keakulikuli Point and Pukaulua Point, and 
Kauiki Head (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).
    Ischaemum byrone grows in close proximity to the ocean, among rocks 
or on basalt cliffs in windward coastal dry shrubland at elevations 
between 0 and 190 m (0 and 623 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Bidens spp. Fimbristylis 
cymosa (mauu akiaki) or Scaevola taccada (HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1996a; 59 FR 10305; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The most serious threat to Ischaemum byrone is the invasion of 
nonnative plant species, particularly Digitaria ciliaris (Henry's 
crabgrass), Ardisia elliptica (shoebutton ardisia), and Casuarina 
equisetifolia (ironwood). Additionally, fire may pose a threat in areas 
infested with nonnative grasses, provided enough fuel is present. Other 
potential threats include grazing and browsing by goats and axis deer. 
Disturbance incurred from these ungulates further promotes the 
introduction and establishment of nonnative weeds. Some occurrences are 
also threatened by residential development (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Isodendrion pyrifolium (Wahine noho kula)

    Isodendrion pyrifolium, a short-lived perennial of the violet 
family (Violaceae), is a small, branched shrub with elliptic to lance-
shaped leaf blades. The papery-textured blade has moderately hairy 
veins. Below the petiole are oval, hairy stipules. Isodendrion 
pyrifolium is distinguished from other species in the genus by its 
smaller, green-yellow flowers and hairy stipules and leaf veins (Wagner 
et al. 1999).
    During periods of drought, this species will drop all but the 
newest leaves. After sufficient rains, the plants produce flowers with 
seeds ripening one to two months later. Little else is known about the 
life history of Isodendrion pyrifolium. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).
    Isodendrion pyrifolium is known historically from six of the 
Hawaiian Islands: Niihau, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, Maui, and the island of 
Hawaii. Currently, it is only found on the island of Hawaii (GDSI 2001; 
HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; Marie Bruegmann, 
Service, pers. comm., 2000).
    On Maui, Isodendrion pyrifolium occured in dry shrubland at 
elevations between 54 and 557 m (177 and 1,827 ft) with one or more of 
the following associated native plant species: Capparis sandwichiana; 
Dodonaea viscosa; Myoporum sandwicense; or Psydrax odorata (Service 
1996a; 59 FR 10305; R. Hobdy and J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Isodendrion pyrifolium on the 
island of Maui (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Lysimachia lydgatei (NCN)

    Lysimachia lydgatei, a short-lived perennial member of the primrose 
family (Primulaceae), is a sprawling, branched shrub with stems from 1 
to 1.3 m (3 to 4 ft) long. This species is distinguished from others in 
the genus by the dense hairs on both the upper and lower surfaces of 
mature leaves (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Lysimachia lydgatei. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Lysimachia lydgatei was known historically from a gulch behind

[[Page 25951]]

Lahaina on West Maui and from Oahu. Currently, it is found only on Maui 
on State (Lihau section of West Maui NAR and the West Maui Forest 
Reserve) and privately owned lands at Helu, Lihau, east of Halepohaku, 
and Ulaula within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership. The 4 
Maui occurrences number approximately 240 individuals (GDSI 2001; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; Wagner et al. 1999; 57 FR 20772).
    Lysimachia lydgatei typically grows on the sides of steep ridges in 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic 
shrubland or Metrosideros polymorpha-Cheirodendron spp. montane forest 
at elevations between 829 and 1,432 m (2,720 and 4,698 ft) and 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Astelia spp. (painiu); Broussaisia arguta; Coprosma spp.; 
Dodonaea viscosa; Eurya sandwicensis (anini); Ilex anomala; 
Leptecophylla tameiameiae; Lycopodium spp. (wawae iole); Ochrosia spp. 
(holei); Vaccinium spp.; or mat ferns such as Dicranopteris spp. (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The greatest threats to Lysimachia lydgatei are extinction from a 
random environmental event caused by the small number of occurrences; 
competition with nonnative plant species such as Rubus argutus; and 
fire (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Mariscus pennatiformis (NCN)

    Mariscus pennatiformis, a short-lived member of the sedge family 
(Cyperaceae), is a perennial plant with a woody root system covered 
with brown scales. Mariscus pennatiformis is divided into two 
subspecies, ssp. bryanii and ssp. pennatiformis, which are 
distinguished by the length and width of the spikelets; color, length, 
and width of the glume; and by the shape and length of the fruit. This 
species differs from other members of the genus by its three-sided, 
slightly concave, smooth stems; the length and number of spikelets; the 
leaf width; and the length and diameter of stems (Koyama 1990).
    Mariscus pennatiformis is known to flower from November to December 
after heavy rainfall. Little else is known about the life history of M. 
pennatiformis. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Mariscus pennatiformis was known from Kauai, Oahu, 
East Maui (Keanae Valley, Hana, and Nahiku), the island of Hawaii, and 
from Laysan in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Mariscus 
pennatiformis ssp. bryanii is only known from Laysan Island. Mariscus 
pennatiformis ssp. pennatiformis is currently found only on East Maui. 
Two occurrences of approximately 30 individuals are found on State-
owned land near the mouth of Hanawi Stream (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    On Maui, Mariscus pennatiformis ssp. pennatiformis is found on 
cliffs with brown soil and talus within reach of ocean spray in 
Pandanus tectorius (hala) coastal wet forests at elevations between 0 
and 188 m (0 and 615 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated native plant species: Cyperus laevigatus (makaloa); 
Eragrostis spp. (NCN); Ipomoea spp. (morning glory); Lysimachia 
mauritiana; or Sadleria pallida (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 
FR 56333; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; K. Wood, in litt. 1999).
    Threats to Mariscus pennatiformis ssp. pennatiformis on Maui 
include grazing and habitat destruction caused by ungulates; 
competition with nonnative plant species; and extinction from random 
naturally occurring events (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Melicope knudsenii (Alani)

    Melicope knudsenii, a long-lived perennial member of the rue family 
(Rutaceae), is a tree with smooth gray bark and yellowish brown to 
olive-brown hairs on the tips of the branches. The species is 
distinguished from M. haupuensis and other members of the genus by the 
distinct carpels (chambers) present in the fruit, a hairless endocarp 
(fruit wall), a larger number of flowers per cluster, and the 
distribution of hairs on the underside of the leaves (Stone et al. 
1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Melicope knudsenii. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304).
    Historically and currently, Melicope knudsenii is known from the 
southeastern slope of Haleakala on Maui and from Kauai. Currently on 
Maui, there are four occurrences on State (DHHL) and privately owned 
lands from Puu Mahoe to east of Puu Ouli (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304).
    Melicope knudsenii grows in Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele sp. 
mixed open dry forests at elevations between 648 and 1,331 m (2,125 and 
4,367 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native 
plant species: Alphitonia ponderosa; Dodonaea viscosa; Osteomeles 
anthyllidifolia; Santalum ellipticum; or Xylosma hawaiiense (HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    Threats to Melicope knudsenii include habitat degradation by 
nonnative animals, such as goats, cattle, and pigs; reduced 
reproductive vigor; fire; natural aging and death; and invasive plant 
species, such as Pennisetum clandestinum (Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304).

Melicope mucronulata (Alani)

    Melicope mucronulata, a long-lived perennial of the rue family 
(Rutaceae), is a small tree up to 4 m (13 ft) tall with oval to 
elliptic-oval leaves, 8 to 16 cm (3 to 6.5 in) long and 3.5 to 6.5 cm 
(1.5 to 2.5 in) wide. This species is distinguished from others in the 
genus by the growth habit, the number of flowers in each flower 
cluster, the size and shape of the fruit, and the degree of hairiness 
of the leaves and fruit walls (Stone et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Melicope mucronulata. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    First discovered in 1920 in Kanaio, East Maui, Melicope mucronulata 
was not relocated until 1983 when it was reported from privately owned 
land with an unknown number of plants in Auwahi. This species was also 
found two years later on East Molokai (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1997; Stone et al. 1999; 57 FR 20772).
    Melicope mucronulata typically grows on gentle south-facing slopes 
in lowland dry to mesic forest at elevations between 625 and 1,331 m 
(2,050 and 4,367 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated species: Antidesma pulvinatum; Dodonaea viscosa; Melicope 
hawaiensis (alani); Nestegis sandwicensis; Pleomele auwahiensis; 
Pouteria sandwicensis; and Streblus pendulinus (Service 1997; 57 FR 
20772; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threat to the continued existence of the only known 
occurrence of Melicope mucronulata on Maui is the risk of extinction 
from a random environmental event. Habitat degradation by goats and 
pigs, predation by goats, and competition with nonnative plant species, 
particularly Melinis minutiflora, also pose immediate threats to this 
species (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

[[Page 25952]]

Neraudia sericea (NCN)

    Neraudia sericea, a short-lived perennial member of the nettle 
family (Urticaceae), is a 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) tall shrub with 
densely hairy branches. The lower leaf surface is densely covered with 
irregularly curved, silky gray to white hairs along the veins. The male 
flowers may be stalkless or have short stalks. Neraudia sericea differs 
from the other four species of this endemic Hawaiian genus by the 
density, length, color, and posture of the hairs on the lower leaf 
surface and by its mostly entire leaf margins (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Neraudia sericea. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Neraudia sericea was known historically from Molokai, Lanai, 
Olowalu Valley on West Maui, the southern slopes of Haleakala on East 
Maui, and from Kahoolawe. Currently, this species is known from Molokai 
and Maui. On Maui, five occurrences are found on State (DHHL) and 
privately owned lands in Pohakea Gulch (West Maui) and in Manawainui 
and Kamole Gulches (East Maui) (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1999; 59 FR 56333; M. Kaiaokamalie, in litt. 2000).
    Neraudia sericea generally occurs in dry to mesic Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Dodonaea viscosa-Leptecophylla tameiameiae shrubland or 
forest or Acacia koa forest at elevations between 198 and 1,658 m (650 
and 5,439 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated 
native plant species: Bobea spp.; Coprosma spp.; Cyrtandra oxybapha 
(haiwale); Cyrtandra spp.; Diospyros spp.; Hedyotis spp.; Sida fallax; 
or Urera glabra (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; Wagner et al. 1999; 
59 FR 56333; M. Bruegmann, in litt. 1995; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Neraudia sericea on Maui are habitat 
degradation by feral pigs and goats; competition with the nonnative 
plant species Cymbopogon refractus (barbwire grass), Eragrostis spp. 
(love grass), Holcus lanatus, Melinus minutiflora, and Pennisetum 
clandestinum; and a risk of extinction caused by random environmental 
events (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Nototrichium humile (Kului)

    Nototrichium humile, a member of the amaranth family 
(Amaranthaceae), is an upright to trailing shrub with branched stems to 
1.5 m (5 ft) long. This species is distinguished from the only other 
species in the genus by its inflorescence, a slender spike 4 mm (0.2 
in) in diameter or less, which is covered with short hairs (Wagner et 
al. 1999).
    Nototrichium humile has been observed flowering after heavy rain, 
but flowering is generally heaviest in the spring and summer. Fruits 
mature a few weeks after flowering. In cultivation, this species is 
known to live for more than a decade. Little else is known about the 
life history of N. humile. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
    Historically, Nototrichium humile was known from Oahu and Maui. It 
currently occurs only on Oahu. On Maui, N. humile was last seen in the 
wild by Robert Hobdy in 1979 in Pohakea Gulch (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
    On Maui, Nototrichium humile occurred on old cinder cones in dry 
shrubland at elevations between 338 and 734 m (1,110 and 2,407 ft) with 
one or more of the following associated native plant species: Dodonaea 
viscosa; Erythrina sandwicensis; Heteropogon contortus; and N. 
sandwicense (kului) (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770; J. Lau, pers. comm., 
2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Nototrichium humile on the 
island of Maui (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).

Peucedanum sandwicense (Makou)

    Peucedanum sandwicense, a member of the parsley family (Apiaceae), 
is a short-lived, parsley-scented, sprawling herb. Hollow stems arise 
from a short, vertical, perennial stem with several fleshy roots. This 
species is the only member of the genus in the Hawaiian Islands. It is 
distinguished from other Hawaiian members of the family by being a 
slightly succulent perennial herb and having broad basal leaflets, 
white flowers, and by its floral bracts, the size and shape of its 
fruit, and the oil glands in the fruit wall (Constance and Affolter 
1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Peucedanum sandwicense. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304).
    Historically and currently, Peucedanum sandwicense is known from 
Molokai, Maui, and Kauai. Discoveries in 1990 extended the known 
distribution of this species to the island of Oahu. Currently on Maui, 
there are 3 occurrences on State and privately owned lands at Keopuka 
Islet, near Pauwalu Point, and east of Hanawi Stream, with a total of 
32 individuals (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1995a; 59 FR 
9304).
    This species grows on sparsely vegetated steep to vertical cliff 
habitats with little soil in mesic or coastal communities at elevations 
between 0 and 1,132 m (0 and 3,714 ft) and containing one or more of 
the following associated native species: Artemisia australis; Bidens 
spp.; Carex spp.; Chamaesyce spp.; Diospyros sandwicensis; Eragrostis 
spp.; Hedyotis littoralis; Lysimachia mauritiana; Metrosideros 
polymorpha; Peperomia spp.; Pandanus tectorius (hala); Scaevola 
taccada; or Schiedea globosa (NCN) (Constance and Affolter 1999; HINHP 
Database 2001; Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304; R. Hobdy and J. Lau pers. 
comms., 2001).
    Competition with introduced plants is the major threat to 
Peucedanum sandwicense on Keopuka Rock. Additionally, small occurrence 
sizes also make the species subject to extinction caused by random 
environmental events (Service 1995a; 59 FR 9304).
Phlegmariurus mannii (Wawae iole)
    Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia, =Lycopodium) mannii, a short-lived 
perennial member of the clubmoss family (Lycopodiaceae), is a hanging 
epiphyte with clustered, delicate red stems and forked reproductive 
spikes. These traits distinguish it from others in the genus in Hawaii 
(Degener and Degener 1959; Holub 1991; St. John 1981; Wagner and Wagner 
1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Phlegmariurus mannii. 
Reproductive cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Phlegmariurus mannii was known from Kauai, West Maui 
(Haelaau and Hanaula), and the island of Hawaii. Currently, this 
species is found on Maui and Hawaii. On Maui, this species is now known 
on State (Lihau section of West Maui NAR, Makawao Forest Reserve, DHHL, 
and Kipahulu Forest Reserve), Federal and privately owned lands in 
Honokohau, Lihau, Puu Okakae, Manawainui, Healani Stream, Puu Ahulili, 
and Kaapahu within the East Maui Watershed Partnership and the West 
Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership. There are 7 occurrences with a 
total of 22 individuals on Maui (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    On Maui, Phlegmariurus mannii typically grows as an epiphyte on

[[Page 25953]]

Metrosideros polymorpha, Dodonaea viscosa and Acacia koa trees in 
moist, protected gulches or mossy tussocks in mesic to wet montane 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa forests at elevations between 446 
and 1,688 m (1,464 and 5,539 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Astelia menziesiana 
(kaluaha); Athyrium spp.; Cheirodendron trigynum; Christella spp. 
(NCN); Coprosma spp.; Cyanea spp.; Cyrtandra spp.; Ilex anomala; 
Leptecophylla tameiameiae; Machaerina spp.; Sadleria spp.; or Vaccinium 
spp. (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to this species are habitat alteration by 
goats, cattle and pigs, and the impacts of nonnative plant species. 
Additionally, small occurrence sizes also make the species subject to 
extinction caused by random environmental events (Service 1997; 57 FR 
20772).
Phyllostegia mannii (NCN)
    Phyllostegia mannii, a non-aromatic member of the mint family 
(Lamiaceae), is a climbing vine with many-branched, four-sided, hairy 
stems. This species is distinguished from others in the genus by its 
hairiness; its thin, narrow leaves, which are not pinnately divided; 
and the usually six flowers per false whorl in a terminal inflorescence 
(Wagner et al. 1999).
    This species has been observed with fruit in July. Little else is 
known about the life history of Phyllostegia mannii. Flowering cycles, 
pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    Historically, Phyllostegia mannii was found from Hanalilolilo to 
Ohialele on East Molokai and at Ukulele on East Maui. It has not been 
seen on Maui for over 70 years. This species is now known only from 
Molokai (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    On Maui, Phyllostegia mannii occured on gentle slopes and the steep 
sides of gulches in mesic to wet forest dominated by Acacia koa and/or 
Metrosideros polymorpha at elevations between 1,069 and 1,615 m (3,506 
and 5,297 ft) with one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Alyxia oliviformis; Cheirodendron trigynum; Dicranopteris 
linearis; Diplazium sandwichianum; Melicope spp.; or Myrsine 
lessertiana (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Phyllostegia mannii on the 
island of Maui (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
Phyllostegia mollis (NCN)
    Phyllostegia mollis, a short-lived member of the mint family 
(Lamiaceae), grows as a nearly erect, densely hairy, nonaromatic, 
perennial herb. Characteristics concerning the kind and amount of hair, 
the number of flowers in a cluster, and details of other plant parts 
separate this species from other members of the genus (Wagner et al. 
1990).
    Individual Phyllostegia mollis plants live for approximately 5 
years. The species is known to flower in late winter and spring. Little 
else is known about the life history of P. mollis. Flowering cycles, 
pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1998b; 56 FR 55770).
    Historically, Phyllostegia mollis was known from Oahu, Molokai, and 
East Maui. Currently, this species is only known from Oahu and Maui. On 
East Maui, a single occurrence with an unknown number of individuals 
remains on State (on the border of Kahikinui Forest Reserve and DHHL) 
land in Waiopai Gulch (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998b; 
Wagner et al. 1999; 56 FR 55770).
    Phyllostegia mollis typically grows on steep slopes and in gulches 
in mesic forests dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha and/or Acacia koa 
at elevations between 1,144 and 1,970 m (3,754 and 6,463 ft). 
Associated native plant species include Alyxia oliviformis, 
Cheirodendron trigynum, Diplazium sandwichianum, Melicope spp., and 
Myrsine lessertiana (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770; J. Lau, pers. comm., 
2001).
    The major threats to Phyllostegia mollis are competition from the 
nonnative plant species Rubus spp. and Schinus terebinthifolius, and a 
risk of extinction of the only known occurrence of this species on Maui 
caused by random environmental events (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
Phyllostegia parviflora (NCN)
    Phyllostegia parviflora, a member of the mint family (Lamiaceae), 
is a perennial herb. The species is distinguished from others of the 
genus by the egg-shaped to broadly egg-shaped leaves, leaf stalks 
usually 6 to 13.5 cm (2.4 to 5.3 in) long, and the lower corolla lip 6 
to 9 mm (0.24 to 0.36 in) long. Phyllostegia parviflora var. 
glabriuscula has fewer glandular hairs in the inflorescence, less 
pubescent leaves, and usually unbranched inflorescences compared with 
P. parviflora var. parviflora. Phyllostegia parviflora var. lydgatei 
has shorter leaf stalks, spreading hairs on the leaf stalks, and fewer 
gland-tipped hairs in the inflorescence. At the time of listing of this 
species, only two varieties were recognized, glabriuscula and 
parviflora. Subsequent to the final rule listing this species in 1996, 
Wagner's (1999) taxonomic treatment of this group reorganized P. 
parviflora var. lydgatei as distinct from P. parviflora var. 
parviflora. Wagner's (1999) treatment is cited in the revised edition 
of the Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii as the basis for 
recognizing P. parviflora var. lydgatei (Wagner et al. 1999). This name 
change will be addressed in a future Federal Register notice.
    Historically Phyllostegia parviflora was known from three islands, 
Oahu, Hawaii, and Maui. This species is now known only from two 
occurrences on Oahu (HINHP Database 2001; GDSI 2001; Service 1999; 61 
FR 53108).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Phyllostegia parviflora on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001) or of the 
threats to Phyllostegia parviflora on the island of Maui (Service 1999; 
61 FR 53108).
Plantago princeps (Laukahi kuahiwi)
    Plantago princeps, a short-lived member of the plantain family 
(Plantaginaceae), is a small shrub or robust perennial herb. This 
species differs from other native members of the genus in Hawaii by its 
large branched stems, flowers at nearly right angles to the axis of the 
flower cluster, and fruits that break open at a point two-thirds from 
the base. The four varieties, vars. anomala, laxiflora, longibracteata, 
and princeps, are distinguished by the branching and pubescence of the 
stems; the size, pubescence, and venation of the leaves; the density of 
the inflorescence; and the orientation of the flowers (Wagner et al. 
1999).
    Individuals of this species have been observed in fruit from April 
through September. Little else is known about the life history of 
Plantago princeps. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Plantago princeps was historically found on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Maui, and Hawaii. It is no longer extant on the island of Hawaii. Only 
one of the four varieties is on Maui; Plantago princeps var. laxiflora 
is known from Molokai

[[Page 25954]]

and Maui. On Maui, there are 8 occurrences of P. princeps var. 
laxiflora, with a total of 118 individuals, on Federal (Haleakala 
National Park) and privately owned lands within the East Maui Watershed 
Partnership. This variety is found at Kahoolewa Ridge, Nakalaloa 
Stream, Iao Valley near the Needle, Hanakauhi, the west side of Kaupo 
Gap, and Palikea Stream (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 
59 FR 56333).
    On Maui, Plantago princeps var. laxiflora is typically found on 
basalt cliffs that are windblown with little vegetation in Metrosideros 
polymorpha lowland wet forest; or Acacia koa-M. polymorpha montane wet 
forest; or M. polymorpha montane wet shrubland at elevations between 
281 and 2,539 m (922 and 8,329 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha; Chamaesyce celastroides; Cyanea spp.; or Dryopteris spp. and 
various other ferns, such as Dubautia menziesii, Dubautia plantaginea 
ssp. humilis, Eragrostis variabilis, Hedyotis formosa, Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae, Melicope ovalis, Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus 
albidus, or Touchardia latifolia (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 
FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Plantago princeps var. laxiflora on Maui are 
herbivory and habitat degradation by feral pigs and goats and 
competition with various nonnative plant species (Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333).
Platanthera holochila (NCN)
    Platanthera holochila, a short-lived, perennial member of the 
orchid family (Orchidaceae), is an erect, deciduous herb. The stems 
arise from underground tubers, the pale green leaves are lance- to egg-
shaped and the greenish-yellow flowers occur in open spikes. This is 
the only species of this genus that occurs on the Hawaiian Islands. It 
is distinguished from other Hawaiian orchids by its underground tubers 
that lack roots at the nodes or pseudo bulbs, and the shape and length 
of its dorsal sepal (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Platanthera holochila. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically, Platanthera holochila was known from Maui, Oahu, 
Molokai, and Kauai. Currently, P. holochila is extant on Kauai, 
Molokai, and Maui. On Maui, 5 occurrences with 22 individuals are 
reported on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned lands 
within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership and the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership from Kapaloa Stream, Waihee River, the border of 
Lahaina and Wailuku Districts and Koolau Gap (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 
2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Platanthera holochila is found in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis montane wet forest or M. polymorpha mixed 
montane bog or mesic scrubby M. polymorpha forest at elevations between 
536 and 2,314 m (1,759 and 7,592 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Broussaisia arguta; Cibotium 
spp.; Clermontia spp.; Coprosma ernodeoides (kukae nene); Deschampsia 
nubigena; Dubautia scabra (naenae); Gahnia gahniiformis (NCN); 
Leptecophylla tameiameiae; Lycopodiella cernua (wawae iole); Luzula 
hawaiiensis (wood rush); Oreobolus furcatus; Polypodium pellucidum 
(ae); Sadleria spp.; Scaevola chamissoniana (naupaka kuahiwi); 
Sisyrinchium acre (mauu laili); Vaccinium reticulatum; or Wikstroemia 
spp. (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Platanthera holochila on Maui are habitat 
degradation and destruction by feral pigs; landslides; competition with 
nonnative plant species; and a risk of extinction on Maui from 
naturally occurring events and reduced reproductive vigor caused by the 
small number of remaining occurrences and individuals. Predation by 
slugs may also be a potential threat to this species (Service 1999; 61 
FR 53108).
Pteris lidgatei (NCN)
    Pteris lidgatei, a short-lived member of the maidenhair fern family 
(Adiantaceae), is a coarse perennial herb, 0.5 to 1 m (1.6 to 3.3 ft) 
tall. Pteris lidgatei can be distinguished from other species of Pteris 
on the Hawaiian Islands by the thick, brittle texture of its fronds and 
the tendency of the sori along the leaf margins to be broken into short 
segments instead of being fused into continuous marginal sori (Wagner 
1949; Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Pteris lidgatei. 
Reproductive cycles, dispersal agents, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998a; 59 FR 
49025).
    Historically, Pteris lidgatei was found on Oahu, Molokai, and at 
Waihee on West Maui. Currently, this species is known from Oahu and 
Maui. Two occurrences with approximately 20 individuals occur on Maui 
on State (Kahakuloa section of the West Maui NAR) and privately owned 
lands within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership north of Eke 
Crater and at Kauala (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; 59 
FR 49025).
    This species grows on steep stream banks in wet Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis montane forest at elevations between 
201 and 1,717 m (659 and 5,633 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following native plant species: Christella cyatheoides; Cibotium 
chamissoi; Dicranopteris linearis; Elaphoglossum crassifolium (hoe a 
Maui); Sadleria squarrosa (apuu); or Sphenomeris chinensis (palaa) 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025; R. Hobdy, pers. 
comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Pteris lidgatei on Maui are the nonnative 
plants Ageratina adenophora, Clidemia hirta, and Tibouchina herbacea; 
habitat destruction by feral pigs; and a risk of extinction caused by 
random environmental events (Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025).

Sanicula purpurea (NCN)

    Sanicula purpurea, a short-lived member of the parsley family 
(Apiaceae), is a stout perennial herb, 8 to 36 cm (3 to 14 in) tall, 
arising from a massive perennial stem. This species is distinguished 
from others in the genus by the number of flowers per cluster and by 
the color of the petals (Constance and Affolter 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Sanicula purpurea. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically and currently, Sanicula purpurea is known from Oahu 
and West Maui. On Maui, 7 occurrences totaling 200 individuals are 
currently known on State (Kahakuloa and Honokawai sections of the West 
Maui NAR) and private lands within the West Maui Mountains Watershed 
Partnership north of Eke Crater and east of Kahakuloa Stream, south of 
Eke Crater, near Violet Lake, the ridge west of Puu Kukui, and 
Kahoolewa Ridge east of Puu Kukui (GSDI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    This species typically grows in open Metrosideros polymorpha mixed 
montane bogs at elevations between 1,195 and 1,764 m (3,921 and 5,787 
ft) and containing one or more of the following associated plant 
species: Argyroxiphium caliginis (eke silversword); Argyroxiphium 
grayanum (green sword); Gahnia beecheyi (NCN);

[[Page 25955]]

Geranium hillebrandii (nohoanu); Lagenifera maviensis; Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae; Lycopodium spp.; Machaerina spp.; Myrsine vaccinioides 
(kolea); Oreobolus furcatus; Plantago pachyphylla (laukahi kuahiwi); or 
Viola maviensis (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    Habitat degradation by feral pigs, a risk of extinction caused by 
random environmental events and reduced reproductive vigor caused by 
the small number of existing occurrences, and slugs are the major 
threats to Sanicula purpurea (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 
53108).

Schiedea hookeri (NCN)

    Schiedea hookeri, a member of the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is 
a sprawling or clumped perennial herb. This species is distinguished 
from others in this endemic Hawaiian genus by its open, hairy, and 
sometimes sticky inflorescence, and by the size of the capsules (Wagner 
et al. 1999).
    Based on field and greenhouse observations, Schiedea hookeri is 
hermaphroditic, which means that each individual has both male and 
female reproductive organs. Mature fruits have been observed in June 
and August. Schiedea hookeri appears to be an outcrossing species. 
Under greenhouse conditions, flowers do not set fruit unless 
pollinated. In the field, the species is presumed to be pollinated by 
insects, although none have been observed. A related species, S. 
lydgatei on Molokai, is apparently pollinated by native, night-flying 
moths. A series of self-pollinations, intra-population crosses, and 
crosses among populations have demonstrated that S. hookeri experiences 
moderately strong inbreeding depression. These results indicate that 
reductions in population size could result in inbreeding depression 
among progeny, with negative consequences for the long-term persistence 
of this species. Individuals of S. hookeri appear to be long-lived, but 
there is no evidence of reproduction from seed under field conditions. 
Seedlings of Schiedea occurring in mesic or wet sites are apparently 
consumed by introduced slugs and snails, which have been observed 
feeding on S. membranacea, another mesic forest species that occurs on 
Kauai. In contrast to mesic forest species, Schiedea occurring in dry 
areas produce abundant seedlings following winter rains, presumably 
because the drier sites have fewer nonnative predators. Schiedea 
hookeri differs considerably through its range in potential for clonal 
growth. Plants from Kaluakauila Gulch are upright and show little 
potential for clonal spread. In contrast, clonal growth has been 
detected for individuals at Kaluaa Gulch, where the growth form is 
decumbent and plants apparently root at the nodes. Little else is known 
about the life history of Schiedea hookeri. Flowering cycles, 
pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are otherwise unknown 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; Weller and Sakai, unpublished data; 
61 FR 53108).
    Historically, Schiedea hookeri was known from the Waianae Mountains 
of Oahu and from a single fragmentary collection from Haleakala on Maui 
that may represent S. menziesii rather than S. hookeri. Currently, this 
species is known only from Oahu (Environmental Division of the Army 
(EDA) Database 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of, or native plant 
species associated with, Schiedea hookeri on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001), and nothing 
is known of the threats to Schiedea hookeri on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

Schiedea nuttallii (NCN)

    Schiedea nuttallii, a member of the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), 
is a generally hairless, erect subshrub. This long-lived perennial 
species is distinguished from others in this endemic Hawaiian genus by 
its habit, length of the stem internodes, length of the inflorescence, 
number of flowers per inflorescence, and smaller leaves, flowers, and 
seeds (Wagner et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Schiedea nuttallii. Based 
on field and greenhouse observations, it is hermaphroditic. Plants on 
Oahu have been under observation for 10 years, and they appear to be 
long-lived. Schiedea nuttallii appears to be an outcrossing species. 
Under greenhouse conditions, plants fail to set seed unless hand-
pollinated, suggesting that this species requires insects for 
pollination. Fruits and flowers are abundant in the wet season but can 
be found throughout the year. Little else is known about the life 
history of S. nuttallii. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and 
limiting factors are otherwise unknown (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically, Schiedea nuttallii was known from Kauai and Oahu and 
was reported from Maui. Currently, it is found on Kauai, Oahu, and 
Molokai (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of, or native plant 
species associated with, Schiedea nuttallii on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001), and nothing 
is known of the threats to Schiedea nuttallii on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

Sesbania tomentosa (Ohai)

    Sesbania tomentosa, a short-lived perennial member of the pea 
family (Fabaceae), is typically a sprawling shrub, but may also be a 
small tree. Each compound leaf consists of 18 to 38 oblong to elliptic 
leaflets which are usually sparsely to densely covered with silky 
hairs. The flowers are salmon colored, tinged with yellow, orange-red, 
scarlet or, rarely, pure yellow. Sesbania tomentosa is the only endemic 
Hawaiian species in the genus, differing from the naturalized S. sesban 
by the color of the flowers, the longer petals and calyx, and the 
number of seeds per pod (Geesink et al. 1999).
    The pollination biology of Sesbania tomentosa has been studied by 
David Hopper, University of Hawaii at Manoa. His findings suggest that 
although many insects visit Sesbania flowers, the majority of 
successful pollination is accomplished by native bees of the genus 
Hylaeus, and that populations at Kaena Point on Oahu are probably 
pollinator-limited. Flowering at Kaena Point is highest during the 
winter-spring rains, and gradually declines throughout the rest of the 
year. Other aspects of the life history of S. tomentosa are unknown 
(Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Sesbania tomentosa occurred on all eight of the main 
Hawaiian Islands and on the northwestern Hawaiian Islands of Nihoa and 
Necker. Currently, S. tomentosa occurs on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Kahoolawe, Maui, Hawaii, Nihoa, and Necker. On Maui, S. tomentosa is 
known from 7 occurrences with a total of 83 individuals. The 
occurrences are located on State-owned and/or State-leased land (Lihau 
section of West Maui NAR, Hana Forest Reserve, and Kanaio Training 
Area), under Federal jusisdiction (Kanaio National Guard Training Area) 
and on privately owned land within the East Maui Watershed Partnership 
and West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership at Poelua Bay, Mokolea 
Point, between Kahakuloa Head and Puu Kahulianapa, Mahinanui, Olowalu, 
and Pimoe, south of Puu Puou. Off the south central coast of Kahoolawe, 
approximately 100 individuals of S. tomentosa are found on a small 
islet, Puu Koae, a State-

[[Page 25956]]

owned seabird sanctuary (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 
59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy in litt. 2000).
    Sesbania tomentosa is found on windswept slopes, sea cliffs, and 
cinder cones in Scaevola taccada coastal dry shrublands at elevations 
between 0 and 608 m (0 and 1,993 ft) and containing one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Bidens spp.; Diospyros 
sandwicensis; stunted Dodonaea viscosa; Jacquemontia ovalifolia ssp. 
sandwicensis (pauohiiaka); Melanthera integrifolia; or Sida fallax 
(HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 
2001).
    The primary threats to Sesbania tomentosa on Maui are habitat 
degradation caused by competition with various nonnative plant species 
such as Lantana camara, Waltheria indica (uhaloa), and various grass 
species; grazing and trampling by feral cattle; lack of adequate 
pollination; seed predation by rats, mice and, potentially, nonnative 
insects; fire; and destruction by off-road vehicles and other human 
disturbances. Threats to S. tomentosa on Kahoolawe include habitat 
degradation caused by competition with various nonnative plant species, 
erosion, and trampling by cats and seabirds (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; 
P. Higashino, pers. comm., 2000).

Solanum incompletum (Popolo ku mai)

    Solanum incompletum, a short-lived perennial member of the 
nightshade family (Solanaceae), is a woody shrub. Its stems and lower 
leaf surfaces are covered with prominent reddish prickles or sometimes 
with yellow fuzzy hairs on young plant parts and lower leaf surfaces. 
This species differs from other native members of the genus by being 
generally prickly and having loosely clustered white flowers, curved 
anthers about 2 mm (0.08 in) long, and berries 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 
in) in diameter (Symon 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Solanum incompletum. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Solanum incompletum was known from Lanai, scattered 
locations on Maui, and the island of Hawaii. According to David Symon 
(1999), the known distribution of S. incompletum also extended to the 
islands of Kauai and Molokai. Currently, S. incompletum is only known 
from the island of Hawaii (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 
56333).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of, or native plant 
species associated with, Solanum incompletum on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001), and nothing 
is known of the threats to Solanum incompletum on the island of Maui 
(Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)

    Spermolepis hawaiiensis, a member of the parsley family (Apiaceae), 
is a slender annual herb with few branches. Its leaves are dissected 
into narrow, lance-shaped divisions. Spermolepis hawaiiensis is the 
only member of the genus native to Hawaii. It is distinguished from 
other native members of the family by being a non-succulent annual with 
an umbrella-shaped inflorescence (Constance and Affolter 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Spermolepis hawaiiensis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Spermolepis hawaiiensis was known from the islands of 
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, and Hawaii. Currently, it is extant on Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Maui, there are five known 
occurrences with hundreds to thousands of individuals on State (Lihau 
section of West Maui NAR and Kanaio NAR) and privately owned lands 
within the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership in Puu Hipa, south 
of Kanaha Stream, Olowalu, and Kanaio (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; Charles Chimera, USGS-BRD, pers. comm., 
2000).
    Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Maui is known from shady spots in 
Dodonaea viscosa lowland dry shrubland at elevations between 221 and 
742 m (725 and 2,434 ft) and containing one or more of the following 
associated native species: Diospyros spp.; Eragrostis variabilis; 
Erythrina sandwicensis; Gouania hillebrandii; Heteropogon contortus; 
Melanthera lavarum; Myoporum sandwicense; Pleomele spp.; Santalum 
ellipticum; Sida fallax; or Wikstroemia spp. (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; C. Chimera, pers. comm., 2000; R. Hobdy, 
pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Maui are habitat 
degradation by feral goats, pigs, cattle, and axis deer; competition 
with various nonnative plants, such as Lantana camara and Melinis 
repens; fire; erosion, landslides, and rock slides caused by natural 
weathering, which result in the death of individual plants as well as 
habitat destruction (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Tetramolopium arenarium (NCN)

    Tetramolopium arenarium is a short-lived perennial and an upright, 
branched shrub in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Alternate leaves 
are lance-shaped, hairy, glandular, and gray-green. This species is 
separated from other species of the genus in the Hawaiian Islands by 
several characters: Upright habit; number of heads per flower cluster; 
presence and type of glands and hairs; size of male ray flowers; number 
and color of bisexual disk flowers; and fruit shape and pubescence. 
Three infra-specific taxa are recognized: Tetramolopium arenarium ssp. 
arenarium var. arenarium (from Maui and Hawaii); T. arenarium ssp. 
arenarium var. confertum (from Hawaii); and T. arenarium ssp. laxum 
(from Maui). These taxa are distinguished by a combination of 
characters. Tetramolopium arenarium ssp. arenarium var. confertum and 
T. arenarium ssp. laxum have not been seen the late 1800s (Lowrey 
1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Tetramolopium arenarium. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Tetramolopium arenarium was historically known from the islands of 
Maui and Hawaii. The species was considered extinct until T. arenarium 
ssp. arenarium var. arenarium was recently rediscovered on the island 
of Hawaii. Both subspecies were last seen on Maui in the late 1800s 
(GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Nothing is known about the preferred habitat of or native species 
associated with Tetramolopium arenarium on Maui (Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001), and nothing is known of the 
threats to Tetramolopium arenarium on the island of Maui (Service 
1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)

    Tetramolopium remyi, a short-lived perennial member of the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is a many branched, decumbent 
(reclining, with the end ascending) or occasionally erect shrub up to 
about 38 cm (15 in) tall. The stems, leaves, flower bracts, and fruit 
are covered with sticky hairs. Tetramolopium remyi has the largest 
flower heads in the genus. Two other

[[Page 25957]]

species of the genus are known historically from Lanai, but both have 
purplish rather than yellow disk florets and from 4 to 60 rather than 
one flower head per branch (Lowrey 1999).
    Tetramolopium remyi flowers between April and January. Field 
observations suggest that the population size of the species can be 
profoundly affected by variability in annual precipitation. The adult 
plants may succumb to prolonged drought, but apparently there is a 
seedbank in the soil that can replenish the population during favorable 
conditions. Such seed banks are of great importance for arid-dwelling 
plants to allow populations to persist through adverse conditions. 
Success in greenhouse cultivation of these plants with much higher 
water availability implies that, although these plants are drought-
tolerant, perhaps the dry conditions in which they currently exist are 
not optimum. Individual plants are probably not long-lived. Pollination 
is hypothesized to be by butterflies, bees, or flies. Seed dispersal 
agents, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors 
of this species are unknown (Service 1995b; 56 FR 47686).
    Historically, the species was known from the Lahaina area of West 
Maui and Lanai. Currently, Tetramolopium remyi is known from two 
occurrences on Lanai. It was last seen on Maui in 1944 until relocated 
in 2001 by Joel Lau of HINHP on State-owned land with an unknown number 
of plants in the Kuia area (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 
1995b; 56 FR 47686).
    On Maui, Tetramolopium remyi occurs in lowland dry shrubland on 
dry, exposed ridges or flats at elevations between 52 and 550 m (171 
and 1,804 ft). Associated plant species include Bidens mauiensis, 
Bidens menziesii, Dodonaea viscosa, Eragrostis atropioides (lovegrass), 
Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta heterophylla (NCN), or Waltheria 
indica (Service 1995b; 56 FR 47686; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Tetramolopium remyi on the 
island of Maui (Service 1995b; 56 FR 47686).

Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)

    Vigna o-wahuensis, a member of the pea family (Fabaceae), is a 
slender, twining, short-lived perennial herb with fuzzy stems. Each 
leaf is made up of three leaflets which vary in shape from round to 
linear. This species differs from others in the genus by its thin, 
yellowish petals; sparsely hairy calyx; and thin pods, which may or may 
not be slightly inflated (Geesink et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Vigna o-wahuensis. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Historically, Vigna o-wahuensis was known from Niihau, Oahu, East 
Maui in Makawao, Waiakoa, and Haleakala, and at an unspecified site on 
West Maui. Currently, V. o-wahuensis is known from the islands of 
Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii. On the State-owned island 
of Kahoolawe, there is one occurrence with an unknown number of 
individuals in the Makaalae/Lua Kealialalo area. On Maui, there is a 
single occurrence of at least one individual on State-owned land at 
Kamanamana (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; 
C. Chimera, pers. comm., 2000).
    On Kahoolawe and Maui, Vigna o-wahuensis occurs in dry to mesic 
grassland and shrubland at elevations between 0 and 50 m (0 and 164 ft) 
and containing one or more of the following associated plant species: 
Chamaesyce spp.; Chenopodium spp.; or Sida fallax (HINHP Database 2001; 
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Vigna o-wahuensis on Kahoolawe are 
competition with various nonnative plant species, fire, a risk of 
extinction caused by random environmental events, and reduced 
reproductive vigor caused by the small number of existing occurrences 
and individuals. The primary threats to this species on Maui are 
competition with the nonnative plant species Cenchrus ciliaris 
(buffelgrass) and Lantana camara, and herbivory by axis deer and goats 
(Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (Ae)

    Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, a long-lived perennial, is a medium-sized 
tree with pale to dark gray bark and lemon-scented leaves in the rue 
family (Rutaceae). Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is distinguished from other 
Hawaiian members of the genus by several characters: Three leaflets all 
of similar size, one joint on the lateral leaf stalk, and sickle-shaped 
fruits with a rounded tip (Stone et al. 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Historically, Zanthoxylum hawaiiense was known from the islands of 
Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Hawaii, and the southern and southwestern slopes 
of Haleakala on Maui. Currently, Z. hawaiiense is extant on the islands 
of Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. This species is found on Maui in 9 
occurrences with a total of 11 individuals on private and State 
(Makawao Forest Reserve and DHHL) lands at Kahakapao, and in the Hana 
District, north and south of the Jeep Trail and north of the Kula 
Pipeline (GDSI 2001; HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
    Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on Maui is reported from open lowland dry or 
mesic Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele auwahiensis forests, Acacia koa-
Pleomele auwahiensis forest, or montane dry forest at elevations 
between 869 and 1,540 m (2,852 and 5,051 ft) and containing one or more 
of the following associated native species: Alectryon macrococcus; 
Alphitonia ponderosa; Charpentiera spp.; Diospyros sandwicensis; 
Dodonaea viscosa; Melicope spp.; Metrosideros polymorpha; Myrsine 
lanaiensis; Osteomeles anthyllidifolia; Pisonia spp. (papala kepau); 
Santalum ellipticum; Sophora chrysophylla; Streblus pendulinus; or 
Xylosma hawaiiense (HINHP Database 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; R. 
Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on Maui include browsing, 
grazing, and trampling by feral goats and cattle; competition with the 
nonnative plant species, Lantana camara, Melia azedarach (chinaberry) 
and Pennisetum clandestinum; fire; human disturbance; risk of 
extinction from naturally occurring events; and reduced reproductive 
vigor caused by the small number of populations (Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).
    A summary of occurrences and land ownership for the 70 plant 
species reported from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe is given in 
Table 2.

[[Page 25958]]



  Table 2.--Summary of Existing Occurrences and Land Ownership for 70 Species Reported From Maui and Kahoolawe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of                       Land ownership
                   Species                        current     --------------------------------------------------
                                                occurrences        Federal           State           Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acaena exigua...............................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Adenophorus periens.........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Alectryon macrococcus.......................              13   ...............               X                X
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum               7               X*   ...............               X
Asplenium fragile var. insulare.............               2               X*   ...............               X
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.............               4               X*                X   ...............
Bonamia menziesii...........................               6   ...............               X                X
Brighamia rockii............................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Cenchrus agrimonioides......................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Centaurium sebaeoides.......................               3   ...............               X                X
Clermontia lindseyana.......................               2   ...............               X                X
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis......               1   ...............  ...............  ...............
Clermontia peleana..........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Clermontia samuelii.........................               7               X*                X   ...............
Colubrina oppositifolia.....................               1   ...............  ...............               X
Ctenitis squamigera.........................              12   ...............               X                X
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis.......               5               X*                X                X
Cyanea glabra...............................               1   ...............  ...............               X
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana...........               2   ...............  ...............               X
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora.........               9               X*                X                X
Cyanea lobata...............................               5   ...............  ...............               X
Cyanea mceldowneyi..........................              11   ...............               X                X
Cyrtandra munroi............................               5   ...............               X                X
Delissea undulata...........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Diellia erecta..............................               5   ...............               X                X
Diplazium molokaiense.......................               4   ...............               X                X
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis...........               2   ...............  ...............               X
Flueggea neowawraea.........................               4   ...............               X                X
Geranium arboreum...........................              12   ...............               X                X
Geranium multiflorum........................              13               X*                X                X
Gouania vitifolia...........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Hedyotis coriacea...........................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Hedyotis mannii.............................               1   ...............  ...............               X
Hesperomannia arborescens...................               4   ...............               X                X
Hesperomannia arbuscula.....................               8   ...............  ...............               X
Hibiscus brackenridgei......................               5   ...............               X                X
Ischaemum byrone............................               6   ...............               X                X
Isodendrion pyrifolium......................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Kanaloa kahoolawensis.......................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Lipochaeta kamolensis.......................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Lysimachia lydgatei.........................               4   ...............               X                X
Mariscus pennatiformis......................               2   ...............               X   ...............
Melicope adscendens.........................              16   ...............               X                X
Melicope balloui............................               3               X*   ...............               X
Melicope knudsenii..........................               4   ...............               X                X
Melicope mucronulata........................               1   ...............  ...............               X
Melicope ovalis.............................               2               X*   ...............  ...............
Neraudia sericea............................               5   ...............               X                X
Nototrichium humile.........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Peucedanum sandwicense......................               3   ...............               X                X
Phlegmariurus mannii........................               7               X*                X                X
Phyllostegia mannii.........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Phyllostegia mollis.........................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Phyllostegia parviflora.....................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Plantago princeps...........................               8               X*   ...............               X
Platanthera holochila.......................               5   ...............               X                X
Pteris lidgatei.............................               2   ...............               X                X
Remya mauiensis.............................               5   ...............               X   ...............
Sanicula purpurea...........................               7   ...............               X                X
Schiedea haleakalensis......................               2               X*   ...............  ...............
Schiedea hookeri............................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Schiedea nuttallii..........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Sesbania tomentosa..........................               6              X**                X                X
Solanum incompletum.........................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Spermolepis hawaiiensis.....................               5   ...............               X                X
Tetramolopium arenarium.....................               0   ...............  ...............  ...............
Tetramolopium capillare.....................               5   ...............               X                X
Tetramolopium remyi.........................               1   ...............               X   ...............
Vigna o-wahuensis...........................               2   ...............               X   ...............

[[Page 25959]]


Zanthoxylum hawaiiense......................               9   ...............               X               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Haleakala National Park Lands.
** Kanaio Army National Guard Lands.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal action on these plants began as a result of section 12 of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to 
prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or 
extinct in the United States. This report, designated as House Document 
No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. In that 
document, Alectryon macrococcus (as Alectryon macrococcum var. 
macrococcum and Alectryon mahoe), Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, 
Clermontia lindseyana, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea glabra (as 
Cyanea scabra var. variabilis), Cyanea lobata (as Cyanea baldwinii), 
Cyanea mceldowneyi, Flueggea neowawraea (as Drypetes phyllanthoides), 
Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum (as Geranium multiflorum var. 
multiflorum, var. ovatifolium, and var. superbum), Hedyotis mannii (as 
Hedyotis thyrsoidea var. thyrsoidea), Hesperomannia arborescens (as 
Hesperomannia arborescens var. bushiana and var. swezeyi), 
Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei (as Hibiscus 
brackenridgei var. brackenridgei, var. mokuleianus, and var. ``from 
Hawaii''), Ischaemum byrone, Melicope balloui (as Pelea balloui), 
Melicope knudsenii (as Pelea multiflora), Melicope ovalis (as Pelea 
ovalis), Neraudia sericea (as Neraudia kahoolawensis), Nototrichium 
humile, Peucedanum sandwicense (as Peucedanum kauaiense), Phyllostegia 
mollis, Plantago princeps (as Plantago princeps var. elata, var. 
laxiflora, var. princeps), Remya mauiensis, Sesbania tomentosa (as 
Sesbania hobdyi and Sesbania tomentosa var. tomentosa), Vigna o-
wahuensis (as Vigna sandwicensis var. heterophylla and var. 
sandwicensis), and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense 
var. citriodora), were considered to be endangered; Cyrtandra munroi, 
Diellia erecta, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense 
var. hawaiiense and var. velutinosum) were considered to be threatened; 
and Asplenium fragile var. insulare (as Asplenium fragile), Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha (as Bidens distans and Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha), Ctenitis squamigera, Diplazium molokaiense, Gouania 
vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Melicope 
knudsenii (as Pelea knudsenii and Pelea tomentosa), Melicope 
mucronulata (as Pelea mucronulata), Phlegmariurus mannii (as Lycopodium 
mannii), Plantago princeps (as Plantago princeps var. acaulis var. 
denticulata, and var. queleniana), Pteris lidgatei, Tetramolopium 
arenarium (as Tetramolopium arenarium var. arenarium, var. confertum, 
and var. dentatum), Tetramolopium capillare, and Tetramolopium remyi 
were considered extinct. On July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the 
Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of our acceptance of the Smithsonian 
report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 
4(b)(3)) of the Act, and gave notice of our intention to review the 
status of the plant taxa named therein. As a result of that review, on 
June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 
FR 24523) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the 
Act for approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including all of the 
above taxa except Cyanea glabra and Cyrtandra munroi; additionally, 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum (as Argyroxiphium 
macrocephalum) appeared in the 1976 proposed rule as endangered. The 
list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and 
data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in 
response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal 
Register publication (40 FR 27823).
    General comments received in response to the 1976 proposal were 
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 
17909). In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 
two years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to 
proposals already over two years old. On December 10, 1979, we 
published a notice in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing 
the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made 
final, along with four other proposals that had expired. We published 
updated Notices of Review for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 
82479), September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39525), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 
6183), September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), and February 28, 1996 (61 FR 
7596). We listed the 70 species as endangered or threatened between 
1991 and 1999. A summary of the listing actions can be found in Table 
3(a).

              Table 3(a).--Summary of Listing Actions for 70 Plant Species From Maui and Kahoolawe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed listing rule              Final listing rule
            Species                 Federal    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                     status         Date      Federal Register       Date      Federal Register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acaena exigua..................  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Adenophorus periens............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Alectryon macrococcus..........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.   T                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
 macrocephalum.
Asplenium fragile var. insulare  E                 06/24/93  58 FR 34231            09/09/94  59 FR 49025
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Bonamia menziesii..............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333

[[Page 25960]]


Brighamia rockii...............  E                 09/20/91  56 FR 47718            10/08/92  57 FR 46325
Cenchrus agrimonioides.........  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Centaurium sebaeoides..........  E                 09/28/90  55 FR 39664            10/29/91  56 FR 55770
Clermontia lindseyana..........  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.     E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
 mauiensis.
Clermontia peleana.............  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Clermontia samuelii............  E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
Colubrina oppositifolia........  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Ctenitis squamigera............  E                 06/24/93  58 FR 34231            09/09/94  59 FR 49025
Cyanea copelandii ssp.           E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
 haleakalaensis.
Cyanea glabra..................  E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.           E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
 grimesiana.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.          E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
 hamatiflora.
Cyanea lobata..................  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Cyanea mceldowneyi.............  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Cyrtandra munroi...............  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Delissea undulata..............  E                 06/27/94  59 FR 32946            10/10/96  61 FR 53124
Diellia erecta.................  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Diplazium molokaiense..........  E                 06/24/93  58 FR 34231            09/09/94  59 FR 49025
Dubautia plantaginea ssp.        E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
 humilis.
Flueggea neowawraea............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Geranium arboreum..............  E                 01/23/91  56 FR 2490             05/13/92  57 FR 20589
Geranium multiflorum...........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Gouania vitifolia..............  E                 12/14/92  57 FR 39066            06/27/94  59 FR 32932
Hedyotis coriacea..............  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Hedyotis mannii................  E                 09/20/91  56 FR 47718            10/08/92  57 FR 46325
Hesperomannia arborescens......  E                 10/14/92  57 FR 47028            03/28/94  59 FR 14482
Hesperomannia arbuscula........  E                 09/28/90  55 FR 39664            10/29/91  56 FR 55770
Hibiscus brackenridgei.........  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Ischaemum byrone...............  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Isodendrion pyrifolium.........  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Kanaloa kahoolawensis..........  E                 05/15/97  62 FR 26757            09/03/99  64 FR 48307
Lipochaeta kamolensis..........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Lysimachia lydgatei............  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Mariscus pennatiformis.........  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Melicope adscendens............  E                 05/11/93  58 FR 18073            12/05/94  59 FR 62346
Melicope balloui...............  E                 05/11/93  58 FR 18073            12/05/94  59 FR 62346
Melicope knudsenii.............  E                 10/30/91  56 FR 5562             02/25/94  59 FR 09304
Melicope mucronulata...........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Melicope ovalis................  E                 05/11/93  58 FR 18073            12/05/94  59 FR 62346
Neraudia sericea...............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Nototrichium humile............  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51398            10/10/96  61 FR 53089
Peucedanum sandwicense.........  T                 10/30/91  56 FR 5562             02/25/94  59 FR 09304
Phlegmariurus mannii...........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Phyllostegia mannii............  E                 09/20/91  56 FR 47718            10/08/92  57 FR 46325
Phyllostegia mollis............  E                 09/28/90  55 FR 39664            10/29/91  56 FR 55770
Phyllostegia parviflora........  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Plantago princeps..............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Platanthera holochila..........  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Pteris lidgatei................  E                 06/24/93  58 FR 34231            09/09/94  59 FR 49025
Remya mauiensis................  E                 10/02/89  54 FR 40447            01/14/91  56 FR 1450
Sanicula purpurea..............  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Schiedea haleakalensis.........  E                 05/24/91  56 FR 23842            05/15/92  57 FR 20772
Schiedea hookeri...............  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Schiedea nuttallii.............  E                 10/02/95  60 FR 51417            10/10/96  61 FR 53108
Sesbania tomentosa.............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Solanum incompletum............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Spermolepis hawaiiensis........  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Tetramolopium arenarium........  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
Tetramolopium capillare........  E                 03/25/93  58 FR 16164            09/30/94  59 FR 49860
Tetramolopium remyi............  E                 09/17/90  55 FR 38236            09/20/91  56 FR 47686
Vigna o-wahuensis..............  E                 09/14/93  58 FR 48012            11/10/94  59 FR 56333
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.........  E                 12/17/92  57 FR 59951            03/04/94  59 FR 10305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
E= Endangered.
T= Threatened.


[[Page 25961]]

    At the time each plant was listed, we found that designation of 
critical habitat was prudent for six of these plants (Clermontia 
samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea 
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, and 
Kanaloa kahoolawensis) and not prudent for the other 64 plants because 
it would not benefit the plant or would increase the degree of threat 
to the species. The not prudent determinations for these species, along 
with others, were challenged in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. 
Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998). On March 9, 1998, the 
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii directed us to 
review the prudency findings for 245 listed plant species in Hawaii, 
including 64 of the 70 listed species reported from Maui. Among other 
things, the court held that in most cases we did not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the species are threatened by human activity or that 
such threats would increase with the designation of critical habitat. 
The court also held that we failed to balance any risks of designating 
critical habitat against any benefits (id. at 1283-85).
    Regarding our determination that designating critical habitat would 
have no additional benefits to the species above and beyond those 
already provided through the section 7 consultation requirement of the 
Act, the court ruled that we failed to consider the specific effect of 
the consultation requirement on each species (id. at 1286-88). In 
addition, the court stated that we did not consider benefits outside of 
the consultation requirements. In the court's view, these potential 
benefits include substantive and procedural protections. The court held 
that, substantively, designation establishes a ``uniform protection 
plan'' prior to consultation and indicates where compliance with 
section 7 of the Act is required. Procedurally, the court stated that 
the designation of critical habitat educates the public, State, and 
local governments and affords them an opportunity to participate in the 
designation (id. at 1288). The court also stated that private lands may 
not be excluded from critical habitat designation even though section 7 
requirements apply only to Federal agencies. In addition to the 
potential benefit of informing the public, State, and local governments 
of the listing and of the areas that are essential to the species' 
conservation, the court found that there may be Federal activity on 
private property in the future, even though no such activity may be 
occurring there at the present (id. at 1285-88).
    On August 10, 1998, the court ordered us to publish proposed 
critical habitat designations or nondesignations for at least 100 
species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations or 
nondesignations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002 
(Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. 
Haw. 1998)).
    At the time we listed Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, 
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, and Kanaloa kahoolawensis (64 FR 
48307), we found that designation of critical habitat was prudent and 
stated that we would develop critical habitat designations for these 
six taxa, along with four others, by the time we completed designations 
for the 245 Hawaiian plant species. This timetable was challenged in 
Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 99-00283 HG (D. 
Haw. Aug. 19, 1999, Feb. 16, 2000, and March 28, 2000). The court 
agreed that it was reasonable for us to integrate these 10 Maui Nui 
(Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the schedule 
established for designating critical habitat for the other 245 Hawaiian 
plants, but ordered us to publish proposed critical habitat 
designations for the 10 Maui Nui species by November 30, 2000, and to 
publish final critical habitat designations by November 30, 2001.
    On November 30, 1998, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
requesting public comments on our reevaluation of whether designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for the 245 Hawaiian plants at issue (63 
FR 65805). The comment period closed on March 1, 1999, and was reopened 
from March 24, 1999, to May 24, 1999 (64 FR 14209). We received more 
than 100 responses from individuals, non-profit organizations, the 
State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), county governments, 
and Federal agencies (U.S. Department of Defense-Army, Navy, Air 
Force). Only a few responses offered information on the status of 
individual plant species or on current management actions for one or 
more of the 245 Hawaiian plants. While some of the respondents 
expressed support for the designation of critical habitat for 245 
Hawaiian plants, more than 80 percent opposed the designation of 
critical habitat for these plants. In general, these respondents 
opposed designation because they believed it would cause economic 
hardship, discourage cooperative projects, polarize relationships with 
hunters, or potentially increase trespass or vandalism on private 
lands. In addition, commenters also cited a lack of information on the 
biological and ecological needs of these plants which, they suggested, 
may lead to designation based on guesswork. The respondents who 
supported the designation of critical habitat cited that designation 
would provide a uniform protection plan for the Hawaiian Islands; 
promote funding for management of these plants; educate the public and 
State government; and protect partnerships with landowners and build 
trust.
    On December 29, 1999, we provided information to landowners on the 
islands of Maui and Kahoolawe, regarding our requirement to designate 
critical habitat for 70 plant species. This information included a copy 
of the November 30, 1998, Federal Register notice, a map showing the 
general locations of the species that may be on his/her property, and a 
handout containing general information on critical habitat. We held two 
open houses on the island of Maui, at the Lahaina Civic Center and the 
Wailuku Community Center on January 11 and 12, 2000, respectively, to 
meet with local landowners and other interested members of the public. 
A total of 30 people attended the two open houses. In addition, we met 
with Maui County DOFAW staff to discuss their management activities on 
Maui.
    On December 18, 2000, we published the second of the court-ordered 
proposed critical habitat designations or nondesignations for 61 Maui 
and Kahoolawe plants (65 FR 79192). The proposed critical habitat 
designations for Kauai and Niihau plants were published on November 7, 
2000 (65 FR 66808), for Molokai plants on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 
83158), and for Lanai plants on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 82086). All of 
these proposed rules were sent to the Federal Register by or on 
November 30, 2000, as required by the court orders. In those proposals 
we proposed that critical habitat was prudent for 61 species (Alectryon 
macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Adenophorus 
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia 
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia 
lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia 
samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea 
mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra munroi, Delissea undulata,

[[Page 25962]]

Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. 
humilis, Flueggea neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, 
Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta kamolensis, 
Lysimachia lydgatei, Mariscus pennatiformis, Melicope adscendens, 
Melicope balloui, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Melicope 
ovalis, Neraudia sericea, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, 
Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, Plantago princeps, 
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula 
purpurea, Schiedea haleakalensis, Schiedea nuttallii, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, 
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) 
that are reported from Maui and/or Kahoolawe, as well as Kauai, Niihau, 
Molokai, and Lanai. We proposed that critical habitat was not prudent 
for one species, Acaena exigua, a species reported from Maui as well as 
Kauai, because it had not been seen recently in the wild, and no 
genetic material of this species was known to exist. At the time we 
proposed critical habitat on Maui, critical habitat was not proposed 
for four species, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, 
Melicope balloui, Melicope ovalis, and Schiedea haleakalensis, because 
they were found only in areas on Maui that did not require special 
management considerations or protection because they were already 
protected and managed to the benefit of these species, pursuant to 16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i). (However, a recent Federal District Court 
disagreed with this interpretation of the definition of critical 
habitat. Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-409 TUC 
DCB (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2003). While the Service still believes our 
interpretation is reasonable, we have not excluded areas from this 
critical habitat designation based on 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(a)(i).)
    On December 18, 2000, we proposed designation of critical habitat 
on approximately 13,574 ha (33,614 ac) of land on the island of Maui 
and 207 ha (512 ac) on the island of Kahoolawe. The publication of the 
proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on 
February 16, 2001. On February 22, 2001, we published a notice (66 FR 
11131) announcing the reopening of the comment period until April 2, 
2001, on the proposal to designate critical habitat for 50 plants from 
Maui and Kahoolawe and a notice of a public hearing. On March 20, 2001, 
we held a public hearing at the Renaissance Wailea Beach Resort, Maui.
    On October 3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with 
Earthjustice (representing the plaintiffs in Hawaii Conservation 
Council v. Babbitt) to the U.S. District Court requesting extension of 
the court order for the final rules to designate critical habitat for 
plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe 
(August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16, 2002), and Molokai (October 16, 
2002), citing the need to revise the proposals to incorporate or 
address new information and comments received during the comment 
periods. The joint stipulation was approved and ordered by the court on 
October 5, 2001.
    On April 3, 2002, we published a revised proposed rule for 70 
listed plant species from Maui and Kahoolawe (67 FR 15856). Critical 
habitat for 61 (Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, 
Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, 
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, 
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, 
Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta kamolensis, 
Lysimachia lydgatei, Mariscus pennatiformis, Melicope adscendens, 
Melicope balloui, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Melicope 
ovalis, Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, 
Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya 
mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, 
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) of 
the 70 plant species from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe was 
proposed on approximately 51,208 ha (126,531 ac) of land on Maui, and 
approximately 1,372 ha (4,500 ac) on Kahoolawe (67 FR 15856). We 
proposed that critical habitat was prudent for six species (Clermontia 
peleana, Gouania vitifolia, Nototrichium humile, Phyllostegia 
parviflora, Schiedea hookeri, and Tetramolopium arenarium) for which a 
prudency finding had not been made previously. Critical habitat was not 
proposed for Adenophorus periens, Clermontia peleana, Delissea 
undulata, Phyllostegia parviflora, Schiedea hookeri, Schiedea 
nuttallii, Solanum incompletum, and Tetramolopium arenarium on the 
islands of Maui and Kahoolawe because these plants no longer occur on 
Maui or Kahoolawe, and we were unable to identify habitat which was 
essential to their conservation on these islands. Critical habitat was 
not proposed for Acaena exigua, a species reported from Maui as well as 
Kauai because it has not been seen recently in the wild and was not 
known to be in storage or under propagation.
    The publication of the revised proposed rule opened up a 60-day 
public comment period, which closed on June 3, 2002. On July 11, 2002, 
we submitted joint stipulations with Earthjustice to the U.S. District 
Court requesting extension of the court orders for the final rules to 
designate critical habitat for plants from Lanai (December 30, 2002), 
Kauai and Niihau (January 31, 2003), Molokai (February 28, 2003), Maui 
and Kahoolawe (April 18, 2003), Oahu (April 30, 2003), the Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands (April 30, 2003), and the island of Hawaii (May 30, 
2003), citing the need to conduct additional reviews of the proposals, 
address comments received during the public comment periods, and to 
conduct a series of public workshops on the proposals. The joint 
stipulations were approved and ordered by the court on July 12, 2002. 
On August 26, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 54764) announcing a 
public hearing and reopening the comment period until September 30, 
2002. On August 27, 2002, September 12, 2002, and September 26, 2002, 
we held public meetings at the Maui Arts and Cultural Center, Kahului, 
Maui. On October 2, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 61845) 
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis on the 
proposed critical habitat and reopening the public comment period until 
November 2, 2002.
    We determined that designation of critical habitat for the multi-
island species, Acaena exigua, was not prudent on February 27, 2003 (68 
FR

[[Page 25963]]

9116) and explained why we believe critical habitat is prudent for the 
following 45 multi-island species in other published final critical 
habitat rules: Adenophorus periens; Alectryon macrococcus; Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha; Bonamia menziesii; Brighamia rockii; Cenchrus 
agrimonioides; Centaurium sebaeoides; Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis; Clermontia samuelii; Ctenitis squamigera; Cyanea copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana; 
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora; Cyanea lobata; Cyrtandra munroi; 
Delissea undulata; Diellia erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; Flueggea 
neowawraea; Hedyotis mannii; Hesperomannia arborescens; Hibiscus 
brackenridgei; Ischaemum byrone; Isodendrion pyrifolium; Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis; Mariscus pennatiformis; Melicope knudsenii; Melicope 
mucronulata; Neraudia sericea; Peucedanum sandwicense; Phlegmariurus 
mannii; Phyllostegia mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; Phyllostegia 
parvilfora; Plantago princeps; Platanthera holochila; Pteris lidgatei; 
Schiedea nuttallii; Sesbania tomentosa; Solanum incompletum; 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis; Tetramolopium remyi; Vigna o-wahuensis; and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (64 FR 48307, 68 FR 1220, 68 FR 9116, 68 FR 
12982). A summary of the critical habitat actions can be found in Table 
3(b).

     Table 3((b).--Summary of Previous Critical Habitat Actions for 70 Plant Species From Maui and Kahoolawe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Proposed critical habitat           Final critical habitat prior to
                                   ---------------------------------------        publication of this rule
              Species                                                     --------------------------------------
                                        Date(s)        Federal Register        Date(s)        Federal Register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acaena exigua.....................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
Adenophorus periens...............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086                  03/18/03  .....................
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158                            68 FR 12982
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Alectryon macrococcus.............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.          12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
 macrocephalum.                         04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Asplenium fragile var. insulare...      04/03/2002  67 FR 15856                        NA  NA
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha...      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  01/09/03  68 FR 1220
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Bonamia menziesii.................      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002   67 FR 37108
Brighamia rockii..................      12/29/2000  65 FR 83158                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Cenchrus agrimonioides............      03/04/2002  67 FR 9806                         NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Centaurium sebaeoides.............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Clermontia lindseyana.............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968

[[Page 25964]]


Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.            12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
 mauiensis.                             12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Clermontia peleana................      05/28/2002  67 FR 36968                        NA  NA
Clermontia samuelii...............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Colubrina oppositifolia...........      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Ctenitis squamigera...............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Cyanea copelandii ssp.                  12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
 haleakalaensis.                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Cyanea glabra.....................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana.      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                         04/5/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.                 12/18/2002  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
 hamatiflora.                           04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Cyanea lobata.....................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Cyanea mceldowneyi................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Cyrtandra munroi..................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Delissea undulata.................      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
Diellia erecta....................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Diplazium molokaiense.............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940                   03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis.      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/04/2002  67 FR 15856
Flueggea neowawraea...............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108

[[Page 25965]]


Geranium arboreum.................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/04/2002  67 FR 15856
Geranium multiflorum..............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/04/2002  67 FR 15856
Gouania vitifolia.................      04/03/2002  67 FR 15856                        NA  NA
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Hedyotis coriacea.................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Hedyotis mannii...................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Hesperomannia arborescens.........      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806             ..............  .....................
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Hesperomannia arbuscula...........      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Hibiscus brackenridgei............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Ischaemum byrone..................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83157                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
Isodendrion pyrifolium............      01/28/2002  67 FR 3940                   03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856            ..............  .....................
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Kanaloa kahoolawensis.............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Lipochaeta kamolensis.............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Lysimachia lydgatei...............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Mariscus pennatiformis............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/14/2002  67 FR 34522
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Melicope adscendens...............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Melicope balloui..................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Melicope knudsenii................      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856

[[Page 25966]]


Melicope mucronulata..............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Melicope ovalis...................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Neraudia sericea..................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Nototrichium humile...............      04/03/2002  66 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Peucedanum sandwicense............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Phlegmariurus mannii..............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Phyllostegia mannii...............      04/03/2002  67 FR 15856                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Phyllostegia mollis...............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192            ..............
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Phyllostegia parviflora...........      05/28/2002  67 FR 37108                        NA  NA
Plantago princeps.................      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Platanthera holochila.............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Pteris lidgatei...................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Remya mauiensis...................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Sanicula purpurea.................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Schiedea haleakalensis............      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Schiedea hookeri..................      05/28/2002  67 FR 37108                        NA  NA
Schiedea nuttallii................      12/29/2000  65 FR 83158                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Sesbania tomentosa................      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/14/2002  67 FR 34522
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108

[[Page 25967]]


Solanum incompletum...............      01/28/2002  67 FR 3940                   03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
Spermolepis hawaiiensis...........      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Tetramolopium arenarium...........      05/28/2002  67 FR 36968                        NA  NA
Tetramolopium capillare...........      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                        NA  NA
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
Tetramolopium remyi...............      12/27/2000  65 FR 79192                  01/09/03  68 FR 1220
                                        04/04/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
Vigna o-wahuensis.................      12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/27/2000  65 FR 82086
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2002  67 FR 3940
                                        03/04/2002  67 FR 9806
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 37108
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense............      11/07/2000  65 FR 66808                  02/27/03  68 FR 9116
                                        12/18/2000  65 FR 79192                  03/18/03  68 FR 12982
                                        12/29/2000  65 FR 83158
                                        01/28/2000  67 FR 3940
                                        04/03/2002  67 FR 15856
                                        04/05/2002  67 FR 16492
                                        05/28/2002  67 FR 36968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We received a total of seven oral and 2,779 written comments during 
the three comment periods on the revised proposal published on April 3, 
2002, and the draft economic analysis, including the public hearing 
held on September 12, 2002, and the public meetings held on August 27, 
2002 and September 26, 2002. These included responses from eight State 
offices, four local agencies, and 39 private organizations or 
individuals. Of the written comments, approximately 2,728 letters were 
submitted by facsimile or by e-mail, as part of mailing campaign, all 
in support of the proposed critical habitat designations. Of the other 
51 comments, 21 supported the designation, 28 were opposed to it, and 
two provided information or declined to oppose or support the 
designations. We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues 
and new information regarding critical habitat for the Maui and 
Kahoolawe plants. Similar comments were grouped into ten general issues 
relating specifically to the proposed critical habitat designations and 
the draft economic analysis on the proposed designations. These are 
addressed in the following summary.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited independent opinions from 19 knowledgeable 
individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including 
familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region 
that the species occurs in, and familiarity with the principles of 
conservation biology. We received comments from seven reviewers. One 
reviewer expressed support for the proposed critical habitat 
designations. The other six reviewers generally supported our 
methodology and conclusion, but none expressed support or opposition 
for the proposed critical habitat designations. Comments received from 
the peer reviewers are summarized in the following section and were 
considered in developing the final rule.

Issue 1: Species-Specific Biological Comments

    (1) Comment: A peer reviewer noted that unit Maui I3 excludes two 
small DOFAW exclosures and an unprotected area containing good 
populations of Geranium arboreum. Critical habitat should be expanded 
to include these populations.
    Our Response: While the habitat noted above may be important for 
the recovery of the species, not all suitable habitat (including 
occupied) is essential to the conservation of the species. At the time 
we proposed critical habitat on Maui, we were not aware of these 
exclosures, and we had identified and proposed other sites that (1) 
contain the primary constituent elements that are essential to the 
conservation of the species, (2) are within the species' historical 
range, and (3) accommodate

[[Page 25968]]

our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations for Geranium arboreum.
    (2) Comment: One commentor stated that the ``best scientific data 
available at this time'' does not support the areas being proposed for 
Vigna o-wahuensis on Kahoolawe. The proposed areas for this plant are 
based on a single observation at each of two different sites. Repeated 
surveys in these areas by plant specialists over the last 5 years have 
yet to confirm the presence of Vigna at these sites. However, the Navy 
commented that the area excluded from critical habitat perhaps merits 
reconsideration because Vigna o-wahuensis has appeared in the Lua 
Makika area on Kahoolawe that was previously the subject of a planned 
burn. That fact supports the conclusion that fire apparently does not 
adversely affect the constituent elements for Vigna.
    Our Response: We have reevaluated the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis on Kahoolawe in response to 
additional information received during the comment periods. Critical 
habitat was not designated for Vigna o-wahuensis on Kahoolawe because 
there is some question about the location of the earlier observations 
and because we were able to locate other sites that (1) contain the 
primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of 
the species, (2) are within the species' historical range, and (3) 
accommodate our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that reducing the amount of 
designated critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei on West Maui and 
Lanai, because it occurs on more than one island, might adversely 
affect the retention of the genetic diversity needed for recovery. The 
diversity of East versus West Maui populations will not be retained if 
unit Maui D1 is reduced or removed. The Lanai prostrate form of the 
species is distinct from all other populations and should be conserved 
as a distinct recovery unit.
    Our Response: We have retained our proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei on Maui in this final rule. Because 
the Lanai populations are not considered by taxonomists to be a 
distinct subspecies, and therefore were not listed as such, we cannot 
consider them as separate from the Maui taxon. However, if the taxonomy 
is revised and the scientific community approves such revision, we will 
consider the new information with regard to critical habitat.
    (4) Comment: One commenter was concerned that Bidens micrantha, 
Lipochaeta kamolensis, and Sesbania tomentosa might hybridize with 
other members of their families. It is possible that such unnatural 
hybridization could lead to further endangerment of the species while 
inducing the endangerment of other species.
    Our Response: Hybridization presents potential problems with 
species recovery. To the maximum extent possible, we separated critical 
habitat of species that potentially had hybridization potential. In 
addition, issues of hybridization and other technical questions will be 
addressed in project specific recovery planning actions.
    (5) Comment: In the case of Phyllostegia mollis, it appears that 
the Service is unsure for which species it is designating critical 
habitat. In the 1998 recovery plan for this species, the Service 
states, ``the Maui population may be separated into its own species.'' 
Critical habitat designation cannot be made for a plant or animal for 
which the science is so scant that more harm may come to the species by 
the designation.
    Our Response: At the time the recovery plan was completed for 
Phyllostegia mollis, the Service acknowledged that the Maui population 
may warrant recognition as a separate species, based on a personal 
communication from Joel Lau, a botanist with the Hawaii Natural 
Heritage Program. In 1999, a taxonomic revision of the species was 
published by Dr. Warren L. Wagner in which the Oahu populations were 
recognized as Phyllostegia mollis and the Maui populations were 
assigned to P. pilosa. Due to the court-ordered deadlines, we are 
required to publish this final rule to designate critical habitat on 
Maui and Kahoolawe before we can prepare and publish a notice of 
taxonomic changes for this species. We plan to publish a taxonomic 
change notice for Phyllostegia mollis after we have published the final 
critical habitat designations on Maui and Kahoolawe. We do not believe 
that the designation of critical habitat for Phyllostegia mollis will 
entail harm to the species. Federal agencies are required to consult 
with the Service regarding any action they may fund, authorize, or 
permit that may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. 
The consultation process results in conservation benefits to the 
species, not in harmful actions to the species.
    (6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the designation 
of critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis and 
Melicope adscendens on Ulupalakua Ranch. Forty A. m. var. auwahiensis 
trees were last sighted in 1910. No other populations of this tree were 
documented. However, the Service recommends that four new populations 
be established, even as far away as Kaupo. In the case of M. 
adscendens, the Service stated that within historic times, this species 
has apparently always been extremely rare. Restoring any plant or 
animal beyond their historical numbers and or geographical distribution 
is not the intent of the Act.
    Our Response: Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis trees were 
reported from the area as recently as 1990 and 1999. However, 
Ulupalakua Ranch has been excluded from critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2), which states that critical habitat may be 
excluded if the benefits of not designating outweigh the benefits of 
designating critical habitat. We were also able to locate other sites 
for A. m. var. auwahiensis that (1) contain the primary constituent 
elements that are essential to the conservation of the species, (2) are 
within the species' historical range, and (3) accommodate our recovery 
goals of 8 to 10 populations.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer and many commenters did not support 
the Service's conclusion that Acaena exigua would not benefit from 
critical habitat designation. These commenters pointed out that the 
fact that Acaena has not been sighted since 1999 (only three years ago) 
does not justify the Service's refusal to protect its critical habitat, 
as it is common for biologists in Hawaii to rediscover plants that have 
not been seen for decades. Some also felt that the decision was based 
on a faulty interpretation of the Act's direction to designate critical 
habitat ``to the maximum extent prudent.'' In enacting this language, 
according to these commenters, Congress clearly intended that the 
Service would designate critical habitat in all but the rare instances 
in which designation would actually increase threats to listed species 
from overcollecting or vandalism, or otherwise affirmatively harm the 
species. The Service cannot refuse to designate critical habitat merely 
because it cannot come up with examples of how critical habitat would 
benefit this species. Absent a finding that designation would actually 
harm Acaena exigua in some concrete way, the Service must designate its 
critical habitat. Furthermore, if the Service believes this species is 
extinct, it must follow the procedures set forth in the ESA for 
delisting species. As long as this species remains on the endangered 
species list, the Service cannot lawfully deny it the habitat 
protection that

[[Page 25969]]

Congress intended that all listed species enjoy.
    Our Response: We continue to believe that it would not be prudent 
to designate critical habitat for Acaena exigua. It has not been seen 
in the wild since March 2000 (Hank Oppenheimer, Maui Pineapple Company 
Limited, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772) and is not known 
to be in storage or under propagation. Given these circumstances, we 
have determined that designation of critical habitat for Acaena exigua 
is not prudent because such designation would not be beneficial to the 
species. If this species is rediscovered, we may reconsider designating 
critical habitat for this species as new information becomes available. 
See 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR 424.13(f).

Issue 2: Biological Justification and Methodology

    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer was concerned about the number of 
populations needed for recovery. The expert opinion of the Hawaii 
Pacific Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) is that 10 to 20 
viable populations are needed for recovery. How did the Service 
determine that 8 to 10 populations were all that should be required? 
While 8 to 10 populations may be sufficient for the recovery of long-
lived species, it may be insufficient for ephemeral annuals or certain 
ferns or species with unique island variants. The target number of 
populations should be revisited on a species-by-species basis. Another 
peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule was improved by the use 
of targets of 8 to 10 populations ranging in size from 100 to 500 
mature individuals, unless information that is more specific was 
available (e.g., Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum). 
However, these targets are generally lower than those used by the 
HPPRCC and should be considered the ``low end'' of what is needed for 
recovery.
    Our Response: In defining the procedures used to delineate 
essential habitat areas the HPPRCC agreed that ``the minimum target for 
each species was to have habitat for at least 10 potential populations 
for each species that was found on a single island and have habitat for 
at least 5 potential populations on each island for species that 
occurred on two or more islands. The maximum number of target 
populations was set at 20 potential populations.'' However, in defining 
generalized recovery objectives for Hawaiian plants, the committee 
recommended 5-10 populations for delisting. The Service adopted a 
relatively conservative 8-10 viable populations for the recovery 
objectives for each species in the recovery plans. Establishing and 
conserving 8 to10 viable populations on one or more islands within the 
historic range of the species will provide each species with a 
reasonable expectation of persistence and eventual recovery, even with 
the high potential that one or more of these populations will be 
eliminated by normal or random adverse events, such as the hurricanes 
that occurred in 1982 and 1992 on Kauai, fires, and nonnative plant 
invasions (HPPRCC 1994; Luijten et. al. 2000; Mangel and Tier 1994; 
Pimm et. al. 1998; Stacey and Taper 1992). We conclude that designation 
of adequate suitable habitat for 8 to 10 populations as critical 
habitat is essential to give the species a reasonable likelihood of 
long-term survival and recovery, based on currently available 
information.
    (9) Comment: Areas that are excluded from proposed critical habitat 
should be identified and mapped in the proposed and final rule to allow 
reviewers to fully evaluate how well the proposal provides for listed 
species.
    Our Response: Although we have not mapped the areas excluded from 
critical habitat, textual descriptions of the areas excluded can be 
found in the section titled ``Summary of Changes from the Revised 
Proposed Rule and Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2).''
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the Service did not 
identify explicit modeling efforts that provide clear guidance for 
Hawaiian species. If available, these models should be evaluated and 
included in the Service's methodology to determine future critical 
habitat designations. Models of the population dynamics of understory 
plants in tropical forests, focusing on environmental variation caused 
by natural disturbance and plant-animal interactions, do exist.
    Our Response: The lack of detailed scientific data on the life 
history of these plant species makes it impossible for us to develop a 
robust quantitative model (e.g., population viability analysis) to 
identify the optimal number, size, and location of critical habitat 
units to achieve recovery. At this time, and consistent with the 
listing of these species and their recovery plans, the best available 
information leads us to conclude 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. 
Therefore, our approach employed two widely recognized and 
scientifically accepted goals for promoting viable populations of 
listed species: (1) Creation or maintenance of multiple populations so 
that a single or series of catastrophic events cannot destroy the 
entire listed species, and (2) increasing the size of each population 
in the respective critical habitat units to a level where the threats 
of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties are 
diminished. In addition, we used a GIS model that evaluated known 
current and historic range, elevation, rainfall, and vegetation units 
to determine potential habitat for each species. Using this information 
plus information from existing historically known plant locations and 
advice from species experts, we modeled the potentially suitable 
habitat for each species. The critical habitat designated is a subset 
of suitable potential habitat that was determined to be essential to 
the conservation of each species (see the ``Methods'' section for more 
detail).
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that fencing and control 
of ungulates is critical to the success of a plant restoration program. 
One commenter was concerned that there is a lack of solid scientific 
evidence on the relationship between introduced ungulates (in 
particular, cattle), nonnative plants, and native ecosystems. In the 
recovery plan for Lipochaeta kamolensis, the Service appears to concur 
that more research on the relationship between managed ungulates and 
native plants needs to be examined. In the Recovery Plan for the Maui 
Plant Cluster, the Service states, ``Portions of the populations should 
be left unfenced until the effects of protection from grazing and 
browsing are fully known.'' Because the science on how to best protect 
these plants is not certain, the designation of critical habitat may 
have a negative, rather than positive impact.
    Our Response: We believe that it is important to control threats to 
the survival and recovery of federally listed species and have received 
numerous sources of information demonstrating that nonnative ungulates 
are a threat to the listed plant species as can be seen in the 
discussion of each species' background in the ``Discussion of Plant 
Taxa'' and ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other Impacts'' 
sections of this final rule. However, critical habitat is only one of 
many tools established in the Act that can play an important role in 
the recovery of the species. Critical habitat designation does not 
create a wilderness area, preserve, or wildlife refuge. It does not 
require activities associated with conservation management such as

[[Page 25970]]

ungulate control and fencing. Critical habitat increases protection of 
federally listed species by requiring consultation under section 7 of 
the Act to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by 
a Federal agency is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of the critical habitat. The management of nonnative 
species is an important conservation issue that is addressed in the 
recovery plans for these species.
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that degraded areas should 
only be excluded if they lack the ability to become habitat in the 
future. Another peer reviewer felt that, in some situations, 
populations in degraded habitat might be critical to the viability of 
the overall populations. Other peer reviewers commented that degraded 
habitat should be considered secondary only if adequate non-degraded 
habitat is available and designated. Many peer reviewers were 
optimistic about the potential for degraded areas to be restored. One 
peer reviewer suggested that sites significantly altered by human 
activities, such as roads and buildings, should not be included in 
conservation plans, but that areas that have been altered by 
agriculture and other activities that do not significantly disturb the 
soil should be included as they provide potential sites for restoration 
of plant species. Other commenters objected to critical habitat 
designation in degraded areas.
    Our Response: We agree that recovery of a species is more likely in 
designated critical habitat in the least degraded areas containing 
primary constituent elements. During our evaluation of areas essential 
for the conservation of the species we tried to select the least 
degraded areas where possible because these areas are most essential. 
However, for some species, especially those only known from low-
elevation areas, only degraded habitat remains. Therefore, some units 
still contain degraded habitat, but only if the area could be restored. 
Management for the restoration of these habitats is addressed in the 
species' recovery plans.
    (13) Comment: The proposed designation failed to contain all 
historically known listed plants, and therefore failed to propose 
critical habitat for all listed plants statewide. The following 
endangered plant species lack proposed critical habitat on Maui and 
Kahoolawe: Abutilon menziesii; Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
sandwicense; Abutilon menziesii; Caesalpinia kaviensis; Gardenia 
brighamii; Haplostachys haplostachya; Panicum fauriei var. carteri; 
Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense; and Scaevola coriacea.
    Our Response: These species were not part of the lawsuit (see 
``Previous Federal Action'' section) and subsequent stipulations, and 
therefore were not included in this rulemaking. Critical habitat for 
these species may be considered in the future if warranted and funding 
and resources are available.
    (14) Comment: Peer reviewers and other commenters wrote that the 
amount, location, and type of land proposed for critical habitat 
appears to be mostly adequate for the long-term conservation of these 
species. In order to build self-sustaining populations, adequate land 
for expansion is required, and most peer reviewers supported inclusion 
of larger amounts of land. One peer reviewer believes that removing 
significant portions of any of the proposed critical habitat units is 
likely to prevent the recovery of, or lead to the extinction of, listed 
species. One peer reviewer felt that the boundaries appear to be set by 
landowner parcels and not based upon the habitat features required for 
protection, especially units Maui H and L. Other commenters questioned 
the methodology that led to the increase in proposed critical habitat 
from 33,614 acres (13,574) in the original proposal to 126,531 acres 
(51,208 ha) in the revised proposal. These commenters believe the 
proposed critical habitat units are larger than necessary. The Service 
should work to ensure that (1) areas designated as critical habitat are 
``essential for the conservation of the species'', and that (2) 
``critical habitat does not include the entire geographical area which 
can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species'' 16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)(C).
    Our Response: We made revisions to the unit boundaries based on 
information supplied by commenters, as well as information gained from 
field visits to some of the sites, that indicated that the primary 
constituent elements were not present in certain portions of proposed 
units, that certain changes in land use had occurred on lands within 
the proposed critical habitat that would preclude those areas from 
supporting the primary constituent elements, or that the areas were not 
essential to the conservation of the species in question. In many 
cases, critical habitat boundaries were reduced for multi-island 
species because we have identified adequate and more appropriate 
habitat on other islands within the historical range in at least eight 
other places that have more primary constituent elements or are less 
degraded; already undergoing restoration; within a partnership, NAR, or 
TNCH preserve; or on a refuge.
    No critical habitat units in the proposed rule were excluded or 
modified due to economic impacts. However, section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
requires us to consider other relevant impacts, in addition to economic 
impacts, of designating critical habitat. An area may be excluded from 
designation as critical habitat if the Secretary determines the 
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of designating the 
area as critical habitat (and provided the exclusion would not result 
in the extinction of the species). We have removed the two TNCH Maui 
Preserves, the State's Hanawi NAR, Maui Land and Pineapple Company, 
Inc.'s (ML&P) Puu Kukui Watershed Management Area (WMA), and Ulupalakua 
and Haleakala Ranches from final critical habitat designation based 
upon either their conservation history or the relevant issue that 
designation of critical habitat would have a negative effect on the 
landowner's voluntary ongoing conservation activities as well as future 
activities under consideration by the landowner. In both cases, we 
believe it is in the best interest of the species to exclude habitat 
from the designation based on their conservation actions. See 
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other Impacts''.
    The land area in the second proposal of critical habitat was 
increased from the first proposal caused by the Service's decision to 
include unoccupied habitat. To recover the species, it is essential in 
some instances to conserve suitable habitat that is not currently 
occupied to allow for the establishment of additional populations 
through natural recruitment or managed reintroductions. Establishment 
of 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).
    (15) Comment: The majority of our peer reviewers agreed that the 
methodology used to define critical habitat is appropriate, 
scientifically well grounded, and conceptually sound. The proposed rule 
represents the best scientific information available and the most 
scientifically appropriate techniques for determining critical habitat 
on Maui. On the other hand, some commenters felt that the Service's 
approach to designating critical habitat was not based on scientific 
principles and knowledge of the needs of the plant species. The 
proposed rule acknowledges that little is known about the life history, 
threats, or preferred

[[Page 25971]]

habitat of particular species and applies a ``broad-brush'' approach.
    Our Response: In accordance with our policy on peer review 
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert 
opinions of appropriate and independent specialists regarding the 
proposed rule. The purpose of this peer review was to ensure that our 
methodology for designation of critical habitat of Maui plants was 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. The 
majority of peer reviewers support our methodology. All data and 
information on species status information received in preparation of 
this rule were weighted equally and considered to come from reliable 
sources. Where discrepancies existed between different data sources, 
the most current data were used. While we agree that additional time 
would be beneficial for the preparation of these final rules, and the 
collection of more scientific information, we are required under the 
court-approved stipulation to finalize this designation by April 18, 
2003. If provided with new information, we may revise the critical 
habitat designation in the future.
    (16) Comment: Peer reviewers commented that a multi-population 
approach is essential for the survival and recovery of listed Hawaiian 
plant species. Multiple populations prevent small-scale changes in 
habitat from destroying all remaining individuals. The multiple 
population approach offers the opportunity to protect a wider range of 
genetic variability for each species, rather than concentrating on a 
single or small number of areas with genetically similar individuals. 
The Service has designated enough land to provide for the long-term 
conservation of multiple populations of the listed species.
    Our Response: We agree that the multi-population approach to 
conservation is necessary for the recovery of Hawaii's endangered 
plants.
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer and other commenters stated that 
the proposed rule is improved by the inclusion of appropriate 
unoccupied habitat because such habitat will help to recover species 
that have been reduced to an unsustainable number of populations.
    Our Response: We agree. Our recovery plans for these species 
identify the need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild 
populations within historic range.
    (18) Comment: Several commenters opposed designating critical 
habitat in unoccupied areas. Two commenters wrote that lands in urban, 
agricultural, and rural districts are designated, used, and intended 
for a wide variety of land use activities. As such, there is a much 
greater likelihood that critical habitat designation will have an 
adverse economic impact on the landowner. These commenters recommend 
the following rebuttable presumption: non-conservation lands which are 
unoccupied by any listed species should not be designated as critical 
habitat
    Our Response: Our recovery plans for these species identify the 
need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild populations 
within the historical range. Because of the very limited current range 
of many of these species, designating only occupied areas would not 
meet the conservation requirements of the species and would be 
inconsistent with our recovery plans. Occupied areas, as well as the 
similar habitat around them within the designated units of critical 
habitat that may be occupied in the future, provide the essential life-
cycle needs of the species and provide some or all of the habitat 
components essential for the conservation (primary constituent 
elements) of these species. Expansion of some of these species to areas 
that were likely to have been historically occupied is essential to 
their recovery.
    When designating unoccupied habitat for these species, we first 
evaluated lands that are suitable for each species. Of this suitable 
habitat, we determined which areas are essential for the conservation 
of each species using the guidelines outlined in the recovery plans 
(i.e., areas that contain one or more of the primary constituent 
elements and are either in good condition for recovery efforts or could 
be made suitable through appropriate management actions), and would 
provide space needed by the species to reach our recovery goals 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.
    Areas that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
are either in good condition for recovery efforts or could be made 
suitable through appropriate management actions, and would provide 
space needed by the species to reach our recovery goals of 8 to 10 
populations with a minimum number of mature reproducing individuals as 
specified above, were determined to be essential for the conservation 
of each species, regardless of land-use zoning.
    (19) Comment: Proposed critical habitat includes unoccupied 
habitat. It appears that the Service has designated unoccupied habitat 
largely based on guesswork and the faulty conclusion that any areas 
that appear, based on limited biological knowledge to be potentially 
suitable habitat for these species (i.e., ``merely capable of 
supporting'' these species), are by default essential habitat. This 
conclusion is not consistent with the provisions in the Act.
    Our Response: As explained in the Methods section of this rule, we 
used the best scientific information available to determine areas that 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of the species covered by this designation. This 
information included the known locations, site-specific species 
information from the HINHP database and our own rare plant database; 
species information from the Center for Plant Conservation's (CPC's) 
rare plant monitoring database housed at the University of Hawaii's 
Lyon Arboretum; island-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) 
coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, annual rainfall, elevation 
contours, land ownership); the final listing rules for these 60 
species; the December 18, 2000, proposal; the April 3, 2002, revised 
proposal; information received during the public comment periods and 
the public hearings; recent biological surveys and reports; our 
recovery plans for these species; and any species and management 
information received for the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe; discussions 
with botanical experts; and recommendations from the Hawaii and Pacific 
Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) (see also the discussion 
below) (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; HPPRCC 1998; Service 1995a, 
1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; 65 FR 66808; 67 FR 
3940; CPC in litt. 1999).
    In 1994, the HPPRCC initiated an effort to identify and map habitat 
it believed to be important for the recovery of 282 endangered and 
threatened Hawaiian plant species. The HPPRCC identified these areas on 
most of the islands in the Hawaiian chain, and in 1999, we published 
them in our Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island Plants (Service 1999). 
The HPPRCC expects that there will be subsequent efforts to further 
refine the locations of important habitat areas and that new survey 
information or research may also lead to additional refinement of 
identifying and mapping of habitat important for the recovery of these 
species.
    The HPPRCC identified essential habitat areas for all listed, 
proposed,

[[Page 25972]]

and candidate plants and evaluated species of concern to determine if 
these essential habitat areas would provide for their habitat needs. 
However, the HPPRCC's mapping of habitat was distinct from the 
regulatory designation of critical habitat as defined by the Act. In 
addition, data have been collected since the recommendations made by 
the HPPRCC in 1998. Much of the area that was identified by the HPPRCC 
as inadequately surveyed has now been surveyed to some degree. New 
location data for many species have been gathered. Also, the HPPRCC 
identified areas as essential based on species clusters (areas that 
included listed species as well as candidate species, and species of 
concern) while we have only delineated areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the specific listed species at issue. As a result, the 
critical habitat designations in this rule include not only some 
habitat that was identified as essential in the 1998 recommendations 
but also habitat that was not identified as essential in those 
recommendations.

Issue 3: Site-Specific Biological Comments

    (20) Comment: One peer reviewer was concerned about the lower 
elevation wet forests on windward Haleakala because Hanawi NAR is 
expected to be fenced only above 1,000 meters in elevation. Cyanea 
mceldowneyi, Cyanea copelandii, and Clermontia samuelii may rely on 
habitat lower than 1,000 meters in elevation.
    Our Response: While the habitat lower than 1,000 m (3,281 ft) in 
elevation may be important for the conservation of these species, we do 
not believe that this habitat contains the primary constituent elements 
for Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyanea copelandii, and Clermontia samuelii. 
Therefore, we did not find this area to be essential to the 
conservation of these three species.
    (21) Comment: The boundaries of units Maui A and B should be 
relocated to follow existing conservation boundaries. The boundaries of 
units C1 and C2 should be refined to reflect that the appropriate 
habitat of the species of concern is sea cliffs within the spray zone. 
It should be clarified that units Maui C1 and C2 are unoccupied 
critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa.
    Our Response: The boundaries of units Maui A and B have been 
revised. We are no longer proposing critical habitat units Maui C1 and 
C2 for Centaurium sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa because we were 
able to locate other sites that were less degraded, contain a better 
representation of the primary constituent elements that are essential 
to the conservation of the species, are within the species' historical 
ranges, and accommodate our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations.
    (22) Comment: KIRC commented that, while we support the mission of 
the Service and the extraordinary efforts it is taking to protect 
endangered plants, the KIRC feels it is unnecessary to establish 
critical habitat for the listed taxa on Kahoolawe because of ongoing 
management for endangered species on the island by KIRC. In addition, 
because Kahoolawe is already a permanent natural and cultural reserve 
and a National Historic Site, it is already bound by a set of Federal 
and State rules for careful stewardship and does not require an 
additional layer of protection. Further, two of the proposed plants, 
Hibiscus brackenridgei and Neraudia sericea, have not been seen in over 
90 years, although biological consultants continue to survey their 
historical locations.
    Our Response: We did not designate critical habitat for Hibiscus 
brackenridgei and Neraudia sericea on Kahoolawe because we were able to 
locate other sites that contain the primary constituent elements that 
are essential to the conservation of the species, are within their 
historical ranges, and accommodate our recovery goals of 8 to 10 
populations. The footprint of critical habitat on Kahoolawe is greatly 
reduced, although it remains designated for Kanaloa kahoolawensis, as 
Kahoolawe has the only suitable habitat for this species identified by 
our species experts. Designations of critical habitat are to be made on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after 
taking into account the economic and other relevant impacts of 
specifying any area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). An area 
may be excluded from designation as critical habitat if the Secretary 
determines the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
designating the area as critical habitat (and provided the exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species). However, because 
this is the last known occupied habitat for Kanaloa kahoolawensis, we 
do not believe that the benefits of excluding Kahoolawe outweigh the 
benefits of including it. See ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 
4(b)(2): Other Impacts''.
    (23) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the rationale for 
the configuration of unit Maui H is not clearly explained. In general, 
units should maximize interior areas and have easily identifiable 
boundaries. Why was an area almost encircled by unit Maui H excluded? 
This area appears to be part of the Kahikinui Forest Reserve with 
current populations of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia 
lindseyana, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense and Phyllostegia 
mollis. If the Kahikinui area is not managed appropriately, adequate 
habitat for the above-mentioned species might not exist. Another peer 
reviewer questions the exclusion of the Waiopae-Wailaulau-Pahihi area 
from unit Maui H because it contains occurrences for two to three plant 
species and is DOFAW land slated and funded for fencing, restoration, 
and removal of cattle. It is crucial to include this parcel.
    Our Response: We evaluated the Kahikinui area and determined that 
it was not essential for the conservation of the species because 
critical habitat was designated elsewhere for these species that is 
less degraded and contains a better representation of the primary 
constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the 
species, are within their historical ranges, and accommodates our 
recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations.

Issue 4: Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

    (24) Comment: One commenter suggested that critical habitat 
designation presents an opportunity to expand Hawaii's appeal in 
ecotourism. Many of the areas covered by the designation are degraded 
forests that could be restored to showcase Hawaii's unique birds and 
plants.
    Our Response: Although we agree that the restoration of degraded 
forests is essential to the conservation of federally listed species, 
critical habitat is only one of many tools established in the Act that 
can play an important role in the recovery of the species. Critical 
habitat designation does not create a wilderness area, preserve, or 
wildlife refuge. It does not require activities associated with 
conservation management, such as ungulate control and fencing. Critical 
habitat increases protection of federally listed species by requiring 
consultation under section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat.
    (25) Comment: Animal Rights Hawaii stated that although they 
support protection for endangered species, they are also concerned 
about protecting nonnative species. The current interpretation of 
critical habitat allows the Federal government and its partners

[[Page 25973]]

to utilize any methodology they wish in dealing with feral animals, 
even though such methods may be cruel and environmentally unsound.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not give the 
Federal government and its partners the authority to utilize any 
methodology they wish in dealing with feral animals. Any potential 
animal control program would be subject to all applicable State, 
Federal, and local laws.
    (26) Comment: Critical habitat designation, and the underlying 
decision to list as endangered the species that are the subject of the 
designation, exceed the constitutional limits of the Service's 
delegated authority. Congress enacted the ESA as an exercise of its 
Commerce Clause power and delegated exercise of that Commerce Clause 
power to the Service to apply the ESA by regulation. The listed species 
are not interstate. They exist only in Hawaii and do not cross state 
lines. Nor are they in commerce as the subject of any economic 
endeavor. They lack any commercial value. Therefore, the Service's 
regulations listing these species and designating critical habitat for 
them within Hawaii exceed the Federal power to regulate interstate 
commerce under the governing precedents interpreting the Commerce 
Clause.
    Our Response: The Federal government has the authority under the 
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to protect species, for the 
reasons given in Judge Wald's opinion and Judge Henderson's concurring 
opinion in National Association of Homebuilders v. Babbitt, 130 F. 3d 
1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 1185 S.Ct, 2340 (1998). See also 
Gibbs v. Babbitt, No. 99-1218 (4th Cir. 2000). The Home Builders case 
involved a challenge to application of ESA prohibitions to protect the 
listed Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus 
abdominalis). As with the species at issue here, the Delhi Sands 
flower-loving fly is endemic to only one state. Judge Wald held that 
application of the ESA to this fly was a proper exercise of Commerce 
Clause power because it prevented loss of biodiversity and destructive 
interstate competition.
    (27) Comment: Many commenters questioned the utility of critical 
habitat designation because it will not result in on-the-ground 
improvement of habitat or endangered species. Most commenters felt that 
voluntary partnerships to effect actual land management would be more 
beneficial to the species. Conversely, some commenters pointed out that 
critical habitat will prevent the Federal government from carrying out 
activities that destroy habitat or species in need of recovery and that 
it will benefit the people of Maui by preserving native forests, thus 
preventing erosion that pollutes water and smothers reefs.
    Our Response: Critical habitat designation is one of a number of 
conservation tools established in the Act that can play an important 
role in the recovery of a species. For a Federal action to adversely 
modify critical habitat, the action would have to adversely affect the 
critical habitat's constituent elements or their management in a manner 
likely to appreciably diminish or preclude the role of that habitat in 
the conservation of the species. Designation of critical habitat is a 
way to guide Federal agencies in evaluating their actions, in 
consultation with the Service, such that their actions do not hamper 
conservation of listed species. There also are educational or 
informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. 
Education benefits include the notification of land owners, land 
managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting the 
habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding 
their essential habitat requirements.
    (28) Comment: One commenter stated that the designation of critical 
habitat may result in delays and confusion in water use decisions in 
the State and that permits for non-point source discharges into 
protected areas may be denied, which would have a devastating effect on 
agricultural activities.
    Our Response: As noted in the October 2002 Draft Economic Analysis 
(DEA), the likelihood of changes to the existing water diversions based 
on critical habitat is very low for the following two reasons: (1) None 
of the plants are stream-dependent for their survival and therefore 
would not cause a reduction in water diversion, and (2) water 
infrastructure is considered a manmade feature and therefore would not 
be included in critical habitat pursuant to the rule, because these 
features and structures normally do not contain, and are not likely to 
develop, any primary constituent elements. Thus, unless its operation 
and maintenance would indirectly affect critical habitat, which is not 
anticipated, it should not be affected by section 7 of the Act.
    The potential impacts on State water uses were analyzed in the 
October 2002 DEA and December 2002 Addendum to the DEA. As noted in the 
DEA and Addendum, Maui County and Department of Water Supply (DWS) 
submitted specific information regarding planned projects in the 
proposed critical habitat during the public comment period. Possible 
and planned projects by the DWS include water source development in 
Unit B2; construction of a water reservoir adjacent to Unit L; access 
and intake improvements in Unit L; and repair and maintenance of 
existing flumes in Unit L. As noted in this final rule, we have removed 
Unit B2 from the final designation. Most of the identified DWS projects 
in Unit L involve repair and maintenance of existing manmade features 
and structures, and as such, would not be subject to section 7 
consultation. However, to the extent that the planned improvements go 
beyond repair and maintenance and would be subject to section 7 
consultation caused by Federal funding or permitting, the DEA's 
estimate of zero to two consultations reasonably reflects the potential 
number of section 7 consultations over the next 10 years (see Chapter 
VI, Section 3.k. of the DEA). As a worst case scenario, the DEA 
estimates that the consultations could cost up to $68,000 with project 
modifications that could range up to $200,000.
    The State Department of Health Polluted Runoff Control Program and 
the State Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program work 
together to address nonpoint source pollution through outreach and 
education and programs that utilize incentives. Under the Coastal Zone 
Act Reauthorization Amendments, Section 6217, the State is required to 
meet various conditions for approval of the State's Coastal Nonpoint 
Pollution Control Program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
To meet these conditions, the State Department of Health is developing 
administrative rules to create Statewide enforceable policies and 
mechanisms to address nonpoint source pollution. These draft rules are 
currently the subject of public informational meetings. Public comments 
and suggestions received during these meetings will be considered 
before final rules are drafted and proposed to the Governor.
    At the present time, there is no permit requirement for nonpoint 
source pollution. Moreover, the proposed rules regarding nonpoint 
source pollution make no reference to either water quality standards or 
to critical habitat. Until the State administrative rules are 
finalized, the impact caused by the interplay of nonpoint source 
pollution requirements and the designation of critical habitat is 
entirely speculative.

[[Page 25974]]

Issue 5: Mapping and PCEs

    (29) Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 
(DOT) stated that the proposed designations near State routes would 
restrict the design, maintenance, and construction of highways. In 
particular, Units Maui C1 and C2 may impact Route 30, Honoapiilani 
Highway, and Unit C3 may impact route 30, Kahekili Highway. Highway 
corridors require constant upkeep and periodic improvements to maintain 
safe transportation, keep abreast of changing policies and regulations, 
limit liability exposure, and manage congestion. These activities, and 
the intrusive nature of highway traffic itself (pollutants, litter, 
alien species), tend to conflict with the critical habitat designation. 
The DOT recommends that buffer zones on each side of the State highway 
right of way should be excluded from proposed critical habitat to 
minimize designation-related costs for future improvements, 
maintenance, and repair to roads, bridges, drainage culverts etc. The 
buffer zones should be based on topography and be a minimum of 100 feet 
(30 m) in width.
    Our Response: Units C1 and C2 have been removed from the final 
designation and Unit C3 has been substantially reduced in the final 
designation. State DOT's comments did not identify any planned widening 
or other significant improvement project within Unit C3. Rather, State 
DOT's concerns focused on the impact to routine repair and maintenance. 
Operation and maintenance of existing manmade features and structures 
adjacent to critical habitat are not subject to section 7 consultation, 
unless they involve federal funding or permitting and they affect the 
critical habitat or the species.
    (30) Comment: The Service should reconsider designating critical 
habitat on Navy lands because such designation will adversely impact 
the Navy's ability to accomplish its national defense mission. The 
designation will also impose costly procedural burdens on the Navy's 
ongoing efforts to clear ordnance at Kahoolawe. A careful analysis of 
the benefits and burdens of critical habitat designation may result in 
a determination that critical habitat designation on Kahoolawe is not 
prudent, especially in light of potential prescribed burns for clearing 
ordnance. While the Navy will manage endangered species found on its 
property, it will not agree to introduce any endangered species to an 
area where it is currently absent.
    Our Response: In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed a law that required 
the return of Kahoolawe to the State of Hawaii and authorized Federal 
funding through November 2003. Therefore, critical habitat will not 
adversely impact the Navy's ability to accomplish its national defense 
mission as the Navy will not have a presence on the island for that 
purpose. As modified, the critical habitat designation on Kahoolawe 
covers the southeastern coastline, an area along the eastern side of 
the island, and an area on the western side of the island, 
predominantly overlapping with Level 3 and Level 4 areas--areas which 
have either received surface clearance only or which have received no 
ordnance clearance. Anticipated activities in these areas within the 
next 10 years are likely to be limited to ordnance removal. Part of the 
designation on the western tip of Kahoolawe is a Level 1 area, and 
anticipated activities in this area could include operation of 
overnight campsites with minimal facilities to support restoration 
efforts. The December 2002 Addendum to the Draft Economic Analysis of 
Proposed Critical Habitat for the Maui and Kahoolawe plants considered 
the effects of critical habitat designation on the Navy's clean-up 
program on Kahoolawe and estimates section 7 consultation costs to 
range from $0 to $47,100. The removal of ordnance, which will enable 
long-term restoration efforts to proceed, is consistent with the 
recovery goals for these listed plant species on Kahoolawe. Kahoolawe 
is essential to the conservation of Kanaloa kahoolawensis because this 
is the only place where this plant currently is known to exist.

Issue 6: Definition of Critical Habitat

    (31) Comment: Many commenters, including peer reviewers, noted that 
critical habitat should be identified for all areas that may need to be 
managed for the benefit of the listed species. The ESA defines critical 
habitat (Section 3 (5)(A)(I)) as ``the specific areas * * * (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection. It does not use the 
phrase ``which may require additional special management considerations 
or protection.'' Therefore, all areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat should be designated, even if they are currently being 
managed for conservation. Designation of these areas would be in 
accordance with the mandatory duty to designate critical habitat ``to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable'' 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3). 
Also, designation will provide an additional measure of protection by 
preventing Federal agencies from carrying out funding or approving any 
activity likely to result in adverse modification or destruction of 
critical habitat, whether directly or indirectly, regardless of the 
location of the activity. Furthermore, areas that may have adequate 
management in place may not be safe from even direct threats from 
Federal activities, which can arise with little warning. Additionally, 
adequate funding for conservation and management of listed species on 
lands currently being managed for conservation may not be assured. 
Multiple commenters wrote that the following areas should be designated 
as critical habitat: Haleakala National Park; Puu Kukui Watershed 
Management Area; Waikamoi; Kapunakea Preserves; and Hanawi Natural Area 
Reserve.
    Our Response: While we do not necessarily agree with the 
commenters' interpretation of section 3(5)(A) we considered whether the 
areas proposed for exclusion because special management was not needed 
should be designated as critical habitat. However, section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act requires us to consider other relevant impacts, in addition to 
economic impacts, of designating critical habitat. An area may be 
excluded from designation as critical habitat if the Secretary 
determines the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
designating the area as critical habitat (and provided the exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species). We have removed the 
two TNCH Maui Preserves, the State's Hanawi NAR, ML&P's Puu Kukui WMA, 
and Ulupalakua and Haleakala Ranches from final critical habitat 
designation based upon either their conservation history or the 
relevant issue that designation of critical habitat would have a 
negative effect on the landowner's voluntary ongoing conservation 
activities as well as future activities under consideration by the 
landowner. In both cases, we believe it is in the best interest of the 
species to exclude habitat from the designation based on their 
conservation actions. See ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): 
Other Impacts''.
    (32) Comment: Alexander and Baldwin, Inc., requested that the 
Service consider excluding lands managed by the East Maui Watershed 
Partnership (EMWP) because future EMWP efforts to protect the watershed 
are likely to include many of the same management measures identified 
as necessary for the recovery of endangered plant species within the 
watershed (e.g., control of ungulates and invasive weeds). Cooperative 
conservation efforts by landowners ultimately will benefit

[[Page 25975]]

endangered species more than the mere designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that cooperative conservation efforts by 
landowners are important to the conservation of Hawaiian plant species. 
We did exclude portions of the EMWP, including portions of Hanawi NAR, 
Haleakala Ranch, and Waikamoi Preserve. However, at this time, we did 
not find the benefits of excluding other lands within the EMWP to 
outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat, under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As resources allow, the Service would be 
willing to consider future revisions or amendments to this final 
critical habitat rule if landowners affected by this rule develop 
conservation programs or partnerships (e.g., Habitat Conservation 
Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, conservation agreements, etc.) on their 
lands that outweigh the regulatory and educational benefits of a 
critical habitat designation (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 
4(b)(2): Other Impacts'' for which the benefits of exclusion exceed the 
benefits of inclusion).
    (33) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that it is not strategically 
wise to exclude most of the East Maui Watershed above 3,500-4,000 ft 
(1,067-1,219 m).
    Our Response: We agree that the area is essential for the 
conservation of many of these species and have designated portions of 
this area as critical habitat.
    (34) Comment: Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc. requested that 
the currently actively managed, conservation-zoned lands on West Maui 
(A, B1, and B2) be excluded from critical habitat designation. ML&P has 
cooperated with many other conservation agencies, including the 
Service, to preserve the native biodiversity of its conservation lands.
    Our Response: We have excluded some of ML&P's lands under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, finding that the benefits of their conservation 
efforts outweigh the benefits of including those lands in this 
designation (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other 
Impacts''). However, there are other ML&P lands for which we did not 
make this finding, and they are therefore included in this critical 
habitat designation.
    (35) Comment: The Service should comment on how Haleakala National 
Park will function as a result of designation of unit Maui J.
    Our Response: Haleakala National Park will continue to function 
much the same as it had before the critical habitat designation. 
However, they will need to consult with us, under section 7 of the Act, 
if they are planning a project that may affect critical habitat.
    (36) Comment: The Estate of James Campbell requested that the 
critical habitat boundaries for their Kula and Kaupo properties be 
amended in light of a lack of important data on species' life history 
and habitat. They specifically request that the proposed designation on 
the Kaupo property be adjusted to exclude unoccupied agricultural land 
that could be adversely affected by such a designation.
    Our Response: Unoccupied agricultural lands of the Kaupo properties 
were not included in the proposed or final designations. However, we 
have found that some of the James Campbell Estate lands are essential 
to the conservation of some of the species and do not meet the criteria 
under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for exclusion because long-range 
management goals and plans are not yet in place. These lands have been 
included in the final critical habitat designation. As resources allow, 
however, the Service would be willing to consider future revisions or 
amendments to this final critical habitat rule if landowners affected 
by this rule develop conservation programs or partnerships (e.g., 
Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, conservation 
agreements, etc.) on their lands that outweigh the regulatory and 
educational benefits of a critical habitat designation (see ``Analysis 
of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other Impacts'').
    (37) Comment: Ulupalakua Ranch requested that its lands be removed 
from proposed critical habitat for the following reasons: (1) 
Likelihood of private party lawsuits resulting in mandated protection 
for critical habitat; (2) likelihood of private party lawsuits limiting 
current ranch operations; (3) limits on development of diversified 
agricultural operations caused by the Ranch's interest in Federal cost 
share programs; (4) lost revenues; (5) expenditures to assess the 
impact of the proposed designations; (6) economic hardship resulting 
from increased expenses to counter trespassing caused by increased 
curiosity over critical habitat lands; (7) lower economic returns and 
job loss caused by critical habitat dividing up sections of the Ranch, 
thus leading to inefficiency; (8) concern over the Service becoming 
involved in County Permitting processes (as they did when Ulupalakua 
Ranch requested a Special Use Permit from the County of Maui for 
telecommunications purposes); (9) ranch lands consisting of 
predominantly nonnative alien species that the Service has documented 
as threats; and (10) a reduced willingness of the Ranch to participate 
in voluntary conservation efforts.
    Our Response: We found that Ulupalakua Ranch met the requirements 
under 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 
4(b)(2)'') and therefore has been excluded from critical habitat 
designation.

Issue 7: Policy and Regulations

    (38) Comment: One commenter opposed the designation of critical 
habitat in East Maui from Makawao to Kula because hunters use these 
areas.
    Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not affect 
activities, including human access, on State or private lands unless 
some kind of Federal permit, license, or funding is involved and the 
activities may affect the species. It imposes no regulatory 
prohibitions on State or other non-Federal lands, nor does it impose 
any restrictions on State or non-Federal activities that are not funded 
or authorized by any Federal agencies. Access to Federal lands that are 
designated as critical habitat is not restricted unless access is 
determined to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the 
critical habitat. If we determine that access will result in adverse 
modification of the critical habitat, we will suggest reasonable or 
prudent alternatives that allow the proposed activities to proceed. 
Recreational, commercial, and subsistence activities, including 
hunting, on non-Federal lands are not regulated by this critical 
habitat designation, and may be impacted only where there is Federal 
involvement in the action and the action is likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. According to our economic analysis 
the probability of a major change in game management by the State is 
regarded as slight. Thus, designation of critical habitat is expected 
to have minor economic impacts related to management of game mammals 
and to hunting.

Issue 8: Economic Issues

    (39) Comment: An economic analysis (EA) must be completed before 
critical habitat is designated. Even though the Service is designating 
critical habitat before conducting an EA in order to meet a court 
imposed deadline, the Service is not relieved from meeting the prudent 
and determinable standard for designating critical habitat. It is a 
disservice to the landowners to not include an economic impact analysis 
at the time of proposed designation even if the Service anticipates 
that such designation will not have any significant economic impact. 
Any

[[Page 25976]]

proposed critical habitat designated without first conducting an 
economic analysis would be imprudent and premature.
    Our Response: We did not designate critical habitat before 
conducting an EA. The draft economic analysis was published and made 
available for review on October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61845). The comment 
period on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these 61 
species from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe was extended until 
November 1, 2002, to allow interested and affected parties the 
opportunity to review the draft economic analysis in conjunction with 
the proposed critical habitat rule.
    The Service determines whether critical habitat designation is 
prudent according to regulations found at 50 CFR 424.12(a). In 
accordance with these regulations, critical habitat designation is not 
prudent only when one or both of the following two situations exist: 
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or (2) such designation would not 
be beneficial to the species. The economic analysis is conducted after 
critical habitat has been proposed in a given area, as set forth in 
regulations found at 50 CFR 424.19. If we find that economic and other 
impacts outweigh the benefit of designating critical habitat in a given 
area, that area may be excluded.
    (40) Comment: The proposal identifies portions of two habitat units 
(units C1, C2, C3, G1, and G5), that consist in part of private lands 
and are occupied by only one or two species, which have known current 
populations on other islands. Portions of these units may have economic 
value to their respective landowners for eventual shoreline development 
or as sources of surface water for irrigation. Absent the economic 
analysis, it is impossible to determine from the proposal whether the 
benefits of excluding these areas would outweigh the benefits of 
including them as critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to determine the 
relative costs and benefits of critical habitat designation without 
benefit of an economic analysis. It is precisely for this reason that 
the draft economic analysis was made available for review immediately 
upon completion on October 2, 2002, and the public comment period on 
the proposed critical habitat designations for these 61 species from 
the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe was extended until November 1, 2002. 
Maui units C1 and C2 have not been designated as final critical 
habitat. Maui unit C3 has been reduced to include only State owned 
lands within the conservation district and G1 and G5 have been reduced 
to lands within the conservation district. No costs are expected to 
occur from such impacts to water systems, because none of the plants 
are stream-dependent for their survival and therefore would not cause a 
reduction in water diversions. In addition, water infrastructures are 
considered a manmade feature and therefore its operation and 
maintenance are not subject to critical habitat provisions of section 
7, because these features and structures normally do not contain, and 
are not likely to develop, any primary constituent elements.
    (41) Comment: The DEA did not address, or did not adequately 
consider, a variety of costs and benefits that they believe could occur 
caused by the implementation of section 7 consultation for these 
species.
    Our Response: Many of these possible costs were considered and some 
were addressed in the DEA. In many cases, however, potential costs were 
purposely not addressed in the DEA because they are not expected to 
occur. In other cases, it is possible for them to occur. In still other 
cases, the concerns no longer have substance given the Service's 
modifications to the proposed critical habitat. Finally, in some cases, 
the comments provided new information and costs were modified in 
section 4 of the Addendum.
    (42) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed designation 
fails to properly consider the importance of cooperation and goodwill 
between the Service and private landowners, and the impact critical 
habitat designations will have in discouraging voluntary partnerships 
on private lands. Haleakala Ranch stated that if critical habitat were 
designated on ranch lands, the ranch would cease participation in 
conservation projects designed to promote endangered species recovery. 
The ranch also stated that access to Haleakala Ranch land will be 
denied to those seeking data about the presence of the listed species, 
and future partnerships, existing agreements, and a land steward 
position may be terminated in an effort to insulate the company from 
outside governmental oversight. The ranch prefers to work cooperatively 
with the Service and other conservation entities to continue its legacy 
of land stewardship. Ulupalakua Ranch stated that designation of 
critical habitat would result in discontinuation of its associations 
with organizations associated with native plant restoration. Ulupalakua 
Ranch will also deny access to those interested in plant conservation 
and would not allow reintroductions of any native plants to its private 
property. Similarly, Alexander and Baldwin, Inc. cautioned the Service 
to carefully consider the benefits of existing cooperative agreements 
such as the East Maui Watershed Partnership and the potentially 
chilling effect that designation might have on such agreements. The 
Estate of James Campbell also stated a preference for encouraging the 
establishment of voluntary partnerships with landowners to effectuate 
the desired species conservation. This commenter further stated that 
the regulatory approach discourages the cooperation which has been a 
key to successful species conservation. Another commenter stated that 
if the Service truly wants to carry out its mission statement and 
``work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and 
plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 
people,'' they should meet with the community of the DHHL Kahikinui 
homesteads to explain in clear and concise terms what is being proposed 
and exactly how it may impact our community. Others expressed similar 
concerns that cooperation and on-the-ground management were more 
important than critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 4.j. of the DEA discusses the 
potential for reduced cooperation with the Service on conservation 
projects as a result of critical habitat. The DEA determines that a 
modest but undetermined reduction in cooperation may occur, along with 
a corresponding but undetermined environmental loss to society. 
However, as the comment indicates, the Service received letters from 
two landowners, Ulupalakua Ranch and Haleakala Ranch, during the public 
comment period stating that they will no longer participate in 
conservation projects designed to assist native plant species if 
critical habitat is designated on their land. Over the past three years 
alone, these landowners have participated in more than seven different 
conservation projects, receiving more than $290,000 from the Service or 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This funding is often 
matched by the landowner, and thus the cost of these projects likely 
exceeds $580,000. While the benefits of these projects are difficult to 
quantify (as discussed further in section 6 of the Addendum), the 
biological value of these projects to the native plants is at minimum 
equal

[[Page 25977]]

to the costs of each project. Assuming that participation over the past 
three years is indicative of the average level of participation, over a 
period of ten years, the value of the conservation projects would 
exceed $1.7 million. Thus, a reduction in cooperation in conservation 
projects by these two landowners could be expected to result in a 
corresponding environmental loss to society of more than $1.7 million. 
In addition, these landowners have indicated that they will not allow 
outside individuals, agencies or organizations to monitor, investigate, 
or collect data about native plants on their lands. In qualitative 
terms, the total loss to society as a result of reduced cooperation in 
conservation projects could be considered significant.
    (43) Comment: The DEA fails to consider economic impacts of 
critical habitat that result through interaction with Hawaii Land Use 
Law. Critical habitat could result in changes to zoning under State 
law. There is an overriding directive under State law that endangered 
plant species are to be protected in the State's planning and zoning 
process. HRS Sec.  205-2(e) states that Conservation Districts shall 
include areas necessary for conserving endangered species. HRS 195D-5.1 
states that DLNR shall initiate amendments in order to include the 
habitat of rare species. Even if DLNR does not act, the Land Use 
Commission may initiate such changes, or they may be forced by citizen 
lawsuits. Areas for endangered species are placed in the protected 
subzone with the most severe restrictions. While existing uses can be 
grandfathered, downzoning will prevent landowners from being able to 
shift uses in the future, will reduce market value, increase property 
tax, and make the land unmortgageable. Although the Service 
acknowledges that there could be substantial indirect costs relating to 
redistricting of land to the Conservation District, several 
commentators disagreed with the characterization of these costs as 
``minor'' and with the statement that the probabilities of 
redistricting is ``slight to small.''
    Our Response: In our economic analysis we indicated that about 
8,770 ha (21,670 ac) of Agricultural lands would be included in the 
designation, of which 4,443 ha (10,980 ac) is privately owned. However, 
in this final rule, we have designated critical habitat on only 5,170 
ha (12,744 ac) of Agricultural lands on Maui and Kahoolawe; the 
remaining Agricultural lands were excluded from the final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2). Of this, approximately 15 percent, or 794 
ha (1,960 ac), is owned by private landowners. The primary activity 
that takes place on privately-owned agriculturally-zoned land is 
ranching. The economic analysis found that reduction in land values 
that would be caused by redistricting privately owned land from 
Agricultural to Conservation District ranges from $1,000 to $10,000 per 
acre. Since 1,960 acres of Agricultural land are privately owned, if 
all such lands were redistricted, the total loss would range from 
$1,960,000 to $19,600,000. Even if a landowner has no plans to sell the 
land, the loss in land value due to redistricting could reduce 
potential mortgage financing. However, as discussed in the economic 
analysis, the redistricting of all Agricultural land to Conservation is 
a worst-case scenario, and one which is not envisioned for several 
reasons.
    HRS section 195D-5.1 states that the Department of Land and Natural 
Resources (DLNR) ``shall initiate amendments to the conservation 
district boundaries consistent with section 205-4 in order to include 
high quality native forests and the habitat of rare native species of 
flora and fauna within the conservation district.'' HRS section 205-
2(e) specifies that ``conservation districts shall include areas 
necessary for * * * conserving indigenous or endemic plants, fish and 
wildlife, including those which are threatened or endangered * * * '' 
Unlike the automatic conferral of State law protection for all 
federally listed species (see HRS 195D-4(a)), these provisions do not 
explicitly reference federally designated critical habitat and, to our 
knowledge, DLNR has not proposed amendments in the past to include all 
designated critical habitat in the Conservation District. Nevertheless, 
according to the Land Division of DLNR, DLNR is required by HRS 195D-
5.1 to initiate amendments to reclassify critical habitat lands to the 
Conservation District (Deirdre Mamiya, Administrator, Land Division, in 
litt. 2002).
    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 Land Use Commission (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 Land Use Commission 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 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: (1) ``maintenance of 
valued cultural, historical, or natural resources;'' (2) ``maintenance 
of other natural resources relevant to Hawaii's economy, including, but 
not limited to, agricultural resources;'' (3) ``commitment of state 
funds and resources;'' (4) ``provision for employment opportunities and 
economic development;'' and (5) ``provision for housing opportunities 
for all income groups, particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap 
groups.'' HRS 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 205-4.
    Thus, even if all federally designated critical habitat is 
petitioned for redistricting, the likelihood of redistricting will vary 
parcel by parcel. While the LUC may redistrict some parcels, it is 
unlikely that lands with a high economic value to the community, such 
as lands with significant State investments, prime agricultural land, 
land planned for the economic and community development, and land 
planned for the provision of housing, would be redistricted. By way of 
illustration, in the last State district boundary review only five 
privately owned parcels were redistricted to Conservation even though 
several hundred parcels were proposed for redistricting (Addendum). 
While concern has been expressed that a third party would challenge a 
decision by the LUC not to redistrict a critical habitat parcel in 
State court, State courts have been deferential to the LUC decisions if 
they are supported by the record, consistent with statutory provisions, 
and not affected by errors. See, e.g., Kilauea Neighborhood Ass'n. v. 
Land Use Comm'n. 751 P.2d 1031, 1035 (Haw. Ct. App. 1988) (finding 
that, although LUC's findings were poorly drawn, the record provided 
sufficient support for the decision); Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. 
Castle Trust Estate, 675 P.2d 784, 793 (Haw. Ct. App. 1983) (upholding 
LUC's decision as consistent

[[Page 25978]]

with statutory provisions and not affected by errors).
    (44) Comment: A commenter stated that the DEA fails to consider 
economic impacts of critical habitat that result through interaction 
with State law, specifically Hawaii Environmental Impact Statement Law. 
HRS 343-5 applies to any use of conservation land, and a full 
Environmental Impact Statement is required if any of the significance 
criteria listed in HAR 11-200-12 apply. One of these criteria is that 
an action is significant if it ``substantially affects a rare, 
threatened or endangered species or its habitat.'' This will result in 
costly procedural requirements and delays. Another commenter expressed 
concerns that the Service may get involved in county permitting 
processes (as it did when Ulupalakua Ranch requested a Special Use 
Permit from the County of Maui for telecommunication purposes). 
Multiple commenters also stated the following: The DEA fails to 
evaluate the practical effect critical habitat designation will have on 
development. The draft fails to quantify the indirect costs that 
critical habitat designation could cause by making the process of 
obtaining State and county permits for development more difficult, 
expensive, and time consuming. Similarly, it should take into account 
the delays and additional cost to ensure compliance with Federal 
regulations. Special Management Area permits administered by Maui 
County as required by Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Act will be 
harder to get, will result in delays, will cause a decline in property 
values and may make it impossible to develop. This economic impact 
disappears because the DEA's bottom line erroneously counts only so-
called ``direct'' costs of consultation.
    Another commenter also stated that the Service has taken the 
position in other States that it has a right to intervene in local land 
use proceedings if they affect endangered species on private property. 
For example, the Service petitioned the local zoning board in Arizona 
to postpone approval of a rezoning petition pending a survey to 
determine the extent to which an endangered plant was present on the 
property even though no Federal approval was being sought. The failure 
of the Service to address this type of activity in the DEA is a 
fundamental error of the analysis.
    Our Response: Adverse impacts on development, including, but not 
limited to, delays for additional studies and agency reviews, increased 
costs for environmental studies, increased risk of project denials, 
increased risk of costly mitigation measures, increased risk of 
litigation over approvals, are not expected since there are no known 
development plans within the designation. Furthermore, the following 
factors make future development projects in the proposed critical 
habitat unlikely: (1) As modified, approximately 80 percent of the 
proposed critical habitat is in Conservation District where development 
is severely limited; (2) the approximately 20 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat in the Agricultural district is in remote areas, areas 
lined with gulches or steep cliffs, or areas with limited access to 
water; (3) there are no known plans for development within the final 
critical habitat; and (4) most of the land designated in the Special 
Management Area is also within the Conservation District.
    (45) Comment: The DEA fails to consider economic impacts of 
critical habitat that result through interaction with State law, 
specifically the State Water Code. HRS 174C-2 states ``adequate 
provision shall be made for protection of fish and wildlife.'' HRS 
174C-71 instructs the commission of Water Resource Management to 
establish an in-stream use protection program to protect fish and 
wildlife. Another commenter was concerned that critical habitat is 
proposed in watershed areas in which stream or irrigation system water 
flows. This commenter also stated the following: The proposed rule 
states that activities such as watershed alteration or water diversion 
may trigger section 7 consultations if there is Federal involvement. If 
the ability to divert or take water from these sources or systems is 
restricted or limited, the impact would be far reaching and affect all 
lands served by such water sources or systems. The Service has an 
obligation to thoroughly investigate this issue and refrain from 
designating critical habitat until it has determined whether its 
actions will affect water use and balance this against any benefit to 
the species.
    Our Response: No costs are expected to occur from such impacts to 
water systems, because none of the listed plants are aquatic and 
therefore would not cause a reduction in water diversion. In addition, 
water infrastructure is considered a manmade feature and therefore its 
operation and maintenance are not subject to critical habitat 
provisions of section 7, because these features and structures normally 
do not contain, and are not likely to develop, any primary constituent 
elements.
    (46) Comment: A commenter expressed concerns that opponents of 
water diversions may use critical habitat as a tool to delay, and 
effectively stop, many worthwhile water diversion projects.
    Our Response: Maui County and Department of Water Supply (DWS) 
submitted specific information regarding planned projects in the 
proposed critical habitat during the public comment period. Possible 
and planned projects by the DWS include water source development in 
Unit B2; construction of a water reservoir adjacent to Unit L; access 
and intake improvements in Unit L; and repair and maintenance of 
existing flumes in Unit L. As noted earlier, the Service removed Unit 
B2 from the final designation. Thus, no section 7 costs would be 
anticipated to result from future DWS projects in this area. Moreover, 
most of the identified DWS projects in Unit L involve repair and 
maintenance of existing manmade features and structures, and as such, 
would not be subject to section 7 consultation. However, to the extent 
that the planned improvements go beyond repair and maintenance and 
would be subject to section 7 consultation caused by Federal funding or 
permitting, the DEA's estimate of zero to two consultations reasonably 
reflects the potential number of section 7 consultations over the next 
10 years (see Chapter VI, Section 3.k. of the DEA). The DEA estimates 
that the consultations could cost up to $68,000 with project 
modifications that could range up to $200,000.
    (47) Comment: Several commenters stated that the DEA focuses 
primarily on the costs of critical habitat and lacks a thorough 
benefits analysis. It does not include the benefits of watershed 
protection and improvement or protection of other stream and riparian 
biota; the value of the listed plants as an indicator of ecological 
health; the value of protecting culturally significant species; the 
value that Hawaii's people place on conservation of Hawaiian plants; 
and the benefits of keeping other native species off the endangered 
species list, of maintaining water quality and quantity, of promoting 
ground water recharge, and of preventing siltation of the marine 
environment, thus protecting coral reefs. The Service cannot exclude 
land from critical habitat designation if it considers only the costs, 
and not the benefits, of critical habitat designation. In failing to 
discuss these benefits, the Service missed an opportunity to educate 
the public regarding the value of protecting native species and native 
ecosystems. The Service must use the tools available,

[[Page 25979]]

such as a study by the University of Hawaii (UH) Secretariat for 
Conservation Biology that estimated the value of ecosystem services, to 
quantify the benefits of critical habitat. Conversely, another 
commenter stated that the alleged benefits are entirely speculative and 
unquantifiable, and that the listed plants are of no use to anyone and 
lack commercial value. Another commenter points out that according to 
the DEA summary of costs and benefits, the benefits of designating 
critical habitat are ``difficult to estimate'' and are exceeded by the 
costs. Accordingly, the Service should exclude areas covered by the DEA 
from designation.
    Our Response: There is little disagreement in the published 
economic literature that real social welfare benefits can result from 
the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species 
(Bishop 1978, 1980; Brookshire and Eubanks 1983; Boyle and Bishop 1986; 
Hageman 1985; Samples et al. 1986; Stoll and Johnson 1984). Such 
benefits have also been ascribed to preservation of open space and 
biodiversity (see examples in Pearce and Moran (1994) and Fausold and 
Lilieholm (1999)), both of which are associated with species 
conservation. Likewise, a regional economy can benefit from the 
preservation of healthy populations of endangered and threatened 
species, and the habitat on which these species depend.
    Chapter VI, Section 6 of the DEA discusses potential benefits, both 
direct and indirect, that can result from the proposed designation. The 
DEA notes that the proposed designation can create ecological and 
cultural benefits such as the ones mentioned in the above comment--
e.g., ethnobotanical value of plants to the Native Hawaiians and social 
welfare benefits of ecological improvements. However, the DEA also 
indicates that these benefits are not quantified due to lack of 
information available on: (1) Quantified data on the value of the Maui 
and Kahoolawe species, and (2) quantified data on the change in the 
quality of the ecosystem and the species as a result of the 
designation. The DEA, however, does not conclude that the benefits are 
exceeded by the costs. Instead, it discusses the benefits that could 
result from critical habitat designation in qualitative terms.
    While section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act stipulates that listing 
determinations must be made solely on the basis of biological evidence, 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which calls for the establishment of 
critical habitat for all listed species if it is prudent and 
determinable, adds that the Secretary should take into consideration 
the economic impact of the designation and any other relevant impacts 
before specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Hence, an 
economic analysis is part of the process of designating critical 
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides the Secretary with broad 
discretion to take into consideration the economic impacts of any 
proposed critical habitat designation and exclude areas where she finds 
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
    The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if she 
determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in 
the extinction of the species concerned (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    Thus, the Secretary is not required to find that the benefits of 
inclusion outweigh the costs of inclusion before designating an area, 
nor is the Secretary required to exclude an area from critical habitat 
if she determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of inclusion. Rather, the Act provides the Secretary with the 
discretion to take economic and other considerations into account when 
designating critical habitat.
    As such, the DEA and the Addendum serve to illustrate possible 
impacts that can result from the designation, whether in the form of 
costs or benefits. However, the DEA and the Addendum are not intended 
to provide a comprehensive analysis of the benefits that could result 
from section 7 of the Act in general, or of critical habitat in 
particular. In short, the Service believes that the benefits of 
critical habitat designation are best expressed in biological terms 
that can be weighed against the expected costs of the rulemaking. The 
DEA and the Addendum simply provide information for the Secretary to 
exercise her discretion, but do not provide definitive conclusions or 
recommendations as to what areas, if any, should be excluded from the 
final designation.
    Finally, although the UH study does value ecosystem services, it 
has limited applicability for valuing the benefits of the proposed 
critical habitat designation for the plants for a number of reasons. 
First, the UH study had a different purpose, which was to estimate the 
total value of environmental benefits provided by the entire Ko'olau 
Mountains on the island of Oahu versus the value of the more limited 
benefits provided by the proposed critical habitat for the plants on 
the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. Consistent with its purpose, the UH 
study provided no estimates of the changes in environmental conditions 
resulting from changes in land and stream management due to critical 
habitat designation.
    Furthermore, many of the assumptions and much of the analysis in 
the UH study are not transferable to the economic analysis for the 
plants' critical habitat. For example, the value of water recharge in 
the UH study reflects projected water supply and demand conditions on 
Oahu--an island \3/4\ of the size of Maui but with a population of 
nearly ten times that of Maui. Also, the UH benefit analysis of 
reducing soil runoff is unique to three valleys that drain through 
partially channelized streams in urban areas into the manmade Ala Wai 
Canal. Since this canal was designed with inadequate flushing from 
stream or ocean currents, it functions as an unintended settling basin 
that must be dredged periodically. In addition, the recreational and 
ecotourism values provided in the UH study apply to areas that are 
accessible to most hikers, which is not the case with significant 
portions of the plants'critical habitat. Significant portions of the 
plants' critical habitat units are in mountainous range with steep 
slopes and difficult access and on coastal cliffs.
    (48) Comment: Critical habitat does not benefit ecotourism by 
creating new special places for people to visit, as the DEA suggests. 
Rather, it helps to protect the special places that already exist from 
degradation, ensuring that they will be around in the future to attract 
future ecotourists. Moreover, the Service's subjective preference that 
commercial operators not feature visits to view threatened and 
endangered plants has no place in an objective economic analysis.
    Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 6.b.(1) of the DEA indicates that 
the proposed critical habitat may enhance the appeal of ecotourism by 
providing a marketing dimension. However, the DEA also states that this 
benefit may be slight since these places may already be regarded as 
special due to the existing natural and cultural resources in the area.
    (49) Comment: The DEA underestimates economic costs because they 
are limited to what is likely to occur within 10 years. Critical 
habitat designation is permanent and not automatically revised if there 
is new evidence of the benefits of

[[Page 25980]]

nondesignation, or if the species is delisted.
    Our Response: A listed species is delisted when it is recovered or 
has become extinct. Recovery is defined as no longer needing the 
protections provided by the Act, which includes critical habitat. As 
such, when a species is delisted, its critical habitat would be 
simultaneously ``undesignated.''
    Furthermore, a 10-year time horizon is used because many landowners 
and managers do not have specific plans for projects beyond 10 years. 
In addition, the forecasts in the analysis of future economic activity 
are based on current socioeconomic trends and the current level of 
technology, both of which are likely to change over the long term.
    (50) Comment: The DEA dismisses concerns about impacts on the use 
of structures and features already in place in areas to be designated 
as critical habitat. The draft concedes that the lack of clarity can 
force landowners to incur costs to investigate the implications of the 
regulations. The estimate that this will only take 15-40 hours is too 
low given the size of the designated areas, the vagueness of the 
regulatory exclusion, and the real costs of obtaining development 
approvals.
    In addition, the DEA's analysis of potential costs expected to be 
incurred by private landowners to investigate the implications of 
critical habitat on their lands is flawed, because the analysis fails 
to recognize that the cost to investigate the implications of CH are 
sunk costs associated with the designation process, not additional 
costs that the final designation would impose.
    Our Response: The DEA recognized that some landowners might spend a 
great deal of time investigating the implications of critical habitat, 
while others might not spend any time. The costs reported in the DEA 
reflect a reasonable estimate of total costs for all landowners, based 
on an estimate of the number of landowners who are likely to 
investigate the implications of critical habitat. The Addendum revised 
this number upwards in response to public comment. However, on further 
reflection, the estimate contained in the DEA better reflects an 
average estimate for all affected landowners for the following reasons. 
The estimate takes into account whether their land is in areas that are 
unsuitable for development due to mountainous terrain and/or being in 
the Conservation District. The analysis also assumes an average cost 
per landowner to investigate the implications of critical habitat. 
Public comment did not offer an alternative estimate of time or costs 
that would support changing the estimate in the DEA. Thus the estimates 
of hours spent and costs incurred remain the same as they appear in the 
DEA.
    (51) Comment: One commenter stated the following: The DEA fails to 
consider the economic impacts of listing and critical habitat that 
result through interaction with State law, specifically Hawaii's 
Endangered Species Act. The commenter suggested that New Mexico Cattle 
Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires 
consideration of the impact of listing as well as the impact of 
designating an area as critical habitat. Instead, the analysis is 
expressly limited to the impact of Federal agency consultation under 
the jeopardy standard. Since Federal listing triggers listing under 
State law, the Service must consider the impact of take prohibitions 
under State law (and consequently Federal law, which prohibits 
destruction of plants in knowing violation of State law). Violations of 
these laws can trigger lawsuits.
    Our Response: The DEA and the Addendum consider the economic 
impacts of section 7 consultations related to critical habitat even if 
they are attributable co-extensively to the listed status of the 
species. In addition, the DEA and the Addendum examine any indirect 
costs of critical habitat designation; however, where it is the listing 
of a species that prompts action at the State or local level, the 
impacts are not attributable to critical habitat designation. Take 
prohibitions under Hawaii law are purely attributable to a listing 
decision and do not occur because of critical habitat designations. 
There are not take prohibitions associated with the plants critical 
habitat.
    (52) Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the designation of 
agricultural lands needed to support agriculture and ranching. They 
stated that critical habitat designation would reduce property values 
and the ability to develop lands that were previously planned for 
development. Approximately 77 percent of the proposed designated land 
is within the State Conservation District, which includes irrigation 
water essential to agriculture. The rest of the lands proposed for 
designation are in the State Agricultural District. Designation of 
agricultural lands could prevent a farmer or rancher from using those 
lands since the very nature of those uses would in all likelihood 
entail cutting, uprooting, or injuring plants to a certain extent. The 
DEA fails to examine the economic impact of a landowner not being able 
to use his own land for fear of injuring a species he doesn't even 
recognize. No protection is afforded to farmers who unwittingly 
``harm'' the designated critical habitat. A careful cost-benefit 
analysis should conclude that agricultural lands should be excluded.
    Our Response: There are no take provisions associated with critical 
habitat. The Act requires only that Federal agencies consult with the 
Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out do 
not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Because consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that 
have Federal involvement, the designation of critical habitat does not 
afford any additional protections for listed species with respect to 
strictly private activities. As such, designation of critical habitat 
on agricultural lands would not prevent a private farmer or rancher 
from farming or ranching on their land, unless the activity had Federal 
involvement, such as through participation in federally sponsored 
agricultural or ranching programs.
    Chapter VI, Section 3.g. of the DEA presents estimates of section 7 
costs associated with participation in federally sponsored agricultural 
or ranching related programs, such as Farm Bill programs administered 
by NRCS. The DEA bases its estimate of two to eight consultations over 
the next 10 years on the amount of Agricultural land contained within 
the proposed designation; number of past projects located within the 
area proposed for designation; and the possibility that some landowners 
could decide not to participate in future programs to avoid Federal 
involvement in their activities.
    The Service reduced the amount of Agricultural land designated from 
29,175 ac (11,806 ha) to 21,670 ac (8,770 ha), a reduction of 25 
percent. The designation contains approximately 10,980 ac (4,443 ha) of 
Agricultural land owned by those most likely to participate in NRCS 
programs. However, the majority of this land, approximately 9,028 
acres, is owned by two landowners who indicated during public comment 
that they will not participate in future NRCS programs if their land 
was designated as critical habitat. Moreover, as noted in the DEA, not 
all of the Agricultural land designated is in active agricultural use. 
Finally, competition for NRCS funding is strong. Based upon the final 
critical habitat designation and the new information, the Addendum 
adjusts the direct section 7 costs accordingly. The Addendum estimates 
that the consultation cost can range from $0 to

[[Page 25981]]

$41,200, with a project modification cost ranging $0 to $100,000.
    Other indirect impacts that could result from the designation of 
critical habitat are discussed in Chapter VI, Section 4 of the DEA and 
Section 5 of the Addendum. First, the critical habitat designation may 
reduce property value of these Agricultural lands. In the worst case 
scenario, one which is not envisioned, reduction in land values due to 
redistricting all Agricultural land to the Conservation District could 
range from $11 million to $110 million. In addition, critical habitat 
could result in the cessation of existing agricultural activities. 
While the likelihood of this being mandated as a result of critical 
habitat designation is low, the estimated costs resulting from stopping 
all ranching activities within the designation ranges form $110,000 to 
$825,000 per year.
    (53) Comment: Many commenters stated that the DEA fails to 
adequately assess the scope of indirect costs associated with critical 
habitat designation. Indirect impacts cannot be dismissed just because 
it is difficult to assign a dollar value to them. Without acknowledging 
the full scope of direct and indirect costs, the Service cannot 
complete an accurate final determination of critical habitat. Another 
commenter also stated that the DEA should be amended to properly 
reflect all economic impacts, including the various indirect impacts, 
which would clearly show that the economic costs of critical habitat 
designation are significantly higher than the benefits.
    Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 4 of the DEA and Section 5 of the 
Addendum discuss various indirect impacts that can result from the 
designation. There is considerable uncertainty on whether any or all of 
these indirect impacts may occur, as they depend upon actions and 
decisions by entities other than the Service under circumstances for 
which there is limited or no history that can be used to determine the 
probability of different outcomes. Thus, based on the available 
information, these impacts were discussed qualitatively in the DEA and 
where possible, estimates were given of worst-case scenarios for 
illustrative purposes.
    (54) Comment: Several commenters stated that critical habitat 
designation has the potential to decrease the amount of available 
hunting lands and game animals. Governmental officials seem to value 
plants and insects more than hunting, which is an important family and 
cultural tradition, a means of subsistence, and a way of life. Members 
of all ethnic groups hunt and depend on subsistence activities as a 
real part of their income. Hunting also contributes to the economy via 
money spent on pet foods, inter-island trips, gasoline, supplies, etc. 
Additionally, DLNR will lose money as the demand for hunting licenses 
and tag fees dwindles. The DEA does not adequately reflect the costs 
associated with management of game mammals and loss of hunting lands. 
Another commenter questioned why a cost was associated with project 
modifications to the management of game hunting on State managed lands 
because Maui does not have any State hunting areas that are managed to 
maintain or enhance game mammal populations. The commenters also 
questioned the methodology used to estimate the project modification 
cost.
    Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 3.a.(2) and Section 4.a. of the 
Addendum discuss the direct economic impact of critical habitat 
designation on federally funded game management activities by 
estimating the direct section 7 costs associated with consultation and 
project modifications. The DEA makes the assumption that the cost of 
past project modifications only incorporates the portions of the 
hunting units that overlap with the occupied proposed critical habitat. 
However, information received during public comment noted that the 
prior consultation already modified the State's proposed game mammal 
program to address potential impacts to habitat everywhere on the 
island, including occupied and unoccupied habitat and areas inside and 
outside of critical habitat designation, based on the understanding 
that increasing game mammal populations in one location where the 
plants are not present may cause those mammals to move to areas where 
the plants are present and cause destruction. Upon further review of 
past consultations and past project modifications, the project 
modification costs are now estimated at $23,000 to $37,000. As noted in 
the DEA, because Maui does not have any State hunting areas that are 
managed to maintain or enhance game mammal populations, project 
modifications are anticipated to be similar to those in the past. They 
are not anticipated to include closure of hunting areas. In addition, 
as noted in the DEA, DLNR is likely to avoid costly project 
modifications by using Federal funds for game management projects that 
do not adversely affect listed species or their critical habitat, and 
if needed use only State funds on projects that the Service believes 
could have adverse impacts.
    Chapter VI, Section 4.b. of the DEA and Section 5.a. of the 
Addendum discuss the potential indirect impact of critical habitat on 
the management of game mammals. The DEA notes that section 7 of the Act 
by itself does not require DLNR to manage State hunting lands to 
protect critical habitat; assure the survival and conservation of 
listed species, or participate in projects to recover species for which 
critical habitat has been established. Moreover, the DEA notes that 
critical habitat designation does not require: (1) Creating any 
reserve, refuge, or wilderness areas; (2) fencing for any reason; (3) 
removing ungulates; or (4) closing areas to hunters. However, the DEA 
recognizes that a change in game-management strategy is possible as a 
result of a lawsuit or as a voluntary decision by DLNR. For 
illustrative purposes, Chapter VI, Section 4.b. of the DEA and Section 
5.a. of the Addendum present potential costs that could result if DLNR 
removed areas within the designation from the State-managed hunting 
units. Assuming that about half of those who hunt game mammals on the 
affected lands were to give up hunting, then hunting activity on Maui 
could drop by about 14.5 percent. This drop in hunting activity would 
translate into a decrease in annual economic activity related to 
hunting on Maui of about $290,000 in direct sales (14.5 percent of $2 
million); $510,000 in total direct and indirect sales (14.5 percent of 
$3.5 million); nine jobs (14.5 percent of 60 jobs); and $170,000 in 
income (14.5 percent of $1.2 million). However, the decrease in 
expenditures by the displaced hunters would probably be spent on other 
recreational activities, goods, and services, so these figures are 
likely to overstate the economic costs. In addition to the change in 
economic activity discussed above, a reduction in hunting activity in 
critical habitat would also result in a loss in value or benefit to 
hunters (consumers' surplus). Section 5.a. of the Addendum estimates 
this loss in value at $150,000 annually and recognizes that benefits 
derived from recreational activities that replace game mammal hunting 
would partially offset this loss.
    (55) Comment: Three parcels (TMK (2) 1-8-001:003, TMK (2) 3-1-
001:004, and TMK (2) 3-1-002:011) should be excluded from designation, 
because the DEA fails to establish that the benefits of including these 
parcels in the designation outweigh the costs of including these 
parcels in the designation.
    Our Response: The Service removed two of the three parcels 
mentioned in the comment--i.e., TMK (2) 3-1-001:004 and TMK (2) 3-1-
002:011 from the proposed designation. The

[[Page 25982]]

remaining parcel--i.e., TMK (2) 1-8-001:003--is approximately 710 acres 
(4 ha) in the Agricultural District, and this would remain within the 
designation. Chapter VI, Section 3.g. of the DEA and Section 4.e. of 
the Addendum discuss activities on Agricultural land and specifically 
recognizes that some of the State managed Agricultural land is leased 
out to private entities as pasturage. However, no direct section 7 
costs involving these leases are anticipated because there is no known 
Federal involvement.
    While section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act stipulates that listing 
determinations must be made solely on the basis of biological evidence, 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which calls for the establishment of 
critical habitat for all listed species if it is prudent and 
determinable, adds that the Secretary should take into consideration 
the economic impact of the designation and any other relevant impacts 
before specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Hence, an 
economic analysis is part of the process of designating critical 
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides the Secretary with broad 
discretion to take into consideration the economic impacts of any 
proposed critical habitat designation and exclude areas where she finds 
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
    The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if she 
determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result 
in the extinction of the species concerned (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    Thus, the Secretary is not required to find that the benefits of 
inclusion outweigh the costs of inclusion before designating an area, 
nor is the Secretary required to exclude an area from critical habitat 
if she determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of inclusion. Rather, the Act provides the Secretary with the 
discretion to take economic consideration into account when designating 
critical habitat.
    As such, the DEA and the Addendum serve to illustrate possible 
impacts that can result from the designation, whether in form of costs 
or benefit. They provide information for the Secretary to exercise her 
discretion, but do not provide definitive conclusions or 
recommendations as to what areas, if any, should be excluded from the 
final designation.
    (56) Comment: While the Service has stated that critical habitat 
affects only activities that require Federal permits or funding, and 
does not require landowners to carry out special management or restrict 
use of their land, they fail to address the breadth of Federal 
activities that affect private property in Hawaii and the extent to 
which private landowners are required to obtain Federal approval before 
they can use their property. These requirements extend to all State 
agencies using Federal funds in connection with a proposed action and 
community actions for which Federal approval or review is necessary. 
For example, if the Federal government approves eligibility for flood 
insurance, flood plain development programs shall become subject to 
consultations under the Act. Federal agencies such as the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture and the Federal Farm Services Agency (FFSA) 
have numerous programs that provide funds or other assistance to 
farmers and ranchers in the form of loans, grants, loan deficiency, and 
subsidy payments for certain commodities, marketing assistance, 
disaster assistance, and other financial, technical, and educational 
assistance. Participation in any such programs would be subject to 
section 7 consultation, thus making Federal assistance unavailable to 
the types of operations that these programs are designed to assist.
    Our Response: The analysis in the DEA, as revised by the Addendum, 
is based on a review of all ``reasonably foreseeable'' projects, land 
uses, and activities that may be directly affected by the 
implementation of section 7 for the plants. ``Reasonably foreseeable'' 
projects, land uses, and activities are defined in the DEA as those 
which are: (1) Currently authorized, permitted, or funded; (2) proposed 
in plans currently available to the public; or (3) projected or likely 
to occur within next 10 years based on (a) recent economic or land-use 
trends, development patterns, evolving technologies, competitive 
advantages, etc., and (b) limits imposed by land-use controls, access, 
terrain, infrastructure and other restrictions on development. After 
determining the ``reasonably foreseeable'' projects, land uses, and 
activities that could affect the physical and biological features of 
the proposed critical habitat units, the next step in the analysis was 
to determine Federal involvement. Thus, the DEA does not evaluate all 
potential activities with Federal nexus; instead, the DEA is limited to 
those activities that were ``reasonably foreseeable.'' The results of 
this analysis are presented in Table VI-3 in the DEA and Table Add-2 in 
the Addendum.
    (57) Comment: Two commenters wrote that lands in Urban, 
Agricultural, and Rural Districts are designated, used, and intended 
for a wide variety of land use activities. These commenters stated that 
there is a much greater likelihood, therefore, that critical habitat 
designation will have an adverse economic impact on these landowners.
    Our Response: None of the critical habitat units are in the Urban 
or Rural District. In fact, 86 percent of the critical habitat 
designation is in Conservation District and 14 percent in Agricultural 
District. As discussed above, designation of the Agricultural lands may 
result in direct section 7 costs through federally sponsored 
agricultural or ranching related programs, such as Farm Bill programs 
administered by NRCS. The DEA bases its estimate of two to eight 
consultations over the next 10 years on the amount of Agricultural land 
contained within the proposed designation, the number of past projects 
located within the area proposed for designation, and the possibility 
that some landowners could decide not to participate in future programs 
to avoid Federal involvement in their activities.
    (58) Comment: Several commenters stated that although the Service 
has expressed that designation of critical habitat does not create a 
reserve, refuge, or wilderness area; require fencing for any reason; 
close off areas to hunters, hikers, or other land users; or create a 
land management plan, many are concerned that critical habitat 
designation could result in limitations or special management 
requirements (such as fencing, removal of grazing animals, or control 
of invasive species) being established on private lands at great 
expense to the private and public. The Service's own recovery plans for 
many of the species in the proposed rule specifically identify cattle 
grazing as a potential threat to the species or their habitats. Many 
feel that it is likely that private party litigation will force the 
implementation of ``special management considerations or protection.'' 
An example of this is the worrisome precedent of Palila v. Hawaii 
Department of Land and Natural Resources in which the Sierra Club Legal 
Defense Fund sued the State of Hawaii under the Endangered Species Act 
and resulted in a Federal court order specifying that sheep and goats 
should be permanently removed from critical habitat designated for 
palila on the Big Island. The argument against this case being relevant 
for the plants critical habitat is not persuasive when it argues that 
palila cases are irrelevant to


[[Continued on page 25983]]


From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]                         
 
[[pp. 25983-26032]] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for 60 Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe, HI

[[Continued from page 25982]]

[[Page 25983]]

Hawaii ESA law because the Federal Act defines ``take'' as ``harm'' 
while the State law defines ``take'' as ``injure.'' ``Harm'' and 
``injure'' are generally synonymous. The cost of such special 
management should be considered prior to a final determination on the 
proposed designations. Where costs are likely to outweigh the benefits 
of the proposed designation, designation of critical habitat should be 
determined not to be prudent, or at a minimum, areas proposed for 
designation should be significantly reduced so that any special 
management measures that may eventually be mandated through litigation 
are of a scale that is reasonable and cost-effective to implement.
    Another commenter expressed concerns that the proposed critical 
habitat would bring private party lawsuits resulting in mandated 
protection for critical habitat. Another commenter also stated that in 
Hawaii it has long been established that landowners own all feral 
animals on their property. The commenter expressed concerns that 
plaintiffs who seek to compel a private landowner to spend money to 
protect critical habitat could argue that the landowner has a positive 
obligation to ensure that such animals do not harm the habitat.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act directs the Secretary 
to designate critical habitat to the ``maximum extent prudent and 
determinable.'' Critical habitat is not prudent when one or both the 
following situations exist: (1) A species is threatened by taking or 
other human activity and identification of critical habitat would 
increase the degree of threat; or (2) designation would not be 
beneficial to the species (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)). Thus the costs of 
designation are not considered in analyzing whether critical habitat is 
prudent. However, such costs are considered under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, which directs the Secretary to take into consideration the 
economic and other impacts of designation and authorizes the Secretary 
to exclude any area if she determines that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designating it as critical habitat, unless it 
will result in extinction of the species.
    The Act does not obligate landowners to manage their land to 
protect critical habitat, nor would landowners and managers be 
obligated under the Act to participate in projects to recover a species 
for which critical habitat has been established. However, Chapter VI, 
Section 4.c. of the DEA does discuss the potential mandate for 
conservation management pursuant to litigation and the resulting costs 
for the proposed designation on Maui. In addition, Chapter VI, Section 
4.f. of the DEA, discusses the potential for adverse impacts on 
development, including delays for additional studies and agency 
reviews, increased costs for environmental studies, increased risk of 
project denials, increased risk of costly mitigation measures, 
increased risk of litigation over approvals, etc. The DEA concludes 
that it is impossible to quantify these potential costs, because there 
are no known development plans within the proposed designation. 
Furthermore, the following factors make future development projects in 
the proposed critical habitat highly unlikely: (1) 86 percent of the 
critical habitat is in Conservation District where development is 
severely limited; (2) the approximately 14 percent of the critical 
habitat in the Agricultural District is in remote areas, areas lined 
with gulches or steep cliffs, or areas with limited access to water; 
(3) there are no known plans for development within the designation; 
and (4) most of the critical habitat in the Special Management Area is 
also within the Conservation District. While it is conceivable that 
there may initially be an increase in subsequent lawsuits related to 
the critical habitat designation, it is not possible to predict their 
number, degree of complexity, chance of success, or any other 
associated effect due to scant historical evidence for the plants.
    (59) Comment: Several commenters were concerned that critical 
habitat designation will lead to unnecessary and costly litigation. 
Another commenter was concerned about the likelihood of private party 
lawsuits limiting current ranch operations.
    Our Response: As discussed in the DEA and the Addendum, an 
undetermined probability exists that a Federal or State court could 
mandate certain indirect impacts as a result of critical habitat. 
However, it is beyond the scope of the economic analysis to assess the 
legal merits of the arguments for or against the various indirect 
impacts, to assess the probability that a lawsuit will be filed, and, 
if filed, to identify possible outcomes of a court decision and the 
associated probabilities. However, whenever possible, the DEA and the 
Addendum present the worst-case scenario of the costs associated with 
the potential outcomes of third party lawsuits.
    (60) Comment: ML&P believes that designation of critical habitat 
would adversely impact the value of agricultural lands and lands 
proposed for future development, reduce the collateralized value of 
land holdings, and (due to State and county law) reduce the ability to 
develop lands previously planned for development. The impacted lands 
include areas described in the proposed units A, C1, C2 and C3.
    Our Response: As discussed above, the Service removed Units C1 and 
C2 and reduced Units A and C3. After this modification, less than one 
acre of ML&P's land in Units A and C3 remains within the designation. 
As such, minimal impacts are anticipated for ML&P's Agricultural land 
in Units A and C3.
    (61) Comment: The Maui County Department of Water Supply provided 
the following information on planned projects occurring in proposed 
units L, G, and B2. These projects include access improvements, intake 
improvements, reservoir design and construction, well construction, 
flume repair and maintenance, water distribution system maintenance, 
and identification of potential sources for future groundwater. Whether 
these or other projects would involve Federal lands, funding, or 
permits, it is important that water treatment plants, sources, and 
collection and distribution systems can continue to be established and 
maintained within these areas where they are needed for hydrogeological 
and security reasons.
    Our Response: Maui County and Department of Water Supply (DWS) 
submitted specific information regarding planned projects in the 
proposed critical habitat during the public comment period. Possible 
and planned projects include water source development in Unit B2, 
construction of a water reservoir adjacent to Unit L, access and intake 
improvements in Unit L, and repair and maintenance of existing flumes 
in Unit L. As noted earlier, the Service removed Unit B2 from the final 
designation. Thus, no section 7 costs would be anticipated to result 
from future DWS projects in that area. Moreover, most of the identified 
DWS projects in Unit L involve repair and maintenance of existing 
manmade features and structures, and as such, would not be subject to 
section 7 consultation. However, to the extent that the planned 
improvements go beyond repair and maintenance and would be subject to 
section 7 consultation due to Federal funding or permitting, the DEA's 
estimate of zero to two consultations reasonably reflects the potential 
number of section 7 consultations over the next 10 years (see Chapter 
VI, Section 3.k. of the DEA). The DEA estimates that the consultations 
can cost up to $68,000 with project modification that can range up to 
$200,000.

[[Page 25984]]

    (62) Comment: Ulupalakua Ranch expressed concerns that the proposed 
critical habitat will: (1) Limit development of diversified 
agricultural operations due to the Ranch's interest in Federal cost 
share programs; (2) cause a loss in revenue; (3) create economic 
hardship resulting from increased expenses to counter trespassing 
caused by increased curiosity over critical habitat lands; and (4) 
lower economic returns and job loss due to critical habitat dividing up 
sections of the ranch, thus leading to inefficiency.
    Our Response: Chapter III of the DEA notes that section 7 of the 
Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure 
that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out do not result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Because 
consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that have 
Federal involvement, the designation of critical habitat does not 
afford any additional protections for listed species with respect to 
strictly private activities.
    Chapter VI, Section 3.g.(2) of the DEA and Section 4.e. of the 
Addendum present estimates of direct section 7 costs associated with 
participation in Federal cost-share programs with NRCS. The Addendum 
estimates that total consultation costs for all projects in the 
critical habitat designation range from $0 to $41,200, while project 
modification costs range from $0 to $100,000. The DEA and the Addendum 
both note that projects sponsored by NRCS programs are generally 
beneficial in nature and are likely to involve minimal project 
modifications. However, the DEA and the Addendum recognize that a 
landowner could decide to forego Federal funding and cancel the 
contract with NRCS to avoid making modifications identified through the 
section 7 consultation process. If Ulupalakua Ranch were to be one of 
the anticipated consultations over the next ten years, and if the 
section 7 consultation process resulted in project modifications that 
would limit the development of diversified agricultural operations, 
then Ulupalakua Ranch could avoid these project modifications by 
foregoing Federal funding, thus removing the Federal involvement. The 
cost of project modifications in that case would be the total amount of 
Federal funding foregone. If no Federal involvement exists, there can 
be no direct section 7 costs associated with critical habitat 
designation on Ulupalakua Ranch lands.
    The remaining three concerns raised above by Ulupalakua Ranch, 
specifically that critical habitat designation will cause loss in 
revenue, create economic hardship resulting from increased expenses to 
counter trespassing caused by increased curiosity over critical habitat 
lands, and lower economic returns and job loss caused by critical 
habitat dividing up sections of the ranch, are concerns about indirect 
impacts of critical habitat designation.
    There is considerable uncertainty about whether any or all of these 
indirect impacts may occur, as they depend upon actions and decisions 
by entities other than the Service under circumstances for which there 
is limited or no history that can be used to determine the probability 
of different outcomes. To the extent possible, the possible costs 
associated with these impacts are discussed in Chapter VI, Section 4 of 
the DEA and Section 5 of the Addendum. However, based on the limited 
information available, it is not possible to determine the probability 
that any of these impacts will actually occur as a result of critical 
habitat designation.
    (63) Comment: The Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) opposes 
the designation of critical habitat on their land in Unit E and H 
because the currently degraded land is slated for development of homes 
for native Hawaiian beneficiaries. DHHL further noted that critical 
habitat designation will cause significant economic harm, because: (1) 
The designation of critical habitat would require hundreds of future 
beneficiaries to conduct an environmental assessment and section 7 
consultation in order to construct homes and prepare ground for 
farming; (2) the identified areas have already been subdivided into 
individual lots and DHHL does not have the authority to retroactively 
impose management plans on individual lessees, meaning that any 
regulatory impact will fall on individual lessees; (3) DHHL's 
homesteading program uses Federal programs to guarantee and insure the 
mortgages of homesteaders; (4) Federal funds may be used construct site 
improvements and homes; and (5) to the extent that the use of these 
programs triggers consultation under section 7, lessees will be subject 
to additional filing requirements, delays in homebuilding, possible 
additional expenditures, and limitations on property use. DHHL supports 
the proposed designations in areas that are not subject to homestead 
development, such as the cliff face found in unit G4.
    Our Response: As discussed earlier, the Service reduced Units E and 
H to exclude certain areas for biological reasons, including DHHL land 
subject to homestead development. As such, possible impacts discussed 
in the comment are not expected.
    (64) Comment: The Service did not adequately address the takings of 
private property as a result of designating critical habitat for 
endangered plants on Maui. If the critical habitat proposal would 
require reducing water diversions from any stream, the Service should 
investigate whether that would take anyone's vested water rights. In 
addition, if the proposed designation of critical habitat precipitates 
conversion of agricultural lands to conservation land that has no 
economically beneficial use, then the Federal and State governments 
will have taken private property. In addition, the government may also 
take property by excessive regulation as was evidenced in Lucas v. 
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
    Our Response: As noted above, none of the plants are stream-
dependent for their survival and therefore would not cause a reduction 
in water diversion. Also, Chapter VI, Section 4.e. of the DEA, the 
Addendum and our response to comment 43 address costs involved in 
redistricting lands proposed for critical habitat designation from the 
Agricultural to the Conservation District. Any redistricting of land to 
Conservation and any corresponding loss of economically beneficial use 
would be decided by the State Land Use Commission, not the Service, 
based on an array of state laws and other factors, including the extent 
to which the proposed reclassification conforms to the applicable 
goals, objectives, and policies of the Hawaii state plan; the extent to 
which the proposed reclassification conforms to the applicable district 
standards; and the impacts of the proposed reclassification on the 
following: preservation or maintenance of important natural systems or 
habitats; maintenance of valued cultural, historical, or natural 
resources; maintenance of other natural resources relevant to Hawaii's 
economy; commitment of state funds and resources; provision for 
employment opportunities and economic development; and provision for 
housing opportunities for all income groups; and the representations 
and commitments made by the petitioner in securing a boundary change.
    (65) Comment: A Federal nexus exists for the non-point source water 
discharge program. If water discharge into critical habitat does not 
meet water quality standards, a permit could be denied. The effect on 
agriculture may be devastating since some run-off from agricultural 
activities is avoidable.
    Our Response: The State Department of Health Polluted Runoff 
Control Program and the State Office of

[[Page 25985]]

Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, work together to address 
nonpoint source pollution through outreach and education and programs 
that utilize incentives. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 
Amendments, Section 6217, the State is required to meet various 
conditions for approval of the State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 
Control Program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To meet 
these conditions, the State Department of Health is developing 
administrative rules to create Statewide enforceable policies and 
mechanisms to address nonpoint source pollution. These draft rules are 
currently the subject of public informational meetings. Public comments 
and suggestions received during these meetings will be considered 
before final rules are drafted and proposed to the Governor.
    At the present time, there is no permit requirement for nonpoint 
source pollution. Moreover, the proposed rules regarding nonpoint 
source pollution make no reference to either water quality standards or 
to critical habitat. Until the State administrative rules are 
finalized, the economic impact caused by the interplay of nonpoint 
source pollution requirements and the designation of critical habitat 
is entirely speculative.
    (66) Comment: The designation of critical habitat will impose 
costly procedural burdens on the Navy's ongoing efforts to clear 
ordnance at Kahoolawe. A careful analysis of the benefits and burdens 
of critical habitat designation may result in a determination that 
critical habitat designation on Kahoolawe is not prudent, especially in 
light of potential prescribed burns for clearing ordnance.
    Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 3.e. of the DEA notes that 
November 2003 marks the end of the Navy's congressionally-mandated 
cleanup period. After that point, Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission 
(KIRC) is likely to seek some form of Federal assistance. In the event 
that KIRC receives Federal funding in the future, the DEA estimates 
section 7 consultation costs at $10,400 to $78,500 including minor 
project modification costs (based on two to five consultations). 
However, as noted above, the Service reduced the designation on 
Kahoolawe for biological reasons, and the number of section 7 
consultations over the next 10 years is expected to decrease to zero to 
three consultations as a result. As such, the Addendum revises future 
section 7 consultation costs to range from $0 to $47,100.
    (67) Comment: Many commenters questioned the utility of critical 
habitat designation because it will not result in on-the-ground 
improvement of habitat or endangered species. Conversely, some 
commenters pointed out that critical habitat will prevent the Federal 
government from carrying out activities that destroy habitat or species 
in need of recovery and that it will benefit the people of Maui by 
preserving native forests, thus preventing erosion that pollutes water 
and smothers reefs.
    Our Response: There is little disagreement in the published 
economic literature that real social welfare benefits can result from 
the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species 
(Bishop 1978, 1980; Brookshire and Eubanks 1983; Boyle and Bishop 1986; 
Hageman 1985, Samples et al. 1986; Stoll and Johnson 1984). Such 
benefits have also been ascribed to preservation of open space and 
biodiversity (see examples in Pearce and Moran (1994) and Fausold and 
Lilieholm (1999)), both of which are associated with species 
conservation. Likewise, a regional economy can benefit from the 
preservation of healthy populations of endangered and threatened 
species, and the habitat on which these species depend.
    It is not feasible, however, to fully describe and accurately 
quantify these benefits in the specific context of the proposed 
critical habitat for the plants, because no quantified data on the 
value of the Maui and Kahoolawe species exists, and the Service is 
unable to provide specific data on the change in the quality of the 
ecosystem and the species as a result of the designation (for example, 
how many fewer ungulates will roam into the critical habitat, how many 
fewer invasive plants will be introduced as a result, and therefore how 
many more of the plants will be present in the area). The discussion 
presented in the DEA and in the Addendum provides examples of potential 
benefits, which derive primarily from the listing of the species, based 
on information obtained in the course of developing the economic 
analysis. It is not intended to provide a complete analysis of the 
benefits that could result from section 7 of the Act in general, or of 
critical habitat designation in particular. In short, the Service 
believes that the benefits of critical habitat designation are best 
expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the expected 
cost impacts of the rulemaking.
    (68) Comment: The State Department of Land and Natural Resources, 
Land Division, requests that 15 tax map parcels be excluded from 
critical habitat because they: (1) Are currently being leased for 
activities that could be adversely affected by the designation (e.g., 
agricultural leases); (2) have been identified as parcels with possible 
lease or development potential; (3) could suffer a significant loss in 
value; or (4) include water sources of water systems.
    Our Response: As noted earlier, the Service modified the critical 
habitat designation for biological reasons, and as a result of the 
changes, five of the 15 parcels were no longer within the designation. 
The ten parcels remaining in the designation are located in Units A, 
G1, G3, H, I1, I2, I3, I4, K, and L. These ten parcels overlap with the 
designation in the amount of approximately 7,015 ac (2,839 ha). 
Approximately 90 percent (6,305 ac (2,552 ha)) is within the 
Conservation District. The other 10 percent (710 ac (287 ha)) is within 
the Agricultural District.
    Chapter VI, Section 3.g. of the DEA and Section 4.e. of the 
Addendum discuss activities on Agricultural land and specifically 
recognize that some of the State managed Agricultural land is leased 
out to private entities as pasturage. DLNR-Land Division specifically 
identified three parcels within the proposed critical habitat 
designation that are leased for pasture purpose. Two of these parcels 
are no longer within the designation. The third parcel, approximately 
710 ac (287 ha) in the Agricultural District, remains within the 
designation. No direct section 7 costs involving these leases are 
anticipated because there is no known Federal involvement.
    Indirect costs, specifically the possibility of restrictions on the 
State's ability to lease the land caused by the interplay between 
critical habitat designation and State law, are discussed in Section 
5.b. of the Addendum. As noted in Section 5.b., the likelihood of a 
future lawsuit interfering with existing agricultural activity within 
the designated critical habitat is considered low, based upon review of 
the existing Federal and State law provisions and professional 
judgment. However, for illustration purposes, an estimate of the 
potential impact is $7,100 per year utilizing the land rents of $10 per 
acre per year (as used in the DEA) since DLNR did not provide any 
additional information regarding the value of the affected leases.
    Of the remaining ten parcels, DLNR did not identify which have 
possible lease or development potential, could suffer a significant 
loss in value, or include water sources for water systems. As noted 
above, the portions of these

[[Page 25986]]

parcels that overlap with the designation are all located within the 
Conservation District, where development is severely limited. Without 
more information from DLNR, it is difficult to evaluate how these 
parcels could suffer a significant loss in value as these parcels are 
already subject to the restrictions of the Conservation District. 
Finally, no costs are expected to occur from impacts to water systems, 
because none of the plants are stream-dependent for their survival and 
therefore would not cause a reduction in water diversion. In addition, 
water infrastructure is considered a manmade feature and therefore its 
operation and maintenance are not subject to critical habitat 
provisions of section 7, because these features and structures normally 
do not contain, and are not likely to develop, any primary constituent 
elements.

Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule

    Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed 
determinations of critical habitat, we have reevaluated our proposed 
designations and included several changes to the final designations of 
critical habitat. These changes include the following:
    (1) We published 139 critical habitat units for 60 plant species on 
the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe.
    (2) The scientific names were changed for the following non-listed 
associated plant species found in the ``Supplementary Information: 
Discussion of the Plant Taxa'' section: Thelypteris cyatheoides changed 
to Christella cyatheoides (Palmer in press) in the discussions of 
Cyanea glabra, Phlegmariurus mannii, and Pteris lydgatei; Lipochaeta 
lavarum changed to Melanthera lavarum (Wagner and Robinson 2001) in the 
discussion of Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Hedyotis coriacea, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis; Styphelia tameiameiae 
changed to Leptecophylla tameiameiae (Weiller 1999) in the discussion 
of Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, 
Diellia erecta, Lysimachia lydgatei, Melicope adscendens, Neraudia 
sericea, Phlegmariurus mannii, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Remyi mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, and Schiedea 
haleakalensis; Lipochaeta integrifolia changed to Melanthera 
integrifolia (Wagner and Robinson 2001) in the discussion of Centaurium 
sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa; Pluchea symphytifolia changed to 
Pluchea carolinensis (Wagner and Herbst 1995) in the discussions of 
Cyrtandra munroi; Lycopodium cernuum changed to Lycopodiella cernua ( 
Palmer 2003) in the discussions of Platanthera holochila; Morelotia 
gahniiformis changed to Gahnia gahniiformis in the discussions of 
Platanthera holochila; and Sphenomeris chusana changed to Sphenomeris 
chinensis in the discussion of Pteris lydgatei.
    (3) We replaced the specific name of the associated native plant 
species, Hibiscus arnottianus (which is not reported to occur on Maui), 
with ``Hibiscus spp.'' in the discussion of Gouania vitifolia in the 
``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant Taxa'' and section 
17.96.
    (4) We removed the following species from the ``Supplementary 
Information: Discussion of the Plant Taxa,'' as they are not reported 
to occur on Maui: Chloris barbata was removed from the list of 
associated native plant species for Kanaloa kahoolawensis; Andropogon 
virginicus was removed from the list of associated native plant species 
for Melicope balloui; and Pennisetum setaceum was removed from the list 
of associated native plant species for Colubrina oppositifolia.
    (5) For clarity regarding the number of location occurrences for 
each species (which do not necessarily represent viable populations) 
and the number of populations essential for the conservation of a 
species (e.g., 8 to 10 populations with 100, 300, or 500 reproducing 
individuals), we changed the word ``population'' to ``occurrence'' and 
updated the number of occurrences in the ``Supplementary Information: 
Discussion of the Plant Taxa'' section and in ``Table 2.--Summary of 
existing occurrences and land ownership for 70 species reported from 
Maui and Kahoolawe'' for the species listed below. In this final 
critical habitat rule, we have used ``occurrence'' when reporting 
collections or observations of one or more plants in a specific 
location. We have used ``population'' when discussing conservation 
goals for the Maui and Kahoolawe plants. We made the following changes 
for these species: Alectryon macrococcus changed from seven populations 
to 13 occurrences; Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum changed 
from four populations to seven occurrences; Asplenium fragile var. 
insulare changed from one population to two occurrences; Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha changed from three populations to four 
occurrences; Bonamia menziesii changed from four populations to six 
occurrences; Cenchrus agrimonioides changed from two populations to one 
occurrence; Clermontia samuelii changed from four populations to seven 
occurrences; Colubrina oppositifolia changed from two populations to 
one occurrence; Ctenitis squamigera changed from six populations to 12 
occurrences; Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis changed from three 
populations to five occurrences; Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora 
changed from seven populations to nine occurrences; Cyanea lobata 
changed from four populations to five occurrences; Cyanea mceldowneyi 
changed from six populations to 11 occurrences; Cyrtandra munroi 
changed from four populations to five occurrences; Dubautia plantaginea 
ssp. humilis changed from one population to two occurrences; Flueggea 
neowawraea changed from three populations to four occurrences; Geranium 
arboreum changed from seven populations to 12 occurrences; Geranium 
multiflorum changed from eight populations to 13 occurrences; 
Hesperomannia arborescens changed from two populations to four 
occurrences; Hesperomannia arbuscula changed from two populations to 
eight occurrences; Mariscus pennatiformis changed from one population 
to two occurrences; Melicope adscendens changed from two populations to 
16 occurrences; Melicope balloui changed from two populations to three 
occurrences; Melicope knudsenii changed from one population to four 
occurrences; Melicope ovalis changed from one population to two 
occurrences; Neraudia sericea changed from three populations to five 
occurrences; Plantago princeps changed from five populations to eight 
occurrences; Platanthera holochila changed from three populations to 
five occurrences; Remya mauiensis changed from three populations to 
five occurrences; Sanicula purpurea changed from five populations to 
seven occurrences; Sesbania tomentosa changed from eight populations to 
six occurrences; Spermolepis hawaiiensis changed from four populations 
to five occurrences; Tetramolopium capillare changed from four 
populations to five occurrences; Tetramolopium remyi changed from zero 
populations to one occurrence; Vigna o-wahuensis changed from four 
populations to two occurrences; and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense changed from 
four populations to nine occurrences.
    (6) We changed ``flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents'' to ``reproduction cycles, dispersal agents'' in the 
life history portion of the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of 
the Plant

[[Page 25987]]

Taxa'' section for the fern or fern ally species, Asplenium fragile 
var. insulare, Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Phlegmariurus mannii, and Pteris lydgatei.
    (7) We revised the list of excluded, manmade features in the 
``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' and section 17.96 to 
include additional features based on information received during the 
public comment periods.
    (8) We refined the elevation ranges for Alectryon macrococcus, 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. 
insulare, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, 
Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea 
ssp. humilis, Flueggea neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, Geranium 
multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hesperomannia 
arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Mariscus pennatiformis, Melicope 
adscendens, Melicope balloui, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia mannii, 
Phyllostegia mollis, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris 
lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Tetramolopium capillare, Tetramolopium remyi, and Vigna o-wahuensis.
    (9) We corrected the typographic error in the acreage published for 
the revised proposed rule of critical habitat on Kahoolawe from 713 ha 
(1,762 ac) to 7,683 ha (18,984 ac).
    (10) We made revisions to the unit boundaries based on information 
supplied by commenters, as well as information gained from field visits 
to some of the sites, that indicated that the primary constituent 
elements were not present in certain portions of the proposed unit, 
that certain changes in land use had occurred on lands within the 
proposed critical habitat that would preclude those areas from 
supporting the primary constituent elements, or that the areas were not 
essential to the conservation of the species in question. In addition, 
areas were excluded based on weighing the benefits of inclusion versus 
exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Economic 
Analysis'').
    (11) In the draft rule, we proposed that TNCH's Kapunakea and 
Waikamoi Preserves and the State's upper Hanawi NAR not be included as 
critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act, because they 
are not in need of special management or protection. The reasons for 
this were discussed in detail in the proposed rule. In this final rule 
we have determined that they should also be excluded under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, because we have determined that the benefits of 
exclusion exceed the benefits of inclusion due to the positive and 
voluntary conservation efforts underway there (see discussion under 
Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)).
    A brief summary of the modifications made to each unit is given 
below (see also Figure 1).

[[Page 25988]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.000

Maui A

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 16 species: 
Alectryon macrococcus; Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis; 
Colubrina oppositifolia; Ctenitis squamigera; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea 
lobata; Cyrtandra munroi; Gouania vitifolia; Hedyotis mannii; 
Hesperomannia arbuscula; Phlegmariurus mannii; Platanthera holochila; 
Plantago princeps; Pteris lydgatei; Remya mauiensis; and Sanicula 
purpurea. We excluded the proposed critical habitat on ML&P lands 
because the benefits of excluding them outweighed the benefits of 
inclusion (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other 
Impacts''). Proposed critical habitat in Maui A for Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Plantago princeps, and Pteris lydgatei, all multi-island 
species, was excluded. This area is not essential to the conservation 
of these three species because it has a lower proportion of associated 
native species and more nonnative species than other areas we consider 
to be essential to the conservation of these three species. In 
addition, there are at least eight other locations for each of these 
species within their historical ranges on Maui and other islands which 
provide habitat essential for their conservation and which are either 
designated as critical habitat in this final rule or have been 
designated or proposed for designation in other rules.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species, Remya mauiensis, provides habitat within its historical range 
for two populations. The area designated as critical habitat for the 
following multi-island species provides habitat for two populations of 
Alectryon macrococcus; three populations each of Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, and Cyanea glabra; 
two populations of Cyanea lobata; four populations of Cyrtandra munroi; 
one population of Gouania vitifolia; two populations each of Hedyotis 
mannii and Hesperomannia arbuscula; one population each of 
Phlegmariurus mannii and Platanthera holochila; and three populations 
of Sanicula purpurea within their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 3,884 ha (9,598 
ac) to 1,632 ha (4,033 ac). This unit was renamed Maui 17--Alectryon 
macrococcus--d, 17--Alectryon macrococcus--e, 17--Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis--a, 17--Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.

[[Page 25989]]

mauiensis--c, 17--Ctenitis squamigera--b, 17--Ctenitis squamigera--c, 
17--Cyanea glabra--e, 17--Cyanea glabra--f, 17--Cyanea lobata--a, 17--
Cyrtandra munroi--a, 17--Cyrtandra munroi--b, 17--Gouania vitifolia--a, 
17--Hedyotis mannii--a, 17--Hesperomannia arbuscula--a, 17--
Phlegmariurus mannii--d, 17--Platanthera holochila--c, 17--Remya 
mauiensis--b, 17--Remya mauiensis--c, 17--Sanicula purpurea--b, 18--
Alectryon macrococcus--f, 18--Ctenitis squamigera--d, and 18--Remya 
mauiensis--d.

Maui B

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 11 species: 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis; Ctenitis squamigera; Cyanea 
lobata; Cyrtandra munroi; Diplazium molokaiense; Hesperomannia 
arborescens; Phlegmariurus mannii; Platanthera holochila; Plantago 
princeps; Pteris lydgatei; and Sanicula purpurea. We excluded the 
proposed critical habitat on ML&P lands because the benefits of 
excluding them outweighed the benefits of inclusion (see ``Analysis of 
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other Impacts''). As a result, no 
critical habitat was designated for Hesperomannia arborescens, a multi-
island species, on Maui because all of the habitat proposed for this 
species is within these lands. However, we have proposed (67 FR 37108) 
and designated (68 FR 12981) critical habitat on other islands within 
its historical range. We excluded the proposed critical habitat for the 
multi-island species Ctenitis squamigera and Platanthera holochila in 
Maui B. Areas proposed for these two species were excluded because they 
are not essential to the conservation of these two species. We are 
designating adequate and more appropriate habitat elsewhere on Maui for 
these two species in this final rule and have designated or proposed 
for designation habitat on other islands within their historical 
ranges. There is a lower likelihood that the biological features 
essential to these species will persist there because these areas have 
a low likelihood of being managed by the landowner for conservation. In 
addition, there are at least eight other locations for each of these 
species within their historical ranges on Maui and other islands.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island 
species provides habitat within historical range for six populations of 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis; three populations each of 
Cyanea lobata, Cyrtandra munroi, and Diplazium molokaiense; one 
population each of Phlegmariurus mannii and Plantago princeps; two 
populations of Pteris lidgatei; and four populations of Sanicula 
purpurea.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 4,736 ha (11,701 
ac) to 1,760 ha (4,349 ac). This unit was renamed 17--Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis--b, 17--Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis--c, 17--Cyanea lobata--c, 17--Cyrtandra munroi--c, 17--
Diplazium molokaiense--c, 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--d, 17--Plantago 
princeps--b, 17--Pteris lidgatei--a, 17--Sanicula purpurea--a, 17--
Sanicula purpurea--b, and 17--Sanicula purpurea--c.

Maui C

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species: 
Brighamia rockii; Centaurium sebaeoides; and Sesbania tomentosa. 
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not 
contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
    The area designated as critical habitat for these multi-island 
species provides habitat within their historical ranges for two 
populations of Brighamia rockii and one population each of Centaurium 
sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 356 ha (880 ac) 
to 110 ha (270 ac). This unit was renamed 2--Brighamia rockii--a, 2--
Brighamia rockii--b, 2--Centaurium sebaeoides--b, and 1--Sesbania 
tomentosa--a.

Maui D

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 28 species: Cenchrus 
agrimonioides; Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis; Ctenitis 
squamigera; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana; Cyanea 
lobata; Cyrtandra munroi; Diellia erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; 
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis; Gouania vitifolia; Hedyotis 
coriacea; Hedyotis mannii; Hesperomannia arbuscula; Hibiscus 
brackenridgei; Isodendrion pyrifolium; Lysimachia lydgatei; Neraudia 
sericea; Peucedanum sandwicense; Phlegmariurus mannii; Plantago 
princeps; Platanthera holochila; Pteris lydgatei; Remya mauiensis; 
Sanicula purpurea; Spermolepis hawaiiensis; Tetramolopium capillare; 
and Tetramolopium remyi. We excluded the proposed critical habitat in 
Maui D for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyrtandra munroi, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Tetramolopium capillare, and 
Tetramolopium remyi. Areas proposed for these six species were excluded 
because they are not essential to the conservation of these species. 
There is a lower likelihood that the biological features essential to 
these species will persist there because they have a lower proportion 
of associated native species than other areas we consider to be 
essential to the conservation of these six species and they have a low 
likelihood of being managed for conservation. In addition, there are at 
least eight other locations for each of these species designated 
elsewhere on Maui and proposed or designated on other islands within 
their historical ranges.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species provides habitat for six populations of Dubautia plantaginea 
ssp. humilis and four populations of Remya mauiensis within their 
historical ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for the 
multi-island species provides habitat for one population of Cenchrus 
agrimonioides; two populations of Ctenitis squamigera; four populations 
of Cyanea glabra; two populations each of Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, and Diellia erecta; three populations of 
Diplazium molokaiense; one population of Gouania vitifolia; two 
populations each of Hedyotis coriacea and Hedyotis mannii; five 
populations of Hesperomannia arbuscula; three populations of Hibiscus 
brackenridgei; eight populations of Lysimachia lydgatei; one population 
each of Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, Plantago 
princeps, Platanthera holochila, and Pteris lidgatei; three populations 
of Sanicula purpurea; and one population of Spermolepis hawaiiensis 
within their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 7,162 ha (17,698 
ac) to 6,358 ha (15,709 ac). This unit was renamed 17--Cenchrus 
agrimonioides--b, 17--Ctenitis squamigera--a, 17--Cyanea glabra--d, 
17--Cyanea glabra--e, 17--Cyanea glabra--g, 17--Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana--a, 17--Cyanea lobata--b, 17--Diellia erecta--c, 17--Diellia 
erecta--d, 17--Diellia erecta--e, 17--Diellia erecta--f, 17--Diplazium 
molokaiense--c, 17--Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis--a, 17--Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis--b, 17--Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis--c, 
17--Gouania vitifolia--a, 17--Hedyotis coriacea--a, 17--Hedyotis 
coriacea--b, 17--Hedyotis mannii--a, 17--Hesperomannia arbuscula--a, 
17--Hesperomannia arbuscula--b, 17--Hibiscus brackenridgei--b, 17--
Lysimachia lydgatei--a, 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--b, 17--Lysimachia 
lydgatei--c, 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--d, 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--e, 
17--Peucedanum sandwicense--b, 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--e, 17--
Plantago

[[Page 25990]]

princeps--b, 17--Platanthera holochila--b, 17--Pteris lidgatei--b, 17--
Remya mauiensis--a, 17--Remya mauiensis--b, 17--Sanicula purpurea--b, 
17--Spermolepis hawaiiensis--b, and 16--Hibiscus brackenridgei--a.

Maui E

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two multi-island 
species, Bonamia menziesii and Hibiscus brackenridgei. The entire unit 
is eliminated from the final rule. There is a lower likelihood that the 
biological features essential to these species will persist there 
because the area has a low likelihood of being managed for conservation 
and there are 10 other locations that have been designated or proposed 
to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their 
historical ranges on this and other islands. There is also habitat 
designated elsewhere on Maui for Bonamia menziesii and Hibiscus 
brackenridgei. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Bonamia 
menziesii and Hibiscus brackenridgei resulted in the overall reduction 
of 14,101 ha (34,843 ac) of critical habitat on Maui.

Maui F

    No changes were made to Maui F. The area designated as critical 
habitat for the multi-island species Vigna o-wahuensis provides habitat 
within its historical range for one population. This unit remains 144 
ha (357 ac) but was renamed 12--Vigna o-wahuensis--a.

Maui G

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for four species: 
Brighamia rockii; Ischaemum byrone; Mariscus pennatiformis; and 
Peucedanum sandwicense. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude 
areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for these 
species. The portion excluded was not essential to the conservation of 
these four species because it has a lower proportion of associated 
native species than other areas we consider to be essential to the 
conservation of these four species, it has a low likelihood of being 
managed for conservation (Buck, in litt. 2002), and there are at least 
eight other locations that have been designated or proposed to meet the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their historical ranges 
on this and other islands.
    The area designated as critical habitat for these multi-island 
species provides habitat for one population of Brighamia rockii, two 
populations each of Ischaemum byrone and Mariscus pennatiformis, and 
one population of Peucedanum sandwicense within their historical 
ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 83 ha (185 ac) 
to 52 ha (128 ac). This unit was renamed 3--Brighamia rockii--c, 4--
Brighamia rockii--d, 5--Brighamia rockii--e, 5--Ischaemum byrone--a, 
7--Ischaemum byrone--b, 5-- Mariscus pennatiformis--a, and 4--
Peucedanum sandwicense--a.

Maui H

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 25 species: 
Alectryon macrococcus; Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum; 
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha; Bonamia menziesii; Cenchrus 
agrimonioides; Clermontia lindseyana; Colubrina oppositifolia; Diellia 
erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; Flueggea neowawraea; Geranium arboreum; 
Geranium multiflorum; Lipochaeta kamolensis; Melicope adscendens; 
Melicope knudsenii; Melicope mucronulata; Neraudia sericea; 
Nototrichium humile; Phlegmariurus mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; 
Plantago princeps; Sesbania tomentosa; Schiedea haleakalensis; 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis; and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. We excluded the 
proposed critical habitat on Ulupalakua and Haleakala Ranch lands 
because the benefits of excluding these lands outweighed the benefits 
of including them in critical habitat (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 
Section 4(b)(2)''). We excluded the proposed critical habitat for the 
Maui endemics Geranium arboreum and Schiedea haleakalensis, and the 
multi-island species Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. Areas proposed for these 
three species were excluded because we have proposed adequate and more 
appropriate habitat elsewhere on Maui and, for Z. hawaiiense, on other 
islands within its historical ranges. The portion excluded was not 
essential to the conservation of these three species because it has a 
lower proportion of associated native species than other areas we 
consider to be essential to the conservation of these three species, it 
has a low likelihood of being managed for conservation (Urdman in 
litt., 2002; Silva in litt., 2002), and there are at least eight other 
locations that have been designated or proposed to meet the recovery 
goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their historical ranges on this 
and other islands. There is habitat designated elsewhere on Maui for 
Geranium arboreum, Schiedea haleakalensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species provides habitat for one population each of Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum and Geranium multiflorum, four 
populations of Lipochaeta kamolensis, and one population of Melicope 
adscendens within their historical ranges. The area designated as 
critical habitat for the multi-island species provides habitat for two 
populations of Alectryon macrococcus; four populations of Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha; one population each of Bonamia menziesii and 
Cenchrus agrimonioides; two populations of Clermontia lindseyana; one 
population each of Colubrina oppositifolia, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, and Flueggea neowawraea; two populations each of Melicope 
knudsenii and Melicope mucronulata; three populations of Neraudia 
sericea; two populations of Nototrichium humile; one population of 
Phlegmariurus mannii; two populations of Phyllostegia mollis; and one 
population each of Plantago princeps, Sesbania tomentosa, and 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis within their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 14,101 ha 
(34,843 ac) to 9,823 ha (24,270 ac). This unit was renamed 9--
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a, 9--Bidens micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha--b, 9--Clermontia lindseyana--a, 9--Clermontia 
lindseyana--b, 9--Diellia erecta--b, 9--Diplazium molokaiense--b, 9--
Flueggea neowawraea--a, 9--Geranium multiflorum--c, 9--Lipochaeta 
kamolensis--a, 9--Melicope knudsenii--a, 9--Melicope mucronulata--a, 
9--Neraudia sericea--a, 9--Nototrichium humile--a, 9--Phlegmariurus 
mannii--b, 9--Phyllostegia mollis--b, 9--Plantago princeps--a, 10--
Alectryon macrococcus--b, 11--Lipochaeta kamolensis--b, 13--Alectryon 
macrococcus--c, 13--Bonamia menziesii--a, 13--Cenchrus agrimonioides--
a, 13--Colubrina oppositifolia--a, 13--Flueggea neowawraea--b, 13--
Melicope adscendens--a, 13--Melicope knudsenii--b, 13--Melicope 
mucronulata--b, 13--Sesbania tomentosa--b, and 13--Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis--a.

Maui I

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 11 species: 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum; Asplenium fragile var. 
insulare; Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha; Clermontia lindseyana; 
Diellia erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; Geranium arboreum; Geranium 
multiflorum; Phlegmariurus mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; and

[[Page 25991]]

Plantago princeps. We excluded the proposed critical habitat on 
Haleakala Ranch lands because the benefits of excluding these lands 
outweighed the benefits of including them in critical habitat (see 
4(b)(2) exclusion section). We excluded the proposed critical habitat 
for the Maui endemic Geranium arboreum and the multi-island species 
Diplazium molokaiense, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, and 
Plantago princeps. The portion excluded was not essential to the 
conservation of these five species because it has a lower proportion of 
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential 
to the conservation of these five species. There is a lower likelihood 
that the biological features essential to these species will persist 
there because it has a low likelihood of being managed for conservation 
(Silva in litt., 2002). There is habitat designated elsewhere on Maui 
for Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, Phlegmariurus mannii, 
Phyllostegia mollis, and Plantago princeps.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species provides habitat for one population of Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, three populations of Geranium arboreum, 
and six populations of Geranium multiflorum within their historical 
ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island 
species provides habitat for two populations of Asplenium fragile var. 
insulare, four populations of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, and one 
population each of Clermontia lindseyana and Diellia erecta within 
their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 3,491 ha (8,625 
ac) to 2,961 ha (7,383 ac). This unit was renamed 9--Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a, 9--Asplenium fragile var. insulare--
a, 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--b, 9--Clermontia lindseyana--b, 
9--Diellia erecta--a, 9--Geranium multiflorum--b, 14--Geranium 
arboreum--b, and 15--Geranium arboreum--c.

Maui J

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for eight species: 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum; Asplenium fragile var. 
insulare; Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha; Clermontia samuelii; 
Geranium multiflorum; Plantago princeps; Platanthera holochila; and 
Schiedea haleakalensis. We excluded the proposed critical habitat for 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Geranium multiflorum, and 
Platanthera holochila in Maui J. This area is not essential to the 
conservation of these three species because it has a lower proportion 
of associated native species than other areas we consider to be 
essential to the conservation of these three species. For the Maui 
endemic Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, the recovery goal 
is one population with more than 50,000 individuals. We are designating 
habitat essential for the conservation of this species in Maui unit 9. 
There are at least eight other locations on Maui which provide habitat 
for the endemic species Geranium multiflorum that are being designated 
as critical habitat. There are at least eight other locations in its 
historical range on Maui and other islands that provide habitat for the 
multi-island species Platanthera holochila that are being designated as 
critical habitat, have been designated as critical habitat, or have 
been proposed for designation.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species Schiedea haleakalensis provides habitat within its historical 
range for four populations. The area designated as critical habitat for 
the multi-island species provides habitat for two populations of 
Asplenium fragile var. insulare, three populations of Bidens micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha, five populations of Clermontia samuelii, and one 
population of Plantago princeps within their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,790 ha (14,308 
ac) to 5,785 ha (14,295 ac). This unit was renamed 9--Asplenium fragile 
var. insulare--a, 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--a, 9--Clermontia 
samuelii--a, 9--Plantago princeps--a, 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--a, and 
9--Schiedea haleakalensis--b.

Maui K

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 11 species: 
Alectryon macrococcus; Clermontia samuelii; Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora; 
Geranium multiflorum; Melicope balloui; Melicope ovalis; Phlegmariurus 
mannii; Plantago princeps; and Platanthera holochila. We excluded the 
proposed critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus, Clermontia 
samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea hamatiflora 
ssp. hamatiflora, and Plantago princeps. This area is not essential to 
the conservation of these five species because it has a lower 
proportion of associated native species than other areas we consider to 
be essential to the conservation of these five species, and there are 
at least eight other locations that have been designated or proposed to 
meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their 
historical ranges on this and other islands.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species provides habitat for six populations of Geranium multiflorum, 
two populations of Melicope balloui, and three populations of Melicope 
ovalis within their historical ranges. The area designated as critical 
habitat for the multi-island species provides habitat for five 
populations of Clermontia samuelii, three populations each of Cyanea 
glabra and Phlegmariurus mannii, and one population of Platanthera 
holochila within their historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,464 ha (13,502 
ac) to 5,458 ha (13,487 ac). This unit was renamed 9--Clermontia 
samuelii--a, 9--Cyanea glabra--b, 9--Cyanea glabra--c, 9--Geranium 
multiflorum--b, 9--Melicope balloui--b, 9--Melicope ovalis--a, 9--
Phlegmariurus mannii--c, and 9--Platanthera holochila--a.

Maui L

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 16 species: 
Alectryon macrococcus; Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum; 
Asplenium fragile var. insulare; Clermontia samuelii; Cyanea copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora; Cyanea mceldowneyi; Diplazium molokaiense; Geranium 
multiflorum; Melicope balloui; Phlegmariurus mannii; Phyllostegia 
mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; Platanthera holochila; and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense. We excluded the proposed critical habitat for the Maui 
endemic Cyanea mceldowneyi, and the multi-island species Alectryon 
macrococcus and Asplenium fragile var. insulare. The portion excluded 
has a lower likelihood that the biological features essential to these 
species will persist because it has a low likelihood of being managed 
for conservation. In addition, there are at least eight other locations 
that have been designated or proposed to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 
10 populations throughout their historical ranges on this and other 
islands.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the Maui endemic 
species provides habitat for one population of Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, three populations of Cyanea copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis and Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, seven 
populations of Geranium multiflorum, and one

[[Page 25992]]

population of Melicope balloui within their historical ranges. The area 
designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species provides 
habitat for five populations of Clermontia samuelii; two populations 
each of Cyanea glabra, Diplazium molokaiense, Phlegmariurus mannii, and 
Phyllostegia mannii; and one population each of Phyllostegia mollis, 
Platanthera holochila, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense within their 
historical ranges.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 4,612 ha (11,396 
ac) to 3,608 ha (8,916 ac). This unit was renamed 8--Cyanea copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis--a, 8--Cyanea glabra--a, 8--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora--a, 8--Diplazium molokaiense--a, 8--Geranium multiflorum--
a, 8--Melicope balloui--a, 8--Phlegmariurus mannii--a, 8--Phyllostegia 
mannii--a, 8--Phyllostegia mollis--a, 8--Zanthoxylum hawaiiense--a, 9--
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a, 9--Clermontia 
samuelii--a, 9--Geranium multiflorum--b, and 9--Platanthera holochila--
a.

Maui M

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for Spermolepis 
hawaiiense. The entire area proposed for this species is eliminated 
from this final rule. There is a lower likelihood that the biological 
features essential to these species will persist there because it has a 
low likelihood of being managed for conservation (Buck, in litt. 2002) 
and it has a lower proportion of associated native species than other 
areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of this species. 
In addition, there are 10 other locations that have been designated or 
proposed to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout 
their historical ranges on this and other islands. There is habitat 
designated elsewhere on Maui for Spermolepis hawaiiense.

Kahoolawe A

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for four species: 
Hibiscus brackenridgei; Kanaloa kahoolawensis; Sesbania tomentosa; and 
Vigna o-wahuensis. We excluded the proposed critical habitat for 
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Sesbania tomentosa, and Vigna o-wahuensis. 
There is a lower likelhood that the biological features essential to 
these species will persist there because it has a low likelihood of 
being managed for conservation (KIRC, in litt. 2002) and it has a lower 
proportion of associated native species than other areas we consider to 
be essential to the conservation of this species. In addition, there 
are 10 other locations that have been designated or proposed to meet 
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their historical 
ranges on this and other islands. Modifications were also made to this 
unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent 
elements for Kanaloa kahoolawensis.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island 
species Kanaloa kahoolawensis provides habitat within its historical 
range for seven populations.
    These modifications resulted in the reduction from 7,683 ha (18,984 
ac) to 1,175 ha (2,903 ac). This unit was renamed Kahoolawe 1--Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis--a and Kahoolawe 2--Kanaloa kahoolawensis--b.

Kahoolawe B

    This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species: Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis and Sesbania tomentosa. We excluded the proposed critical 
habitat for the multi-island species Sesbania tomentosa. There is a 
lower likelihood that the biological features essential to this species 
will persist there because it has a low likelihood of being managed for 
conservation (KIRC, in litt. 2002) and there are10 other locations that 
have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations 
throughout its historical range on this and other islands.
    The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island 
species Kanaloa kahoolawensis provides habitat within its historical 
range for one population.
    There was no change in the area proposed in the final designation. 
It remains at 5 ha (12 ac). This unit was renamed Kahoolawe 3--Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis--c.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) The 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation,'' as defined by the Act, means the use of all methods 
and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a 
threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no 
longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``* * * a 
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations 
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that 
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' However, 
in the March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et 
al., 245 F.3d 434) regarding a not prudent finding, the Court found our 
definition of destruction or adverse modification as currently 
contained in 50 CFR 402.02 to be invalid. In response to this decision, 
we are reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification in 
relation to the conservation of the species.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, areas 
within the geographical range of the species at the time of listing 
must contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species or, for an area outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, the area itself 
must be essential to the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)(A)).
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
for a species, to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the time 
of listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing 
or under short court-ordered deadlines, we may not have sufficient 
information to identify all the areas essential for the conservation of 
the species, we may inadvertently include areas that later will be 
shown to be nonessential. Nevertheless, we are required to designate 
those areas we know to be critical habitat, using the best information 
available to us.
    Within the geographic areas occupied by the species, we will 
designate only areas that have features and habitat characteristics 
that are necessary to sustain the species. If the information available 
at the time of designation does not show that an area provides 
essential life cycle needs of the species, then the

[[Page 25993]]

area should not be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Our regulations state that ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied 
by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from recovery plans, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or 
other unpublished materials.
    It is important to clearly understand that critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the 
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the Act's 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the 
best available information at the time of the action. We specifically 
anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Furthermore, we 
recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of 
the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for 
the recovery of the species.

Prudency

    Designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking 
or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species; or (ii) 
such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)).
    To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for each 
species, we analyzed the potential threats and benefits for each 
species in accordance with the court's order. In the final critical 
habitat rule published for Kauai and Niihau plants, we determined that 
designation of critical habitat was not prudent for Acaena exigua, a 
species reported from Maui as well as from Kauai because it had not 
been seen recently in the wild, and no genetic material of this species 
was known to exist (68 FR 9115). In other final rules, we have found 
that critical habitat would be prudent for the following 45 species 
that are reported from Maui and Kahoolawe as well as from Lanai, Kauai, 
Niihau, and Molokai: Adenophorus periens; Alectryon macrococcus; Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha; Bonamia menziesii; Brighamia rockii; Cenchrus 
agrimonioides; Centaurium sebaeoides; Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis; Clermontia samuelii; Ctenitis squamigera; Cyanea copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis; Cyanea glabra; Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana; 
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora; Cyanea lobata; Cyrtandra munroi; 
Delissea undulata; Diellia erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; Flueggea 
neowawraea; Hedyotis mannii; Hesperomannia arborescens; Hibiscus 
brackenridgei; Ischaemum byrone; Isodendrion pyrifolium; Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis; Mariscus pennatiformis; Melicope knudsenii; Melicope 
mucronulata; Neraudia sericea; Peucedanum sandwicense; Phlegmariurus 
mannii; Phyllostegia mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; Phyllostegia 
parvilfora; Plantago princeps; Platanthera holochila; Pteris lidgatei; 
Schiedea nuttallii; Sesbania tomentosa; Solanum incompletum; 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis; Tetramolopium remyi; Vigna o-wahuensis; and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (64 FR 48307, 68 FR 1219, 68 FR 9115, 68 FR 
12981).
    Due to low numbers of individuals and/or populations and their 
inherent immobility, the other 24 plants may be vulnerable to 
unrestricted collection, vandalism, or disturbance. However, we 
examined the evidence available for these taxa and have not, at this 
time, found specific evidence of taking, vandalism, collection or trade 
of these taxa or of similar species. Consequently, while we remain 
concerned that these activities could potentially threaten these 24 
plant species in the future, consistent with applicable regulations (50 
CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and the court's discussion of these regulations, 
we do not find that any of these species are currently threatened by 
taking or other human activity, which would be exacerbated by the 
designation of critical habitat.
    In the absence of finding that critical habitat would increase 
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat 
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential 
benefits include: (1) Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas 
where it would not otherwise occur; (2) focusing conservation 
activities on the most essential area; (3) providing educational 
benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) 
preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
    In the case of these 24 species, there would be some benefits to 
critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is 
the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any 
action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. Thirteen of 
these species are reported on or near Federal lands (see Table 2 above, 
under ``Discussion of Plant Taxa''), where actions are subject to 
section 7 consultation. Although a majority of the species considered 
in this rule are located exclusively on non-Federal lands with limited 
Federal activities, there could be Federal actions affecting these 
lands in the future. While a critical habitat designation for habitat 
currently occupied by these species would not likely change the section 
7 consultation outcome, since an action that destroys or adversely 
modifies such critical habitat would also be likely to result in 
jeopardy to the species, there may be instances where section 7 
consultation would be triggered only if critical habitat were 
designated. There would also be some educational or informational 
benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Benefits of 
designation would include the notification of land owners, land 
managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting the 
habitat of

[[Page 25994]]

these species and dissemination of information regarding their 
essential habitat requirements.
    Therefore, we believe that the designation of critical habitat is 
prudent for these 24 plant species: Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum; Asplenium fragile var. insulare; Clermontia lindseyana; 
Clermontia peleana; Colubrina oppositifolia; Cyanea mceldowneyi; 
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis; Geranium arboreum; Geranium 
multiflorum; Gouania vitifolia; Hedyotis coriacea; Hesperomannia 
arbuscula; Lipochaeta kamolensis; Lysimachia lydgatei; Melicope 
adscendens; Melicope balloui; Melicope ovalis; Nototrichium humile; 
Remya mauiensis; Sanicula purpurea; Schiedea haleakalensis; Schiedea 
hookeri; Tetramolopium arenarium; and Tetramolopium capillare because 
the potential benefits of critical habitat designation outweigh the 
potential threats.

Methods

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12), we used the best scientific information available to determine 
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are 
essential for the conservation of Adenophorus periens, Alectryon 
macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium 
fragile var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia 
menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium 
sebaeoides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Clermontia peleana, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Delissea undulata, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Flueggea neowawraea, 
Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis 
coriacea, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hesperomannia 
arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta kamolensis, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, Mariscus pennatiformis, Melicope adscendens, Melicope 
balloui, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Melicope ovalis, 
Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, 
Phyllostegia parviflora, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, 
Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea 
haleakalensis, Schiedea hookeri, Schiedea nuttallii, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium 
arenarium, Tetramolopium capillare, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. This information included the 
known locations, site-specific species information from the HINHP 
database and our own rare plant database; species information from the 
Center for Plant Conservation's (CPC's) rare plant monitoring database 
housed at the University of Hawaii's Lyon Arboretum; island-wide 
Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, 
annual rainfall, elevation contours, land ownership); the final listing 
rules for these 69 species; the December 18, 2000, proposal; the April 
3, 2002, revised proposal; information received during the public 
comment periods and the public hearings; recent biological surveys and 
reports; our recovery plans for these species; any species and 
management information received from landowners, land managers, and 
interested parties for the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe; discussions 
with botanical experts; and recommendations from the Hawaii and Pacific 
Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) (see also the discussion 
below) (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; HPPRCC 1998; Service 1995a, 
1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; 65 FR 66808; 67 FR 
3940; CPC, in litt. 1999).
    In 1994, the HPPRCC initiated an effort to identify and map habitat 
believed to be important for the recovery of 282 endangered and 
threatened Hawaiian plant species. The HPPRCC identified these areas on 
most of the islands in the Hawaiian chain, and in 1999, we published 
them in our Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island Plants (Service 1999). 
The HPPRCC expects there will be subsequent efforts to further refine 
the locations of important habitat areas and that new survey 
information or research may also lead to additional refinement of 
identifying and mapping of habitat important for the recovery of these 
species.
    The HPPRCC identified essential habitat areas for all listed, 
proposed, and candidate plants and evaluated species of concern to 
determine if essential habitat areas would provide for their habitat 
needs. However, the HPPRCC's mapping of habitat is distinct from the 
regulatory designation of critical habitat as defined by the Act. More 
data have been collected since the recommendations made by the HPPRCC 
in 1998. Much of the area that was identified by the HPPRCC as 
inadequately surveyed has now been surveyed to some degree. New 
location data for many species have been gathered. Also, the HPPRCC 
identified areas as essential based on species clusters (areas that 
included listed species, as well as candidate species and species of 
concern) while we have only delineated areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the specific listed species at issue. As a result, the 
critical habitat designations in this rule include not only some 
habitat that was identified as essential in the 1998 recommendations 
but also habitat that was not identified as essential in those 
recommendations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These features 
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, germination, 
or seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or 
are representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological 
requirements of Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, 
Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, 
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, 
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Flueggea

[[Page 25995]]

neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, 
Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta kamolensis, Lysimachia lydgatei, Mariscus 
pennatiformis, Melicope adscendens, Melicope balloui, Melicope 
knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Melicope ovalis, Neraudia sericea, 
Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, 
Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, Plantago princeps, 
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula 
purpurea, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania tomentosa, Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is described in the 
``Background'' section of this final rule.
    We are unable to identify these features for Adenophorus periens, 
Clermontia peleana, Delissea undulata, Phyllostegia parviflora, 
Schiedea hookeri, Schiedea nuttallii, Solanum incompletum, and 
Tetramolopium arenarium, which no longer occur on the islands of Maui 
and Kahoolawe, because information on the physical and biological 
features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that are considered 
essential to the conservation of these eight species on Maui and 
Kahoolawe is not known. Therefore, we are not designating critical 
habitat for these species on Maui. We are able to identify these 
features for Hesperomannia arborescens, but we are not designating 
critical habitat for this species on Maui for the reasons given in the 
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2): Other Impacts'' section.
    All areas designated as critical habitat are within the historical 
range of the 60 species at issue and contain one or more of the 
physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    As described in the discussions for each of the 60 species for 
which we are designating critical habitat, we are defining the primary 
constituent elements on the basis of the habitat features of the areas 
from which the plant species are reported, as described by the type of 
plant community (e.g., mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest), 
associated native plant species, locale information (e.g., steep rocky 
cliffs, talus slopes, gulches, stream banks), and elevation. The 
habitat features provide the ecological components required by the 
plant. The type of plant community and associated native plant species 
indicate specific microclimate (localized climatic) conditions, 
retention and availability of water in the soil, soil microorganism 
community, and nutrient cycling and availability. The locale indicates 
information on soil type, elevation, rainfall regime, and temperature. 
Elevation indicates information on daily and seasonal temperature and 
sun intensity. Therefore, the descriptions of the physical elements of 
the locations of each of these species, including habitat type, plant 
communities associated with the species, location, and elevation, as 
described in the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant 
Taxa'' section above, constitute the primary constituent elements for 
these species on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    The lack of detailed scientific data on the life history of these 
plant species makes it impossible for us to develop a robust 
quantitative model (e.g., population viability analysis (National 
Research Council 1995)) to identify the optimal number, size, and 
location of critical habitat units to achieve recovery (Beissinger and 
Westphal 1998; Burgman et al. 2001; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Karieva and 
Wennergren 1995; Menges 1990; Murphy et al. 1990; Taylor 1995). 
However, based on the best information available at this time, 
including information on which the listing of these species was based, 
as well as their recovery plans, 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 each of these species, the overall recovery strategy outlined 
in the approved recovery plans includes: (1) Stabilization of existing 
wild populations; (2) protection and management of habitat; (3) 
enhancement of existing small populations and reestablishment of new 
populations within historic range; and (4) research on species biology 
and ecology (Service 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 
1999, 2001). Thus, the long-term recovery of these species is dependent 
upon the protection of existing population sites and potentially 
suitable unoccupied habitat within their historic range.
    The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of 
these species 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. (There is one specific exception to this 
general recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for species that are 
believed to be very narrowly distributed on a single island. The 
recovery goal for Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum is one 
population of more than 50,000 individuals, and the critical habitat 
designations reflect this exception for this species.)
    To be considered recovered, the populations of a multi-island 
species should be distributed among the islands of its known historic 
range (Service 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 
2001). 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 that 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.
    By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the 
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events 
and catastrophes, such as landslides, hurricanes, or tsunamis, which 
could destroy a large percentage of a species at any one time, may be 
reduced (Menges 1990; Podolsky 2001). These recovery objectives were 
initially developed by the HPPRCC and are found in all of the recovery 
plans for these species. While they are expected to be further refined 
as more information on the population biology of each species becomes 
available, the justification for these objectives is found in the 
current conservation biology literature addressing the conservation of 
rare and endangered plants and animals (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; 
Burgman et al. 2001; Falk et al. 1996; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Hendrix 
and Kyhl 2000; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Luijten et al. 2000; Meffe 
and Carroll 1996; Menges 1990; Murphy et al. 1990; Podolsky 2001; 
Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996; Taylor 1995; Tear et al. 1995; Wolf 
and Harrison 2001). The overall goal of recovery in the short-term is a 
successful population that can carry on basic life history processes, 
such as establishment, reproduction, and dispersal, at a level where 
the probability of extinction is low. In the long-term, the species and 
its populations should be at a reduced risk

[[Page 25996]]

of extinction and be adaptable to environmental change through 
evolution and migration.
    Many aspects of a species' life history are typically considered to 
determine guidelines for its interim stability and recovery, including 
longevity, breeding system, growth form, fecundity, ramet (a plant that 
is an independent member of a clone) production, survivorship, seed 
longevity, environmental variation, and successional stage of the 
habitat. Hawaiian species are poorly studied, and the only one of these 
characteristics that can be uniformly applied to all Hawaiian plant 
species is longevity (i.e., long-lived perennial, short-lived 
perennial, and annual). In general, long-lived woody perennial species 
would be expected to be viable at population levels of 50 to 250 
individuals per population, while short-lived perennial species would 
be viable at population levels of 1,500 to 2,500 individuals or more 
per population. These population numbers were refined for Hawaiian 
plant species by the HPPRCC (1994) due to the restricted distribution 
of suitable habitat typical of Hawaiian plants and the likelihood of 
smaller genetic diversity of several species that evolved from one 
single introduction. For recovery of Hawaiian plants, the HPPRCC 
recommended a general recovery guideline of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals per population for long-lived perennial species, 300 
mature, reproducing individuals per population for short-lived 
perennial species, and 500 mature, reproducing individuals per 
population for annual species.
    The HPPRCC also recommended the conservation and establishment of 8 
to 10 populations to address the numerous risks to the long-term 
survival and conservation of Hawaiian plant species. Although absent 
the detailed information inherent to the types of population viability 
analysis models described above (Burgman et al. 2001), this approach 
employs two widely recognized and scientifically accepted goals for 
promoting viable populations of listed species: (1) Creation or 
maintenance of multiple populations so that a single or series of 
catastrophic events cannot destroy the entire listed species (Luijten 
et al. 2000; Menges 1990; Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996); and (2) 
increasing the size of each population in the respective critical 
habitat units to a level where the threats of genetic, demographic, and 
normal environmental uncertainties are diminished (Hendrix and Kyhl 
2000; Luijten et al. 2000; Meffe and Carroll 1996; Podolsky 2001; 
Service 1997; Tear et al. 1995; Wolf and Harrison 2001). In general, 
the larger the number of populations and the larger the size of each 
population, the lower the probability of extinction (Meffe and Carroll 
1996; Raup 1991). This basic conservation principle of redundancy 
applies to Hawaiian plant species. By maintaining 8 to 10 viable 
populations in several critical habitat units, the threats represented 
by a fluctuating environment are alleviated and the species has a 
greater likelihood of achieving long-term survival and recovery. 
Conversely, loss of one or more of the plant populations within any 
critical habitat unit could result in an increase in the risk that the 
entire listed species may not survive and recover.
    Due to the reduced size of suitable habitat areas for these 
Hawaiian plant species, they are now more susceptible to the variations 
and weather fluctuations affecting quality and quantity of available 
habitat, as well as direct pressure from hundreds of species of 
nonnative plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8 to10 viable 
populations on one or more islands within the historic range of the 
species will provide each species with a reasonable expectation of 
persistence and eventual recovery, even with the high potential that 
one or more of these populations will be eliminated by normal or random 
adverse events, such as the hurricanes that occurred in 1982 and 1992 
on Kauai, fires, and nonnative plant invasions (HPPRCC 1994; Luijten et 
al. 2000; Mangel and Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey and Taper 
1992). We conclude that designation of adequate suitable habitat for 8 
to 10 populations as critical habitat is essential to give the species 
a reasonable likelihood of long-term survival and conservation, based 
on currently available information.
    In summary, the long-term survival and conservation of Hawaiian 
plant species requires the designation of critical habitat units on one 
or more of the Hawaiian islands with suitable habitat for 8 to 10 
populations of each plant species. Some of this habitat is currently 
not known to be occupied by these species. To recover the species, it 
is essential to conserve suitable habitat in these unoccupied units, 
which in turn will 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; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey 
and Taper 1992).
    In this rule, we have defined the primary constituent elements 
based on the general habitat features of the areas from which the 
plants are reported, such as the type of plant community, the 
associated native plant species, the physical location (e.g., steep 
rocky cliffs, talus slopes, stream banks), and elevation. The areas we 
are designating as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat 
components essential for the conservation of the 60 plant species.
    Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in 
the following manner:
    (1) Critical habitat was proposed and will be designated on an 
island by island basis for ease of understanding for landowners and the 
public, for ease of conducting the public hearing process, and for ease 
of conducting public outreach. In Hawaii, landowners and the public are 
most interested and affected by issues centered on the island on which 
they reside.
    (2) We focused on designating units representative of the known 
current and historical geographic and elevational range of each 
species; and
    (3) We designated critical habitat units to allow for expansion of 
existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations 
within the historic range, as recommended by the recovery plans for 
each species.
    The proposed critical habitat units were delineated by creating 
rough units for each species by screen digitizing polygons (map units) 
using ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a 
computer GIS program. The polygons were created by overlaying current 
and historic plant location points onto digital topographic maps of 
each of the islands.
    The resulting shape files (delineating historic elevational range 
and potentially suitable habitat) were then evaluated. Elevation ranges 
were further refined and land areas identified as not suitable for a 
particular species (i.e., not containing the primary constituent 
elements) were avoided. The resulting shape files for each species were 
then considered to define all suitable habitat on the island, including 
occupied and unoccupied habitat.
    These shape files of suitable habitat were further evaluated. 
Several factors were used to delineate the proposed critical habitat 
units from these land areas. We reviewed the recovery objectives as 
described above and in recovery plans for each of the species to 
determine if the number of populations and population size requirements 
needed for conservation would be available within the suitable habitat 
units identified as containing the

[[Page 25997]]

appropriate primary constituent elements for each species. If more than 
the area needed for the number of recovery populations was identified 
as potentially suitable, only those areas within the least disturbed 
suitable habitat were included as proposed critical habitat. A 
population for this purpose is defined as a discrete aggregation of 
individuals located a sufficient distance from a neighboring 
aggregation such that the two are not affected by the same small-scale 
events and are not believed to be consistently cross-pollinated. In the 
absence of more specific information indicating the appropriate 
distance to assure limited cross-pollination, we are using a distance 
of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) based on our review of current literature on gene 
flow (Barret and Kohn 1991; Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; 
Schierup and Christiansen 1996).
    The resulting critical habitat units were further refined by using 
satellite imagery and parcel data to eliminate areas that did not 
contain the appropriate vegetation or associated native plant species, 
as well as features such as cultivated agriculture fields, housing 
developments, and other areas that are unlikely to contribute to the 
conservation of one or more of the 61 plant species for which critical 
habitat was proposed on April 3, 2002. Geographic features (ridge 
lines, valleys, streams, coastlines, etc.) or manmade features (roads 
or obvious land use) that created an obvious boundary for a unit were 
used as unit area boundaries.
    Following publication of the proposed critical habitat rules, some 
of which were revised, for 255 Hawaiian plants (67 FR 3940, 67 FR 9806, 
67 FR 15856, 67 FR 16492, 67 FR 34522, 67 FR 36968, 67 FR 37108), we 
re-evaluated proposed critical habitat, Statewide, for each species 
using the applicable recovery guidelines (generally 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) to determine if we had 
inadvertently proposed for designation too much or too little habitat 
to meet the essential recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations per species 
distributed among the islands of the species' known historic range 
(HINHP Database 2000, 2001; Wagner et al. 1990, 1999).
    Based on comments and information we received during the comment 
periods, we assessed the proposed critical habitat in order to 
ascertain which areas contained the highest quality habitat, had the 
highest likelihood of species conservation, and were geographically 
distributed within the species' historical range and located a 
sufficient distance from each other such that populations of a single 
species are unlikely to be impacted by a single catastrophic event. We 
ranked areas of the proposed critical habitat by the quality of the 
primary constituent elements (e.g., intact native plant communities, 
predominance of associated native plants versus nonnative plants), 
potential as a conservation area (e.g., whether the land is zoned for 
conservation or whether the landowner is already participating in plant 
conservation actions), and current or expected management of known 
threats (e.g., ungulate control; weed control; nonnative insect, slug, 
and snail control). Areas that are zoned for conservation or have been 
identified as a State Forest Reserve, NAR, Wildlife Preserve, State 
Park, or are managed for conservation by a private landowner have a 
high likelihood of providing conservation benefit to the species and 
are therefore more essential than other comparable habitat outside of 
those types of areas.
    Areas that contain high quality primary constituent elements and 
conservation potential (e.g., are zoned for conservation and have 
ongoing or expected threat abatement actions) were ranked the most 
essential. This ranking process also included determining which 
habitats were representative of the historic geographical and 
ecological distributions of the species (see ``Primary Constituent 
Elements''). Of these most essential areas, we selected adequate area 
to provide for 8 to 10 populations distributed among the islands of 
each species' historical range. Of the proposed critical habitat for a 
species, areas that were not ranked most essential to provide habitat 
for populations above the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations were 
determined not essential for the conservation of the species and were 
excluded from the final designation.
    In selecting areas of designated critical habitat, we made an 
effort to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, 
that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of the 60 species. 
However, the minimum mapping unit that we used to approximate our 
delineation of critical habitat for these species did not allow us to 
exclude all such developed areas from the maps. In addition, existing 
manmade features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped 
unit, such as buildings; roads; aqueducts and other water system 
features--including but not limited to pumping stations, irrigation 
ditches, pipelines, siphons, tunnels, water tanks, gaging stations, 
intakes, reservoirs, diversions, flumes, and wells; existing trails; 
campgrounds and their immediate surrounding landscaped area; scenic 
lookouts; remote helicopter landing sites; existing fences; 
telecommunications towers and associated structures and equipment; 
electrical transmission lines and distribution, and communication 
facilities and regularly maintained associated rights-of-way and access 
ways; radars, and telemetry antennas; missile launch sites; arboreta 
and gardens; heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines) and other 
archaeological sites; airports; other paved areas; and lawns and other 
rural residential landscaped areas do not contain one or more of the 
primary constituent elements and are therefore excluded under the terms 
of the final regulation. Federal actions limited to those areas would 
not trigger a section 7 consultation unless they affect the species or 
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    In summary, for these species we utilized the approved recovery 
plan guidance to identify appropriately sized land units containing 
essential occupied and unoccupied habitat. Based on the best available 
information, we believe these areas constitute the essential habitat on 
Maui and Kahoolawe to provide for the recovery of these 60 species.
    The approximate areas of the designated critical habitat by land 
ownership or jurisdiction are shown in Table 4.

[[Page 25998]]



 Table 4.--Approximate Critical Habitat Designated Area by Unit and Land Ownership or Jurisdiction, Maui County,
                                                     Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Unit name                 State/local           Private             Federal              Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maui 1--Centaurium sebaeoides--a  70 ha (174 ac)....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  70 ha (174 ac)
Maui 1--Sesbania tomentosa--a...  38 ha (94 ac).....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  38 ha (94 ac)
Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--a.....  5 ha (14 ac)......  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  5 ha (14 ac)
Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--b.....  17 ha (42 ac).....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  17 ha (42 ac)
Maui 2--Centaurium sebaeoides--b  14 ha (35 ac).....  12 ha (30 ac).....  ..................  26 ha (65 ac)
Maui 3--Brighamia rockii--c.....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  3 ha (9 ac).......  ..................  3 ha (9 ac)
Maui 4--Brighamia rockii--d.....  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  ..................  1 ha (2 ac)
Maui 4--Peucedanum sandwicense--  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  ..................  1 ha (2 ac)
 a.
Maui 5--Brighamia rockii--e.....  7 ha (16 ac)......  ..................  ..................  7 ha (16 ac)
Maui 6--Ischaemum byrone--a.....  15 ha (35 ac).....  3 ha (7 ac).......  ..................  18 ha (42 ac)
Maui 6--Mariscus pennatiformis--  17 ha (40 ac).....  13 ha (34 ac).....  ..................  30 ha (74 ac)
 a.
Maui 7--Ischaemum byrone--b.....  11 ha (27 ac).....  ..................  ..................  11 ha (27 ac)
Maui 8--Cyanea copelandii ssp.    5 ha (13 ac)......  496 ha (1,225 ac).  ..................  501 ha (1,238 ac)
 haleakalaensis--a.
Maui 8--Cyanea glabra--a........  448 ha (1,108 ac).  2 ha (4 ac).......  ..................  450 ha (1,112 ac)
Maui 8--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.   48 ha (119 ac)....  563 ha (1,390 ac).  ..................  611 ha (1,509 ac)
 hamatiflora--a.
Maui 8--Cyanea mceldowneyi--a...  489 ha (1,208 ac).  1,638 ha (4,047     ..................  2,127 ha (5,255
                                                       ac).                                    ac)
Maui 8--Diplazium molokaiense--a  87 ha (214 ac)....  488 ha (1,206 ac).  ..................   575 ha (1,420 ac)
Maui 8--Geranium multiflorum--a.  ..................  46 ha (113 ac)....  ..................  46 ha (113 ac)
Maui 8--Melicope balloui--a.....  73 ha (181 ac)....  78 ha (192 ac)....  ..................  151 ha (373 ac)
Maui 8--Phlegmariurus mannii--a.  101 ha (251 ac)...  120 ha (297 ac)...  ..................  221 ha (548 ac)
Maui 8--Phyllostegia mannii--a..  2 ha (4 ac).......  568 ha (1,404 ac).  ..................  570 ha (1,408 ac)
Maui 8--Phyllostegia mollis--a..  128 ha (316 ac)...  ..................  ..................  128 ha (316 ac)
Maui 8--Zanthoxylum hawaiiense--  362 ha (894 ac)...  1 ha (1 ac).......  ..................  363 ha (895 ac)
 a.
Maui 9--Alectryon macrococcus--a  1,893 ha (4,678     <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  1,893 ha (4,678
                                   ac).                                                        ac)
Maui 9--Argyroxiphium             2,117 ha (5,232     852 ha (2,105 ac).  5,996 ha (14,816    8,965 ha (22,153
 sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--  ac).                                    ac).                ac)
 a.
Maui 9--Asplenium fragile var.    ..................  ..................  362 ha (894 ac)...  362 ha (894 ac)
 insulare--a.
Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp.     390 ha (965 ac)...  629 ha (1,554 ac).  543 ha (1,343 ac).  1,562 ha (3,862
 kalealaha--a.                                                                                 ac)
Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp.     2,115 ha (5,229     ..................  ..................  2,115 ha (5,229
 kalealaha--b.                     ac).                                                        ac)
Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--a  177 ha (438 ac)...  ..................  ..................  177 ha (438 ac)
Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--b  60 ha (149 ac)....  ..................  ..................  60 ha (149 ac)
Maui 9--Clermontia samuelii--a..  2,777 ha (6,863     ..................  353 ha (872 ac)...  3,130 ha (7,735
                                   ac).                                                        ac)
Maui 9--Cyanea copelandii ssp.    391 ha (966 ac)...  ..................  1,318 ha (3,258     1,709 ha (4,224
 haleakalaensis--b.                                                        ac).                ac)
Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--b........  ..................  ..................  649 ha (1,605 ac).  649 ha (1,605 ac)
Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--c........  363 ha (897 ac)...  ..................  ..................  363 ha (897 ac)
Maui 9--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.   203 ha (503 ac)...  ..................  1,107 ha (2,732     1,310 ha (3,235
 hamatiflora--b.                                                           ac).                ac)
Maui 9--Diellia erecta--a.......  2 ha (6 ac).......  ..................  ..................  2 ha (6 ac)
Maui 9--Diellia erecta--b.......  174 ha (432 ac)...  ..................  ..................  174 ha (432 ac)
Maui 9--Diplazium molokaiense--b  162 ha (401 ac)...  ..................  ..................  162 ha (401 ac)
Maui 9--Flueggea neowawraea--a..  52 ha (128 ac)....  ..................  ..................  52 ha (128 ac)
Maui 9--Geranium arboreum--a....  731 ha (1,806 ac).  ..................  ..................  731 ha (1,806 ac)
Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--b.  322 ha (795 ac)...  297 ha (735 ac)...  4,198 ha (10,372    4,817 ha (11,902
                                                                           ac).                ac)
Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--c.  183 ha (450 ac)...  ..................  ..................  183 ha (450 ac)
Maui 9--Lipochaeta kamolensis--a  1,472 ha (3,638     2 ha (6 ac).......  ..................  1,474 ha (3,644
                                   ac).                                                        ac)
Maui 9--Melicope balloui--b.....  ..................  ..................  394 ha (972 ac)...  394 ha (972 ac)
Maui 9--Melicope knudsenii--a...  28 ha (69 ac).....  ..................  ..................  28 ha (69 ac)
Maui 9--Melicope mucronulata--a.  34 ha (83 ac).....  ..................  ..................  34 ha (83 ac)
Maui 9--Melicope ovalis--a......  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  933 ha (2,304 ac).  934 ha (2,306 ac)
Maui 9--Neraudia sericea--a.....  623 ha (1,539 ac).  ..................  ..................  623 ha (1,539 ac)
Maui 9--Nototrichium humile--a..  382 ha (944 ac)...  15 ha (38 ac).....  ..................  397 ha (982 ac)
Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--b.  383 ha (947 ac)...  ..................  ..................  383 ha (947 ac)
Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--c.  224 ha (554 ac)...  ..................  252 ha (622 ac)...  476 ha (1,176 ac)
Maui 9--Phyllostegia mollis--b..  509 ha (1,256 ac).  ..................  ..................  509 ha (1,256 ac)
Maui 9--Plantago princeps--a....  ..................  ..................  164 ha (406 ac)...  164 ha (406 ac)
Maui 9--Platanthera holochila--a  32 ha (80 ac).....  ..................  208 ha (516 ac)...  240 ha (596 ac)
Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--  ..................  ..................  26 ha (64 ac).....  26 ha (64 ac)
 a.
Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--  ..................  ..................  77 ha (189 ac)....  77 ha (189 ac)
 b.
Maui 10--Alectryon macrococcus--  372 ha (918 ac)...  30 ha (75 ac).....  ..................  402 ha (993 ac)
 b.
Maui 11--Lipochaeta kamolensis--  42 ha (105 ac)....  ..................  ..................  42 ha (105 ac)
 b.
Maui 12--Vigna o-wahuensis--a...  144 ha (356 ac)...  ..................  ..................  144 ha (356 ac)
Maui 13--Alectryon macrococcus--  419 ha (1,033 ac).  ..................  ..................  419 ha (1,033 ac)
 c.
Maui 13--Bonamia menziesii--a...  536 ha (1,325 ac).  ..................  ..................  536 ha (1,325 ac)

[[Page 25999]]


Maui 13--Cenchrus agrimonioides-- 237 ha (585 ac)...  ..................  ..................  237 ha (585 ac)
 a.
Maui 13--Colubrina                739 ha (1,827 ac).  ..................  ..................  739 ha (1,827 ac)
 oppositifolia--a.
Maui 13--Flueggea neowawraea--b.  50 ha (124 ac)....  ..................  ..................  50 ha (124 ac)
Maui 13--Melicope adscendens--a.  160 ha (398 ac)...  ..................  ..................  160 ha (398 ac)
Maui 13--Melicope knudsenii--b..  163 ha (403 ac)...  ..................  ..................  163 ha (403 ac)
Maui 13--Melicope mucronulata--b  194 ha (481 ac)...  ..................  ..................  194 ha (481 ac)
Maui 13--Sesbania tomentosa--b..  78 ha (193 ac)....  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  79 ha (195 ac)
Maui 13--Spermolepis              91 ha (224 ac)....  ..................  ..................  91 ha (224 ac)
 hawaiiensis--a.
Maui 14--Geranium arboreum--b...  282 ha (697 ac)...  170 ha (418 ac)...  ..................  452 ha (1,115 ac)
Maui 15--Geranium arboreum--c...  177 ha (437 ac)...  490 ha (1,211 ac).  ..................  667 ha (1,648 ac)
Maui 16--Hibiscus brackenridgei-- ..................  212 ha (524 ac)...  ..................  212 ha (524 ac)
 a.
Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--  209 ha (517 ac)...  181 ha (448 ac)...  ..................  390 ha (965 ac)
 d.
Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--  110 ha (270 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  110 ha (271 ac)
 e.
Maui 17--Cenchrus agrimonioides-- 118 ha (292 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  118 ha (293 ac)
 b.
Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia  16 ha (40 ac).....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  16 ha (40 ac)
 ssp. mauiensis--a.
Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia  696 ha (1,720 ac).  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  696 ha (1,720 ac)
 ssp. mauniensis--b.
Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia  293 ha (726 ac)...  <2 ha (6 ac)......  ..................  295 ha (732 ac)
 ssp. mauiensis--c.
Maui 17--Colubrina                132 ha (327 ac)...  44 ha (108 ac)....  ..................  176 ha (435 ac)
 oppositifolia--b.
Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--a.  953 ha (2,356 ac).  1,026 ha (2,534     ..................  1,979 ha (4,890
                                                       ac).                                    ac)
Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--b.  478 ha (1,181 ac).  338 ha (837 ac)...  ..................  816 ha (2,018 ac)
Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--c.  137 ha (336 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  137 ha (337 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--d.......  255 ha (630 ac)...  ..................  ..................  255 ha (630 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--e.......  264 ha (652 ac)...  207 ha (511 ac)...  ..................  471 ha (1,163 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--f.......  188 ha (463 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  188 ha (464 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--g.......  ..................  79 ha (194 ac)....  ..................  79 ha (194 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea grimesiana ssp.   10 ha (24 ac).....  911 ha (2,249 ac).  ..................  921 ha (2,273 ac)
 grimesiana--a.
Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--a.......  132 ha (322 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  132 ha (323 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--b.......  112 ha (276 ac)...  2 ha (5ac)........  ..................  114 ha (281 ac)
Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--c.......  578 ha (1,427 ac).  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  578 ha (1,427 ac)
Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--a....  156 ha (385 ac)...  <1 ha (1 ac)......  ..................  156 ha (386 ac)
Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--b....  25 ha (62 ac).....  213 ha (528 ac)...  ..................  238 ha (590 ac)
Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--c....  603 ha (1,490 ac).  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  603 ha (1,490 ac)
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--c......  22 ha (55 ac).....  ..................  ..................  22 ha (55 ac)
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--d......  ..................  70 ha (172 ac)....  ..................  70 ha (172 ac)
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--e......  12 ha (30 ac).....  ..................  ..................  12 ha (30 ac)
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--f......  14 ha (34 ac).....  ..................  ..................  14 ha (34 ac)
Maui 17--Diplazium molokaiense--  30 ha (74 ac).....  1,465 ha (3,619     ..................  1,495 ha (3,693
 c.                                                    ac).                                    ac)
Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea     66 ha (164 ac)....  227 ha (550 ac)...  ..................  293 ha (723 ac)
 ssp. humilis--a.
Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea     68 ha (168 ac)....  46 ha (115 ac)....  ..................  114 ha (283 ac)
 ssp. humilis--b.
Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea     27 ha (66 ac).....  68 ha (168 ac)....  ..................  95 ha (234 ac)
 ssp. humulis--c.
Maui 17--Gouania vitifolia--a...  446 ha (1,103 ac).  40 ha (95 ac).....  ..................  486 ha (1,198 ac)
Maui 17--Hedyotis coriacea--a...  106 ha (262 ac)...  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  106 ha (262 ac)
Maui 17--Hedyotis coriacea--b...  138 ha (340 ac)...  ..................  ..................  138 ha (340 ac)
Maui 17--Hedyotis mannii--a.....  572 ha (1,414 ac).  1,662 ha (4,107     ..................  2,234 ha (5,521
                                                       ac).                                    ac)
Maui 17--Hesperomannia            378 ha (933 ac)...  14 ha (35 ac).....  ..................  392 ha (968 ac)
 arbuscula--a.
Maui 17--Hesperomannia            ..................  436 ha (1,076 ac).  ..................  436 ha (1,076 ac)
 arbuscula--b.
Maui 17--Hibiscus brackenridgei-- 593 ha (1,463 ac).  74 ha (182 ac)....  ..................  667 ha (1,645 ac)
 b.
Maui 17--Isodendrion pyrifolium-- 224 ha (555 ac)...  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  224 ha (555 ac)
 a.
Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--a.  64 ha (157 ac)....  26 ha (64 ac).....  ..................  90 ha (221 ac)
Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--b.  42 ha (104 ac)....  116 ha (287 ac)...  ..................  158 ha (391 ac)
Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--c.  19 ha (46 ac).....  28 ha (70 ac).....  ..................  47 ha (116 ac)
Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--d.   28 ha (70 ac)....   70 ha (172 ac)...  ..................  98 ha (242 ac)
Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--e.  18 ha (44 ac).....  ..................  ..................  18 ha (44 ac)
Maui 17--Neraudia sericea--b....  1,026 (2,538 ac)..  ha 162 ha (400 ac)  ..................  1,188 ha (2,938
                                                                                               ac)
Maui 17--Peucedanum sandwicense-- ..................  117 ha (289 ac)...  ..................  117 ha (289 ac)
 b.
Maui 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--d  57 ha (141 ac)....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  57 ha (141 ac)
Maui 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--e  29 ha (72 ac).....  6 ha (15 ac)......  ..................  35 ha (87 ac)
Maui 17--Plantago princeps--b...  23 ha (57 ac).....  304 ha (750 ac)...  ..................  327 ha (807 ac)

[[Page 26000]]


Maui 17--Platanthera holochila--  4 ha (10 ac)......  4 ha (9 ac).......  ..................  8 ha (19 ac)
 b.
Maui 17--Platanthera holochila--  189 ha (466 ac)...  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  189 ha (466 ac)
 c.
Maui 17--Pteris lidgatei--a.....  504 ha (1,246 ac).  664 ha (1,641 ac).  ..................  1,168 ha (2,887
                                                                                               ac)
Maui 17--Pteris lidgatei--b.....  ..................  163 ha (403 ac)...  ..................  163 ha (403 ac)
Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--a.....  227 ha (562 ac)...  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  228 ha (564 ac)
Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--b.....  366 ha (904 ac)...  201 ha (496 ac)...  ..................  567 ha (1,400 ac)
Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--c.....  31 ha (78 ac).....  <1 ha (<1 ac).....  ..................  31 ha (78 ac)
Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--a...  29 ha (70 ac).....  5 ha (13 ac)......  ..................  34 ha (83 ac)
Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--b...  97 ha (240 ac)....  209 ha (516 ac)...  ..................  306 ha (756 ac)
Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--c...  ..................  8 ha (19 ac)......  ..................  8 ha (19 ac)
Maui 17--Spermolepis              23 ha (56 ac).....  ..................  ..................  23 ha (56 ac)
 hawaiiensis--b.
Maui 17--Tetramolopium            1,106 ha (2,732     676 ha (1,672 ac).  ..................  1,782 ha (4,404
 capillare--a.                     ac).                                                        ac)
Maui 17--Tetramolopium remyi--a.  216 ha (536 ac)...  71 ha (176 ac)....  ..................  287 ha (712 ac)
Maui 18--Alectryon macrococcus--  5 ha (11 ac)......  3 ha (6 ac).......  ..................  8 ha (17 ac)
 f.
Maui 18--Colubrina                38 ha (92 ac).....  26 ha (63 ac).....  ..................  64 ha (155 ac)
 oppositifolia--c.
Maui 18--Ctenitis squamigera--d.  10 ha (24 ac).....  4 ha (10 ac)......  ..................  14 ha (34 ac)
Maui 18--Remya mauiensis--d.....  1 ha (3 ac).......  1 ha (3 ac).......  ..................  2 ha (6 ac)
Kahoolawe 1--Kanaloa              562 ha (1,388 ac).  ..................  ..................  562 ha (1,388 ac)
 kahoolawensis--a.
Kahoolawe 2--Kanaloa              613 ha (1,515 ac).  ..................  ..................  613 ha (1,515 ac)
 kahoolawensis--b.
Kahoolawe 3--Kanaloa              5 ha (12 ac)......  ..................  ..................  5 ha (12 ac)
 kahoolawensis--c.
    Total*......................  21,229 ha.........  8,858 ha..........  8,805 ha..........  38,897 ha
                                  (52,458 ac).......  (21,890 ac).......  (21,757 ac).......  (96,115 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals take into consideration overlapping individual species units.


 Table 5.--Approximate Final Critical Habitat Area (ha (ac)), Essential
              Area, and Excluded Area on Maui and Kahoolawe
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area considered essential on     48,352 ha (119,480 ac)
 Maui.
Area not included because of     6,741 ha (16,657 ac)
 special management or
 protection (State upper Hanawi
 NAR, ML&P Puu Kukui WMA, and
 TNCH Kupunukea and Waikamoi
 Preserves) on Maui.
Area excluded under 4(b)(2)      3,894 ha (9,622 ac)
 (Haleakala and Ulupalakua
 Ranches) on Maui.
Final Critical Habitat on Maui.  37,717 ha (93,200 ac)
Final Critical Habitat on        1,180 ha (2,915 ac)
 Kahoolawe.
Total Critical Habitat on Maui   38,897 ha (96,115)
 and Kahoolawe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical habitat includes habitat for 59 species primarily in the 
upland portions of Maui, and for one species on Kahoolawe. Lands 
designated as critical habitat have been divided into a total of 139 
units. A brief description of each unit is presented below.

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

Maui 9--Alectryon macrococcus--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 
1,893 ha (4,678 ac) on State and privately owned lands. The unit 
contains Auwahi and Manawainui gulches including portions of Lualailua 
Hills, Puu Kao, and Kamole and Kepuni gulches. It, in combination with 
Maui 10--Alectryon macrococcus--b, Maui 13--Alectryon macrococcus--c, 
and land on Ulupalakua and Haleakala ranches, provides habitat for two 
populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived 
perennial A. macrococcus and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, mesic to wetter mesic and upper 
dryland forest. This unit is essential to conservation of the species 
because it provides for two populations within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 10--Alectryon macrococcus--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 402 
ha (993 ac) on State (Kahikinui Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains land from Pahihi Gulch to Kahalulu Gulch. It, 
in combination with Maui 9--Alectryon macrococcus--a, Maui 13--
Alectryon macrococcus--c, and Haleakala and Ulupalakua ranches, 
provides habitat for two populations of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial A. macrococcus and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, mesic to 
wetter mesic and upper dryland forest. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 13--Alectryon macrococcus--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 419 
ha (1,033 ac) on State-owned land (Kanaio NAR). The unit contains the 
area below

[[Page 26001]]

Puu Ouli. It, in combination with Ulupalakua and Haleakala ranches, and 
Maui 9--Alectryon macrococcus--a and Maui 10--Alectryon macrococcus--b, 
provides habitat for 2 populations of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial A. macrococcus and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, mesic to 
wetter mesic and upper dryland forest. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--d
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 390 
ha (965 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve and the Panaewa Section 
of West Maui NAR) and privately owned land. The unit contains portions 
of Wahikuli and Kealii gulches and Puuiki, Kahoma, and Kanaha streams. 
It, in combination with Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--e, Maui 18--
Alectryon macrococcus--f, and Kapunakea Preserve, provides habitat for 
two populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial A. macrococcus and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, mesic to wetter mesic and upper 
dryland forest. This unit is essential to conservation of the species 
because it provides for two populations within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--e
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 110 
ha (271 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Honokowai Stream. It, in combination with Maui 
17--Alectryon macrococcus--d, Maui 18--Alectryon macrococcus--f and 
Kapunakea Preserve, provides habitat for two populations of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial A. macrococcus and 
is currently occupied by three plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, mesic to wetter mesic and upper dryland forest. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 18--Alectryon macrococcus--f
    This unit is critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus and is 8 ha 
(17 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Honokawai Valley. It, in combination with Maui 17--
Alectryon macrococcus--d, Maui 17--Alectryon macrococcus--e, and 
Kapunakea Preserve, provides habitat for two populations of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial A. macrococcus and 
is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
mesic to wetter mesic and upper dryland forest. This unit is essential 
to conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum and is 8,965 ha (22,153 ac) on State (Kula and Kahikinui 
Forest Reserve), Federal (Haleakala National Park), and privately owned 
land. The unit contains portions of Halalii Summit, Haleakala Summit, 
Haleakala Crater, Hanakauhi Summit, Haupaakea Peak Summit, Hina Summit, 
Honokahua Summit, Ka Moa o Pele Summit, Kalahaku Pali, Kalepeamoa 
Summit, Kalua Awa Summit, Kaluaiki Crater, Kaluanui Crater, Kaluu o ka 
Oo Crater, Kamaolii Summit, Kanahau Summit, Keoneheehee Ridge, Kilohana 
Summit, Kolekole Summit, Koolau Gap, and Kumuiilahi. It provides 
habitat for one population of greater than 50,000 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial A. sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum and is currently occupied by 39,000 to 44,000 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, lava flows with almost no soil 
development and otherwise barren, unstable slopes of recent (less than 
several thousand years old) volcanic cinder cones subject to frequent 
formation of ice at night and extreme heating during cloudless days 
with an annual precipitation of approximately 75 to 250 cm (29.6 to 
98.4 in). This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
Although we do not feel that there is enough habitat designatied to 
reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations, this species is a very 
narrow endemic in terms of its alpine habitat requirement, and probably 
never naturally occurred in more than a single or a few populations.

Maui 9--Asplenium fragile var. insulare--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Asplenium fragile var. insulare 
and is 362 ha (894 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National 
Park). The unit contains Koolau Gap. This unit, in combination with 
Waikamoi Preserve, provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial A. fragile var. 
insulare and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, streamside hollows and grottos in gulches. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for two 
populations within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that are some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha 
and is 1,562 ha (3,862 ac) on State (Kahikinui Forest Reserve), 
Federal, and privately owned land. The unit contains portions of 
Kumuiilahi and Haleakala summits, Pukai, Pahihi, and Waioale gulches, 
Haleakala Crater, and Kumuiliahi. It provides habitat for 3 populations 
of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial B. 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha and is currently occupied by two plants. The 
habitat features

[[Page 26002]]

contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, blocky lava flows with little or no soil 
development, deep pit craters, and sheer rock walls in open canopy 
montane shrubland. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha 
and is 2,115 ha (5,229 ac) on State-owned land (Kahikinui Forest 
Reserve). The unit is between Kanaio and Auwahi. It provides habitat 
for 4 populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha and is currently occupied 
by 10 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, blocky lava 
flows with little or no soil development, deep pit craters, and sheer 
rock walls in open canopy montane shrubland. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Bonamia menziesii--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Bonamia menziesii and is 536 ha 
(1,325 ac) on State (Kanaio NAR) land. The unit lies in the area 
between Kanaio and Auwahi. It provides habitat for one population of 
300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial B. 
menziesii and is currently occupied by 5 plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, aa lava in mixed open dry forest; Erythrina 
sandwicensis lowland dry forest, or mesic mixed Metrosideros polymorpha 
forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Brighamia rockii and is 5 ha (14 
ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit lies near Lahoole Cape. 
This unit provides habitat for one population of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial B. rockii and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, rock 
crevices on steep sea cliffs, often within the spray zone. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Brighamia rockii and is 17 ha (42 
ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Kaemi, 
Lahoole, and Moho capes, Makalina Valley, Waiokila and Waiolai gulches, 
Makamakaole Stream, and Puu Makawana Summit. This unit provides habitat 
for one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial B. rockii and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, rock crevices on steep sea cliffs, 
often within the spray zone. This unit is essential to conservation of 
the species because it provides for one population within this multi-
island species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 3--Brighamia rockii--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Brighamia rockii and is 3 ha (9 
ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Waikamoi 
Stream, Waihanepee Stream, and Puohokamoa Stream. This unit in 
combination with Maui 4--Brighamia rockii--d and Maui 5--Brighamia 
rockii--e, provides habitat for one population of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial B. rockii and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, rock 
crevices on steep sea cliffs, often within the spray zone. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 4--Brighamia rockii--d

    This unit is critical habitat for Brighamia rockii and is 1 ha (2 
ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains all of Keopuka Rock. This 
unit provides habitat for one population in combination with Maui 3--
Brighamia rockii--c and Maui 5--Brighamia rockii--e, of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial B. rockii and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, rock 
crevices on steep sea cliffs, often within the spray zone. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 5--Brighamia rockii--e

    This unit is critical habitat for Brighamia rockii and is 7 ha (16 
ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Moiki Point and Haipuaena 
Stream. This unit provides habitat for one population in combination 
with Maui 3--Brighamia rockii--c and Maui 4--Brighamia rockii--d, of 
100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial B. 
rockii and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, rock crevices on steep sea cliffs, often within the spray 
zone. This unit is essential to conservation of the species because it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the

[[Page 26003]]

island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Maui 13--Cenchrus agrimonioides--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cenchrus agrimonioides and is 237 
ha (585 ac) on State (Kanaio NAR) land. The unit contains land between 
Kanaio and Auwahi. This unit provides habitat for one population of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. 
agrimonioides and is currently occupied by between one and 10 plants. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, dry forest or Pleomele sp.-
Diospyros sp. forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cenchrus agrimonioides--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Cenchrus agrimonioides and is 118 
ha (293 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve and Manawainui Plant 
Sanctuary) and privately owned land. The unit contains Papalaua and 
Manawainui gulches and Hanaulaiki. This unit provides habitat for one 
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. agrimonioides and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, dry forest or Pleomele sp.-Diospyros 
sp. forest. This unit is essential to conservation of the species 
because it provides for one population within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 1--Centaurium sebaeoides--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides and is 70 
ha (174 ac) on non-managed State and privately owned land. The unit 
contains Alapapa Gulch, Honanana Gulch, Mokolea Point, Owaluhi Gulch, 
Papanahoa Gulch, Papanalahoa Point, Poelua Bay, and Poelua Gulch. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. sebaeoides and is currently 
occupied by one plant. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, dry 
forest or Pleomele sp.-Diospyros sp. forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 2--Centaurium sebaeoides--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides and is 26 
ha (65 ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Alapapa 
Gulch, Honanana Gulch, Lahoole Cape, Makamakaole Stream, Moho Cape, 
Mokolea Point, Owaluhi Gulch, Papanahoa Gulch, Papanalahoa Point, 
Poelua Bay, Poelua Gulch, Waihee Stream, Waihee Valley, Waiokila Gulch, 
and Waiolai Gulch. This unit provides habitat for one population of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. 
sebaeoides and is currently occupied by 10 plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, dry forest or Pleomele sp.-Diospyros sp. forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia lindseyana and is 177 
ha (438 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Manawainui Gulch. 
This unit provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. lindseyana and 
is currently occupied by 330 plants. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, Acacia koa mesic forest. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia lindseyana and is 60 
ha (149 ac) on State-owned land (Kula Forest Reserve). The unit 
contains no named natural features. This unit provides habitat for one 
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. lindseyana and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, Acacia koa mesic forest. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis and is 16 ha (40 ac) on State and privately owned land. The 
unit contains no named natural features. This unit provides habitat for 
one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial C. oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, sides of 
ridges and ridge tops in Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated montane 
forest. This unit is essential to conservation of the species because 
it provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis and is 696 ha (1,720 ac) on State (Kahakuloa Section of the 
West Maui NAR) and privately owned land. The unit contains Eke Crater, 
Konanano Gulch, and Kahakuloa Valley. This unit provides habitat for 4 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of

[[Page 26004]]

the short-lived perennial C. oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, sides 
of ridges and ridge tops in Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated montane 
forest. This unit is essential to conservation of the species because 
it provides for four populations within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis and is 295 ha (732 ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the 
West Maui NAR) and privately owned land. The unit contains Violet Lake, 
Amalu and Kapaloa streams, and Honokowai Valley. This unit provides 
habitat for two populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the short-lived perennial C. oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis and is 
currently occupied by one plant. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, sides of ridges and ridge tops in Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated 
montane forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Clermontia samuelii--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Clermontia samuelii and is 3,130 
ha (7,735 ac) on State (Hana and Koolau Forest Reserve) and federally 
(Haleakala National Park) owned land. The unit contains Anapanapa Lake, 
Heleleikeoha Stream, Kawakoe Valley, and Kawaipapa Stream. This unit 
provides habitat for 5 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. samuelii and is currently 
occupied by 5 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, wet 
Metrosideros polymorpha and M. polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis forest 
or wet M. polymorpha and M. polymorpha-Cheirodendron trigynum forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. Although we do 
not believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach 
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic 
species, this unit is of an appropriate size so that each potential 
population important for the conservation of the species within the 
unit is geographically separated enough to avoid their destruction by 
one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 13--Colubrina oppositifolia--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Colubrina oppositifolia and is 
739 ha (1,827 ac) on State (Kanaio NAR) land. The unit contains land 
between Kanaio and Auwahi. This unit provides habitat for one 
population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived 
perennial C. oppositifolia and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, lowland dry and mesic forests 
dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Colubrina oppositifolia--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Colubrina oppositifolia and is 
176 ha (435 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Kahoma and Kanaha Valleys and 
Halona Stream. This unit provides habitat for one population of 100 
mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial C. 
oppositifolia and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, lowland dry and mesic forests dominated by 
Diospyros sandwicensis. This unit is essential to conservation of the 
species because it provides for one population within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 18--Colubrina oppositifolia--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Colubrina oppositifolia and is 64 
ha (155 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Honokowai Valley. This unit provides habitat 
for one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial C. oppositifolia and is currently occupied by one 
plant. The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential 
for this species include, but are not limited to, lowland dry and mesic 
forests dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera and is 1,979 
ha (4,890 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Hokuula and Puu Lio summits, Nakalaloa and 
Poohahoahoa streams, and Kapilau Ridge. This unit provides habitat for 
two populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial C. squamigera and is currently occupied by 30 plants. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, forest understory in 
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, mesic forest, or diverse 
mesic forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera and is 816 ha 
(2,018 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR and West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Wahikuli, 
Hahakea and

[[Page 26005]]

Puuiki gulches, and Kanaha Stream. This unit provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. squamigera and is currently occupied by one plant. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, forest understory in 
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, mesic forest, or diverse 
mesic forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera and is 137 ha 
(337 ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR and West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Kapaloa and 
Amalu Streams. This unit provides habitat for one population, in 
combination with Maui 18--Ctenitis squamigera--d and Kapunakea 
Preserve, of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. squamigera and is currently occupied by 21 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, forest understory in 
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, mesic forest, or diverse 
mesic forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 18--Ctenitis squamigera--d

    This unit is critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera and is 14 ha 
(34 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains no named natural features and provides habitat for 
one population in combination with Maui 17--Ctenitis squamigera--c and 
Kapunakea Preserve of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial C. squamigera and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, forest understory in Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane wet forest, mesic forest, or diverse mesic forest. 
This unit is essential to conservation of the species because it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis and is 501 ha (1,238 ac) on State and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Opana Gulch, Kailua Stream, and Haiku Uka. This 
unit provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis and is currently occupied by one plant. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, stream banks and wet talus slopes. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis and is 1,709 ha (4,224 ac) on State (Hana Forest 
Reserve) and federally (Haleakala National Park) owned land. The unit 
contains Kaumakani Summit, Puu Kue Summit, Kipahulu Valley, Kaukaui 
Gulch, and Palikea Stream. It provides habitat for 5 populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. 
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis and is currently occupied by 200 plants. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, stream banks and wet talus 
slopes. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Cyanea glabra--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 450 ha 
(1,112 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Wiohiwi Gulch. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. glabra and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, soil and rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. 
This unit is essential to conservation of the species because it 
provides for two populations within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 649 ha 
(1,605 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National Park). The unit 
contains Kipahulu Valley, Palikea Stream, and Kaukaui Gulch. It 
provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, soil and 
rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 363 ha (897 
ac) on State (Hana Forest Reserve) land. The unit contains Waihoi 
Valley. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, soil 
and rock stream

[[Page 26006]]

banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is essential to conservation of 
the species because it provides for one population within this multi-
island species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--d

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 255 ha (630 
ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) land. The unit contains Olowalu 
Valley and Stream. It provides habitat for one population of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra 
and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, soil and rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is 
essential to conservation of the species because it provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--e

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 471 ha 
(1,163 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR, and West 
Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains 
Waihikuli, Hahakea and Puuiki gulches, and Kanaha and Halona streams. 
It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, soil and 
rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--f

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 188 ha (464 
ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR, and West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Amalu and 
Kapaloa streams. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, soil 
and rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is essential to 
conservation of the species because it provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea glabra--g

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea glabra and is 79 ha (194 
ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Kauaula Valley. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. glabra and is currently 
occupied by 12 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, soil 
and rock stream banks in wet lowland forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana 
and is 921 ha (2,273 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains the Needle Summit, Poohahouhoa 
Stream, Nakalaloa Stream, and Iao Valley. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana and is currently occupied by 
fewer than 5 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, rocky 
or steep slopes of stream banks in wet forest gulch bottoms. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora and is 611 ha (1,509 ac) on State (Koolau Forest Reserve) 
and privately owned land. The unit contains Haipuaena Stream, 
Puohokamoa Stream, and Waikamoi Stream. It provides habitat for 3 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora and is currently occupied by 
5 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, montane wet 
forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha with a Cibotium sp. and/or 
native shrub understory or closed Acacia koa-M. polymorpha wet forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora and is 1,310 ha (3,235 ac) on State (Kipahulu and Hana 
Forest Reserve) and federally owned (Haleakala National Park) land. The 
unit contains Puu Ahulili Summit, Kipahulu Valley, Kaumakani Summit, 
Kaukaui Gulch, and Palikea Stream. It provides habitat for 5 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora and is currently occupied by 
13 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, montane wet 
forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha with a Cibotium sp. and/or 
native shrub understory or closed Acacia koa-M. polymorpha wet forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for

[[Page 26007]]

the conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by 
one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea lobata and is 132 ha (323 
ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR, and West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Kapaloa and 
Amalu Streams. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. lobata and is 
currently occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, steep stream banks in deep shade in wet forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea lobata and is 114 ha (281 
ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Kauaula Stream. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. lobata and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, steep stream banks in deep shade in wet forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for two populations within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyanea lobata--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea lobata and is 578 ha 
(1,427 ac) on State (Kahakuloa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Honanana and Kahakuloa Streams. 
It provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial C. lobata and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, steep 
stream banks in deep shade in wet forest. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for three populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Cyanea mceldowneyi--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyanea mceldowneyi and is 2,127 
ha (5,255 ac) on State (Makawao and Koolau Forest Reserves) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains area from Kahakapau Gulch to 
the rim of Keanae Valley. It provides habitat for 5 populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. 
mceldowneyi and is currently occupied by 33 plants. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, montane wet and mesic forest with 
mixed Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. Although we do not feel that there is enough 
habitat that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 
populations for this island-endemic species, this unit is of an 
appropriate size so that each potential population important for the 
conservation of the species within the unit is geographically separated 
enough to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Cyrtandra munroi and is 156 ha 
(386 ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR, and West 
Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Amalu 
Stream. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial C. munroi and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, moist 
to wet, moderately steep talus slopes. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Cyrtandra munroi and is 238 ha 
(590 ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Hahakea 
and Puuiki gulches and Kahoma Stream. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. munroi and is currently occupied by at least one plant. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, moist to wet, moderately steep 
talus slopes. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Cyrtandra munroi--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Cyrtandra munroi and is 603 ha 
(1,490 ac) on State (Kahakuloa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Kahakuloa Valley, Honanana 
Gulch, Keahikauo, and Makamakaole Stream. It provides habitat for 3 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial C. munroi and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, moist to wet, moderately steep talus slopes. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for three populations within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Diellia erecta--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 2 ha (6 ac) 
on State-owned land (Kula Forest Reserve). The unit contains no named 
natural features. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. erecta and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are

[[Page 26008]]

not limited to, granular soil with leaf litter and moss on north-facing 
slopes in deep shade or gulch bottoms. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Diellia erecta--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 174 ha (432 
ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Puu Pane. It provides 
habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the short-lived perennial D. erecta and is currently unoccupied. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, granular soil with leaf litter 
and moss on north-facing slopes in deep shade or gulch bottoms. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 22 ha (55 
ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) land. The unit contains 
Papalaua Gulch. It provides habitat for one population;in combination 
with Maui 17--Diellia erecta--e and Maui 17--Diellia erecta--f, f 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. erecta 
and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, granular soil with leaf litter and moss on north-facing slopes in 
deep shade or gulch bottoms. This unit is essential to the conservation 
of the species because it provides for one population within this 
multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some distance 
away from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to 
avoid all populations important for the conservation of the species on 
the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--d
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 70 ha (172 
ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Iao Valley. It provides 
habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the short-lived perennial D. erecta and is currently occupied by 20 
plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential 
for this species include, but are not limited to, granular soil with 
leaf litter and moss on north-facing slopes in deep shade or gulch 
bottoms. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--e
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 12 ha (30 
ac) on State (Manawainui Plant Sanctuary) land. The unit contains no 
named natural features. It provides habitat for one population,in 
combination with Maui 17--Diellia erecta--c and Maui 17--Diellia 
erecta--f, of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial D. erecta and is currently occupied by at least one plant. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, granular soil with leaf litter 
and moss on north-facing slopes in deep shade or gulch bottoms. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--f
    This unit is critical habitat for Diellia erecta and is 14 ha (34 
ac) on State-owned land (West Maui Forest Reserve). The unit contains 
Hanaulaiki. It provides habitat for one population in combination with 
Maui 17--Diellia erecta--c and Maui 17--Diellia erecta--e, of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. erecta 
and is currently occupied by one plant. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, granular soil with leaf litter and moss on north-facing 
slopes in deep shade or gulch bottoms. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 8--Diplazium molokaiense--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Diplazium molokaiense and is 575 
ha (1,420 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned 
land. The unit contains Puu o Kakae, Waikamoi, Honomanu, and Piinaau 
streams. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. molokaiense and 
is currently occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, land near water courses, often in proximity to 
waterfalls, in lowland or montane mesic forests. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Diplazium molokaiense--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Diplazium molokaiense and is 162 
ha (401 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Manawainui Stream. 
It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial D. molokaiense and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, land 
near water courses, often in proximity to waterfalls, in lowland or 
montane mesic forests. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it provides for one population within this multi-
island species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the

[[Page 26009]]

island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.
Maui 17--Diplazium molokaiense--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Diplazium molokaiense and is 
1,495 ha (3,693 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately 
owned land. The unit contains the Needle Summit, Poohahouhoa and 
Nakalaloa streams, and Iao Valley). It provides habitat for three 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial D. molokaiense and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, land near water courses, often in 
proximity to waterfalls, in lowland or montane mesic forests. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
three populations within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis 
and is 293 ha (723 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Kauaula Valley and Stream and 
Niupoko. It provides habitat for three populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. plantaginea 
ssp. humilis and is currently unoccupied. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is 
necessary to the establishment of additional populations on Maui in 
order to reach recovery goals. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, wet, barren, steep, rocky, wind-blown cliffs. Although we do not 
believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species 
this unit is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species from being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis 
and is 114 ha (283 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Lihau Summit and Olowalu 
Valley. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial D. plantaginea 
ssp. humilis and is currently unoccupied. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is 
necessary to the establishment of additional populations on Maui in 
order to reach recovery goals. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, wet, barren, steep, rocky, wind-blown cliffs. Although we do not 
believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
this unit is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species from being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis 
and is 95 ha (234 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately 
owned land. The unit contains Iao Valley and Needle and Au Stream. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial D. plantaginea ssp. humilis 
and is currently occupied by 65 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, wet, barren, steep, rocky, wind-blown cliffs. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. Although we do not believe 
that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
this unit some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species from being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Flueggea neowawraea--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Flueggea neowawraea and is 52 ha 
(128 ac) on State-owned land (Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
(DHHL)). The unit contains Lualailua Hills. It provides habitat for one 
population in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial F. neowawraea and 
is currently occupied by 4 plants. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, dry or mesic forest. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Flueggea neowawraea--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Flueggea neowawraea and is 50 ha 
(124 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains land west of Auwahi 
Gulch and south of Puu Ouli. In combination with Ulupalakua Ranch and 
Maui 9--Flueggea neowawraea--a, it provides habitat for one population 
of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial F. 
neowawraea and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, dry or mesic forest. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Geranium arboreum--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium arboreum and is 731 ha 
(1,806 ac) on State (Kula Forest Reserve) land. The unit contains 
Polipoli Summit. It provides habitat for 4 populations of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial G. arboreum and is 
currently occupied by 12 plants. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, steep, damp, and shaded narrow canyons and gulches, steep banks, 
and intermittent streams. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. Although we do not feel that there is enough habitat that 
currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for 
this island-endemic species, the units are of an appropriate

[[Page 26010]]

distance apart to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 14--Geranium arboreum--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium arboreum and is 452 ha 
(1,115 ac) on State (Kula Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The 
unit contains Waiohuli Gulch. It provides habitat for one population of 
100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial G. 
arboreum and is currently occupied by 22 plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, steep, damp, and shaded narrow canyons and gulches, 
steep banks, and intermittent streams. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 15--Geranium arboreum--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium arboreum and is 667 ha 
(1,648 ac) on State (Kula Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The 
unit contains land from Waiakoa to Kamehamenui. It provides habitat for 
two populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial G. arboreum and is currently occupied by two plants. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, steep, damp, and shaded narrow 
canyons and gulches, steep banks, and intermittent streams. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. Although we do not feel 
that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
the units are of an appropriate distance apart to avoid their 
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Geranium multiflorum--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium multiflorum and is 46 ha 
(113 ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Honomanu and 
Piihaau streams. It provides habitat for one population in combination 
with Waikamoi Preserve of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the 
long-lived perennial G. multiflorum and is currently unoccupied. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, wet or mesic Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane forest or alpine mesic forest, Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae shrubland, Sophora chrysophylla subalpine dry forest, open 
sedge swamps, fog-swept lava flows, or montane grasslands. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
one population within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium multiflorum and is 4,817 
ha (11,902 ac) on State (Koolau Forest Reserve), Federal (Haleakala 
National Park), and privately owned land. The unit contains Anapanapa 
Lake, Halalii Summit, Haleakala Crater, Hanakauhi Summit, Hina, Mauna 
Summit, Honokahua Summit, Ka Moa o Pele Summit, Kalapawili Ridge, Kalua 
Awa Summit, Kaluaiki Crater, Kaluanui Crater, Koolau Gap, Kuiki Summit, 
Laie Cave, Laie Puu Summit, Lauulu Summit, Namana o ke Akua Summit, 
Oili Puu Summit, Pohaku Palaha Summit, Puu Alaea Summit, Puu Kauaua 
Summit, Puu Kumu Summit, Puu Maile Summit, Puu Mamane Summit, Puu Naue 
Summit, Puu Nole Summit, and Waikekeehia. It provides habitat for 6 
populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived 
perennial G. multiflorum and is currently occupied by 122 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, wet or mesic Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane forest or alpine mesic forest, Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae shrubland, Sophora chrysophylla subalpine dry forest, open 
sedge swamps, fog-swept lava flows, or montane grasslands. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the establishment of additional populations. It is some distance 
away from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to 
avoid all populations important for the conservation of the species on 
the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Geranium multiflorum and is 183 
ha (450 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Manawainui Gulch. It 
provides habitat for one population of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial G. multiflorum and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, wet or 
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha montane forest or alpine mesic forest, 
Leptecophylla tameiameiae shrubland, Sophora chrysophylla subalpine dry 
forest, open sedge swamps, fog-swept lava flows, or montane grasslands. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Gouania vitifolia--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Gouania vitifolia and is 486 ha 
(1,198 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Paupau Summit and Halona and 
Kanaka streams. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial G. vitifolia and 
is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
the sides of ridges and gulches in dry to mesic forests. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
one population within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hedyotis coriacea--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Hedyotis coriacea and is 106 ha 
(262 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR) and privately 
owned land. The unit contains Olowalu Valley. It provides habitat for 
one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial H. coriacea and is currently occupied by one plant. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, steep,

[[Page 26011]]

rocky slopes in dry lowland Dodonaea viscosa-dominated shrublands. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hedyotis coriacea--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Hedyotis coriacea and is 138 ha 
(340 ac) on State-owned land (West Maui Forest Reserve). The unit 
contains Ukumehame Valley. It provides habitat for one population of 
300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial H. 
coriacea and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, steep, rocky slopes in dry lowland Dodonaea viscosa-
dominated shrublands. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it provides for one population within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hedyotis mannii--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Hedyotis mannii and is 2,234 ha 
(5,521 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains the Needle Summit, Poohahouhoa 
Stream, Nakalaloa Stream, Iao Valley, Kauaula, Makila Stream, and 
Kanaha Stream. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial H. mannii and is 
currently occupied by fewer than 10 plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, basalt cliffs along stream banks in Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis montane wet forest. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hesperomannia arbuscula--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Hesperomannia arbuscula and is 
392 ha (968 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Panaewa Valley and Halona and 
Kanaha streams. It provides habitat for two populations of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial H. arbuscula and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, steep 
forested slopes and ridges in mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros 
polymorpha or Diospyros sandwicensis. This is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it unit provides for two 
populations within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that are some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hesperomannia arbuscula--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Hesperomannia arbuscula and is 
436 ha (1,076 ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Iao Valley 
and Needle, and Poohahaonao, Nakalaloa, and Kinihapai streams. It 
provides habitat for 3 populations of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial H. arbuscula and is currently 
occupied by 10 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, steep 
forested slopes and ridges in mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros 
polymorpha or Diospyros sandwicensis. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 16--Hibiscus brackenridgei--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei and is 212 
ha (524 ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Paleaanu and 
Kaonohoa gulches and Kaunoahua Ridge. It provides habitat for one 
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial H. brackenridgei and is currently occupied by 8 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, lowland dry forest, sometimes 
with Erythrina sandwicensis as the dominant tree. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Hibiscus brackenridgei--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei and is 667 
ha (1,645 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Olowalu 
Valley, Olowalu Stream, and Ukumehame. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial H. brackenridgei and is currently occupied by 14 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, lowland dry forest, sometimes 
with Erythrina sandwicensis as the dominant tree. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 6--Ischaemum byrone--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone and is 18 ha (42 
ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Kopiliula 
Stream, Kapaula Gulch, Waiaaka Stream, Waiohue Bay and Paakea Gulch. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial I. byrone and is currently 
occupied by fewer than 10 plants. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, close proximity to the ocean, among rocks or on basalt 
cliffs in windward coastal dry shrubland. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the

[[Page 26012]]

expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 7--Ischaemum byrone--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone and is 11 ha (27 
ac) on State-owned land (Waianapanapa State Park). The unit contains 
Pailoa and Keawaiki Bays, and Pukaulaa Point. This unit provides 
habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the short-lived perennial I. byrone and is currently occupied by 50 to 
100 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, close 
proximity to the ocean, among rocks or on basalt cliffs in windward 
coastal dry shrubland. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the speciess on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Isodendrion pyrifolium--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium and is 224 
ha (555 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Olowalu 
Valley, Olowalu Stream, and Ukumehame. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial I. pyrifolium and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, close proximity to the ocean, among 
rocks or on basalt cliffs in windward coastal dry shrubland. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
two populations within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that are some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Lipochaeta kamolensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Lipochaeta kamolensis and is 
1,474 ha (3,644 ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit 
contains Lualailua Hills and Manawainui, Kamole, and Palaha gulches. It 
provides habitat for 4 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial L. kamolensis and is currently 
occupied by 100 to 200 plants. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, gulches or gentle slopes outside gulches in dry shrubland. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. Although we do 
not believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach 
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic 
species, the units are of an appropriate distance apart to avoid their 
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 11--Lipochaeta kamolensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Lipochaeta kamolensis and is 42 
ha (105 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Pahihi Gulch. It, in 
combination with Haleakala Ranch lands, provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial L. kamolensis and is currently unoccupied. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports 
habitat that is necessary to the establishment of additional 
populations on Maui in order to reach recovery goals. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, gulches or gentle slopes outside 
gulches in dry shrubland. Although we do not believe that there is 
enough habitat that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 
10 populations for this island-endemic species, this unit is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species in order 
to avoid all recovery populations from being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Lysimachia lydgatei and is 90 ha 

(221 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West Maui Forest 
Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Lihau Summit and 
Olowalu Valley. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial L. lydgatei and is 
currently occupied by 50 to 100 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, sides of steep ridges in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic shrubland or M. 
polymorpha-Cheirodendron sp. montane forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Lysimachia lydgatei and is 158 ha 
(391 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Pohakea Gulch and Hanaula Summit. It, in combination 
with Haleakala Ranch lands, provides habitat for 4 populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial L. 
lydgatei and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, sides of steep ridges in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic shrubland or M. 
polymorpha-Cheirodendron sp. montane forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because, in combination with Haleakala 
Ranch, it provides for four populations within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Lysimachia lydgatei and is 47 ha 
(116 ac) on State (Panaewa Section of the West Maui NAR) and privately 
owned land. The unit contains no named natural features. It, in 
combination with Haleakala Ranch Lands, provides habitat for one 
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial L. lydgatei and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, sides of steep ridges in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic shrubland or M. 
polymorpha-Cheirodendron sp. montane forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because, in combination with Haleakala 
Ranch, it provides for

[[Page 26013]]

one population within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--d

    This unit is critical habitat for Lysimachia lydgatei and is 98 ha 
(242 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Helu Summit. It provides habitat for one population 
of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial L. 
lydgatei and is currently occupied by 40 plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, sides of steep ridges in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic shrubland or M. 
polymorpha-Cheirodendron sp. montane forest. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Lysimachia lydgatei--e

    This unit is critical habitat for Lysimachia lydgatei and is 18 ha 
(44 ac) on State-owned land (West Maui Forest Reserve). The unit 
contains Halepohaku Summit. It provides habitat for one population of 
300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial L. 
lydgatei and is currently occupied by 50 to 100 plants. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, sides of steep ridges in Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-dominated wet to mesic shrubland or 
M. polymorpha-Cheirodendron sp. montane forest. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 6--Mariscus pennatiformis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Mariscus pennatiformis and is 30 
ha (74 ac) on State and privately owned land. The unit contains Pahiha 
Point, Kopiliula Stream, Paakea Gulch, Waiohue Bay, Waiaaka Stream, 
Kapaula Gulch, and Hanawi Stream. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial M. pennatiformis and is currently occupied by two plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, cliffs with brown soil and 
talus within reach of ocean spray. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Melicope adscendens--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope adscendens and is 160 ha 
(398 ac) on State (Kanaio NAR) land. The unit contains no named natural 
features. It, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch land, provides 
habitat for one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the long-lived perennial M. adscendens and is currently occupied by one 
plant. The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential 
for this species include, but are not limited to, aa lava with pockets 
of soil in Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele auwahiensis-Dodonaea viscosa 
lowland mesic forest or open dry forest. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. Although we do not believe that there is 
enough habitat designated to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 
populations, this species is a very narrow endemic and probably never 
naturally occurred in more than a single or a few populations.

Maui 8--Melicope balloui--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope balloui and is 151 ha 
(373 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Puu o Kakae. It, in combination with Waikamoi 
Preserve land, provides habitat for one population of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial M. balloui and is 
currently occupied by one plant. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, mesic to wet forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. Although we do not believe that there is enough habitat 
that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations 
for this island-endemic species, this unit is of an appropriate size so 
that each potential population within the unit is geographically 
separated enough to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Melicope balloui--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope balloui and is 394 ha 
(972 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National Park). The unit 
contains Kipahulu Valley and Palikea Stream. It provides habitat for 
two populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial M. balloui and is currently occupied by 10 to 50 
plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential 
for this species include, but are not limited to, mesic to wet forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. Although we do 
not believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach 
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic 
species, this unit is some distance away from the other critical 
habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations important 
for the conservation of the species from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Melicope knudsenii--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope knudsenii and is 28 ha 
(69 ac) on State-owned land (Kanaio NAR). The unit contains no named 
natural features. It, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch land, 
provides habitat for one population of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial M. knudsenii and is currently 
occupied by 12 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
forested flats or talus slopes in Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele sp. 
mixed open dry forests. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant

[[Page 26014]]

colony of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Melicope knudsenii--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope knudsenii and is 163 ha 
(403 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains no named natural 
features. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch, it provides habitat for 
one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived 
perennial M. knudsenii and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, forested flats or talus slopes in 
Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele sp. mixed open dry forests. This unit, 
in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch, provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Melicope mucronulata--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope mucronulata and is 34 ha 
(83 ac) on State-owned land (Kanaio NAR). The unit contains no named 
natural features. It, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch, provides 
habitat for one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the long-lived perennial M. mucronulata and is currently unoccupied. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, gentle south-facing slopes in 
lowland dry to mesic forest. This unit is essential to the conservation 
of the species because, in combination with Haleakala Ranch, it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Melicope mucronulata--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope mucronulata and is 194 
ha (481 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains no named natural 
features. It, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch, provides habitat 
for one population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-
lived perennial M. mucronulata and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, gentle south-facing slopes in lowland 
dry to mesic forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because, in combination with Ulupalakua Ranch, it provides for 
one population within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Melicope ovalis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Melicope ovalis and is 934 ha 
(2,306 ac) on State and Federal (Haleakala National Park) land. The 
unit contains Kipahulu Valley, Palikea Stream, and Kaukaui Gulch. It 
provides habitat for 3 populations of 100 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the long-lived perennial M. ovalis and is currently 
occupied by 250 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
Acacia koa and Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated montane wet forests 
along streams. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. Although we do not believe that there is enough habitat 
that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations 
for this island-endemic species, this unit is of an appropriate size so 
that each potential populations important for the conservation of the 
specie within the unit is geographically separated enough to avoid 
their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Neraudia sericea--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Neraudia sericea and is 623 ha 
(1,539 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Manawainui Gulch, 
Kamole Gulch and Puu Pane. It provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial N. sericea 
and is currently occupied by 4 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, dry to mesic Metrosideros polymorpha-Dodonaea viscosa-
Leptecophylla tameiameiae shrubland or forest or Acacia koa forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Neraudia sericea--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Neraudia sericea and is 1,188 ha 
(2,938 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Olowalu 
Valley, Pohakea, and Lihau, Hokuula, and Halepohaku summits. It 
provides habitat for 4 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial N. sericea and is currently 
occupied by one plant. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, dry to 
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha-Dodonaea viscosa-Leptecophylla 
tameiameiae shrubland or forest or Acacia koa forest. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
recovery populations on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Nototrichium Humile--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Nototrichium humile and is 397 ha 
(982 ac) on State (DHHL) and privately owned land. The unit contains 
Lualailua Hills. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial N. humile and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, old 
cinder cones in dry shrubland. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for two populations 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that are 
some distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being

[[Page 26015]]

destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 4--Peucedanum sandwicense--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Peucedanum sandwicense and is 1 
ha (2 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains all of Keopuka Rock. 
It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. sandwicense and is 
currently occupied by 20 to 30 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, sparsely vegetated steep to vertical cliff habitats with 
little soil in mesic or coastal communities. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Peucedanum sandwicense--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Peucedanum sandwicense and is 117 
ha (289 ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Iao Valley. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. sandwicense and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
sparsely vegetated steep to vertical cliff habitats with little soil in 
mesic or coastal communities. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for one population 
within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui that is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 8--Phlegmariurus mannii--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Phlegmariurus mannii and is 221 
ha (548 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Puu o Kakae and Opana Gulch. It, in combination with 
Waikamoi Preserve, provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii and is 
currently occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, epiphytic growth on Metrosideros polymorpha, 
Dodonaea viscosa, or Acacia koa trees in moist protected gulches or 
mossy tussocks in mesic to wet montane M. polymorpha-Acacia koa 
forests. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population. 
It is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--b
    This unit is critical habitat for Phlegmariurus mannii and is 383 
ha (947 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Manawainui Gulch. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii and is currently 
occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, epiphytic growth on Metrosideros polymorpha, Dodonaea viscosa, or 
Acacia koa trees in moist protected gulches or mossy tussocks in mesic 
to wet montane M. polymorpha-Acacia koa forests. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Phlegmariurus mannii and is 476 
ha (1,176 ac) on State (Kipahulu Forest Reserve) and federally owned 
land (Haleakala National Park). The unit contains Puu Anulili and 
Manawainui Gulch. It provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii and is 
currently occupied by two plants. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, epiphytic growth on Metrosideros polymorpha, Dodonaea 
viscosa, or Acacia koa trees in moist protected gulches or mossy 
tussocks in mesic to wet montane M. polymorpha-Acacia koa forests. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population. It is some 
distance away from the other critical habitat for this species, in 
order to avoid all populations important for the conservation of the 
species on the island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring 
catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--d
    This unit is critical habitat for Phlegmariurus mannii and is 57 ha 
(141 ac) on Dtate (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Amahu and Kanaha streams. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii and is currently 
occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, epiphytic growth on Metrosideros polymorpha, Dodonaea viscosa, or 
Acacia koa trees in moist protected gulches or mossy tussocks in mesic 
to wet montane M. polymorpha-Acacia koa forests. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Phlegmariurus mannii--e
    This unit is critical habitat for Phlegmariurus mannii and is 35 ha 
(87 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR and West Maui 
Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Lihau 
Summit. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii and is 
currently occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, epiphytic growth on Metrosideros polymorpha, 
Dodonaea viscosa, or Acacia koa trees in moist protected gulches or 
mossy tussocks in mesic to wet montane M. polymorpha-Acacia koa 
forests. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes 
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present

[[Page 26016]]

population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 8--Phyllostegia mannii--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Phyllostegia mannii and is 570 ha 
(1,408 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Opana Gulch and Waikamoi, Honomanu, Haipuaena, and 
Puohakamau streams. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mannii 
and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, gentle slopes and the steep sides of gulches in mesic to wet forest 
dominated by Acacia koa and/or Metrosideros polymorpha. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
two populations within this multi-island species' historical range on 
Maui that are some distance away from the other critical habitat for 
this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Phyllostegia mollis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Phyllostegia mollis and is 128 ha 
(316 ac) on State-owned land (Makawao Forest Reserve). The unit 
contains Opana Gulch. It provides habitat for one population in 
combination with Haleakala Ranch land of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. mollis and is currently 
unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that are 
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, steep 
slopes and gulches in mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha 
and/or Acacia koa. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it provides for one population within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Phyllostegia mollis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Phyllostegia mollis and is 509 ha 
(1,256 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Puu Pane. It provides 
habitat for two populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the short-lived perennial P. mollis and is currently unoccupied. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, steep slopes and gulches in 
mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha and/or Acacia koa. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for two populations within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Plantago princeps--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Plantago princeps and is 164 ha 
(406 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National Park). The unit 
contains Haleakala Summit and Kaopo Gap. It provides habitat for one 
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial P. princeps and is currently occupied by 44 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, basalt cliffs that are 
windblown with little vegetation in Metrosideros polymorpha lowland wet 
forest, Acacia koa-M. polymorpha montane wet forest, or M. polymorpha 
montane wet shrubland. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Plantago princeps--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Plantago princeps and is 327 ha 
(807 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Iao Valley and Kahoolewa Ridge. It provides habitat 
for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial P. princeps and is currently occupied by 51 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, basalt cliffs that are 
windblown with little vegetation in Metrosideros polymorpha lowland wet 
forest, Acacia koa-M. polymorpha montane wet forest, or M. polymorpha 
montane wet shrubland. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Platanthera holochila--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Platanthera holochila and is 240 
ha (596 ac) on State (Hana Forest Reserve) and federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park). The unit contains Anapanapa Lake and 
Kalapawili Ridge. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. holochila and 
is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis montane wet forest, M. 
polymorpha mixed montane bog, or mesic scrubby M. polymorpha forest. 
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
provides for one population within this multi-island species' 
historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Platanthera holochila--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Platanthera holochila and is 8 ha 
(19 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains no named natural features. It, in combination with 
Maui 17-Platanthera holochila--c, provides habitat for one population 
of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. 
holochila and is currently occupied by two plants. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis 
montane wet forest, M. polymorpha mixed montane bog, or mesic scrubby 
M. polymorpha forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the

[[Page 26017]]

conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Platanthera holochila--c
    This unit is critical habitat for Platanthera holochila and is 189 
ha (466 ac) on State (Honokowai Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Kapaloa and Amala streams. It, 
in combination with Maui 17-Platanthera holochila--b, provides habitat 
for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-
lived perennial P. holochila and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris 
linearis montane wet forest, M. polymorpha mixed montane bog, or mesic 
scrubby M. polymorpha forest. This unit, in combination with Maui 17-
Platanthera holochila--b, is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it provides for one population within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Maui 17--Pteris lidgatei--a
    This unit is critical habitat for Pteris lidgatei and is 1,168 ha 
(2,887 ac) on State (Kahakuloa Section of the West Maui NAR) and 
privately owned land. The unit contains Eke Crater, Keahikauo Summit, 
and Mananole Stream. It provides habitat for two populations of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial P. 
lidgatei and is currently occupied by at least one plant. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, steep stream banks in wet Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis montane forest. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Pteris lidgatei--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Pteris lidgatei and is 163 ha 
(403 ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains Kauaula Valley. It 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial P. lidgatei and is currently 
occupied by at least one plant. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, steep stream banks in wet Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris 
linearis montane forest. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Remya mauiensis and is 228 ha 
(564 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Ukumehame Valley and Hanaulaiki. It provides habitat 
for two populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the 
short-lived perennial R. mauiensis and is currently occupied by two 
plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential 
for this species include, but are not limited to, steep, north or 
northeast-facing slopes in mixed mesophytic forests or Metrosideros 
polymorpha montane wet forests. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. Although we do not believe that there is 
enough habitat that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 
10 populations for this island-endemic species, the units are essential 
because they are an appropriate distance apart to avoid their 
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Remya mauiensis and is 567 ha 
(1,400 ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve and Panaewa Section of 
the West Maui NAR) and privately owned land. The unit contains Wahikuli 
and Puuiki Gulches and Kula Valley. It provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial R. mauiensis and is currently occupied by at least one plant. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, steep, north or northeast-
facing slopes in mixed mesophytic forests or Metrosideros polymorpha 
montane wet forests. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. Although we do not believe that there is enough habitat 
that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations 
for this island-endemic species, the units are essential because they 
are an appropriate distance apart to avoid their destruction by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Remya mauiensis and is 31 ha (78 
ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve and Honokowai Section of the 
West Maui NAR) and privately owned land. The unit contains Honokowai 
Valley. It, in combination with Maui 18--Remya mauiensis--d and 
Kapunakea Preserve, provides habitat for two populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial R. mauiensis and 
is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
steep, north or northeast-facing slopes in mixed mesophytic forests or 
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forests. Although we do not believe 
that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
the units are essential because they are an appropriate distance apart 
to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Maui 18--Remya mauiensis--d

    This unit is critical habitat for Remya mauiensis and is 2 ha (6 
ac) on State (West Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The 
unit contains no named natural features. It, in combination with Maui 
17--Remya mauiensis--c and Kapunakea Preserve, provides habitat for two 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial R. mauiensis and is currently unoccupied. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, steep, north or northeast-facing 
slopes in mixed mesophytic forests or Metrosideros polymorpha montane 
wet forests. Although we do not believe that there is enough habitat 
that currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations 
for this island-endemic species, the units are essential because

[[Page 26018]]

they are an appropriate distance apart to avoid their destruction by 
one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Sanicula purpurea and is 34 ha 
(83 ac) on State (Kahakuloa Section of the West Maui NAR) and privately 
owned land. The unit contains Eke Crater. It, in combination with Maui 
17--Sanicula purpurea--c, provides habitat for one population of 300 
mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial S. 
purpurea and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, open Metrosideros polymorpha mixed montane bogs. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it, in 
combination with Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--c, provides for one 
population within this multi-island species' historical range on Maui 
that is some distance away from the other critical habitat for this 
species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species from being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Sanicula purpurea and is 306 ha 
(756 ac) on State (Panaewa and Honokowai Sections of the West Maui NAR) 
and privately owned land. The unit contains Kahoolewa, Kahoolewa Ridge, 
Puu Kukui Summit, and Violet Lake. It provides habitat for 3 
populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived 
perennial S. purpurea and is currently occupied by 70 to 150 plants. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, open Metrosideros polymorpha 
mixed montane bogs. This unit is essential to the conservation of the 
species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Sanicula purpurea and is 8 ha (19 
ac) on privately owned land. The unit contains no named natural 
features. It, in combination with Maui 17--Sanicula purpurea--a, 
provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial S. purpurea and is currently 
occupied by 50 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, open 
Metrosideros polymorpha mixed montane bogs. This unit is essential to 
the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Schiedea haleakalensis and is 26 
ha (64 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National Park). The unit 
is located in Haleakala Crater. It provides habitat for one population 
of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial S. 
haleakalensis and is currently occupied by 20 plants. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, rock cracks on sheer cliffs adjacent 
to barren lava; subalpine shrublands and grasslands with cinder, 
weathered volcanic ash; or bare lava substrate with little or no soil 
development and periodic freezing temperatures. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. Although we do not believe that 
there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the recovery 
goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, the units 
are essential because they are an appropriate distance apart to avoid 
their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Schiedea haleakalensis and is 77 
ha (189 ac) on federally owned land (Haleakala National Park). The unit 
is located in Haleakala Crater. It provides habitat for one population 
of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial S. 
haleakalensis and is currently occupied by at least one plant. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, rock cracks on sheer cliffs 
adjacent to barren lava; subalpine shrublands and grasslands with 
cinder, weathered volcanic ash; or bare lava substrate with little or 
no soil development and periodic freezing temperatures. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. Although we do not believe 
that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
the units are essential because they are an appropriate distance apart 
to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Maui 1--Sesbania tomentosa--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa and is 38 ha 
(94 ac) on non-managed State and privately owned land. The unit 
contains Honanana Gulch, Alapapa Gulch, Mokolea Point, and Papanahoa 
Gulch. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial Sesbania tomentosa 
and is currently occupied by 30 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, windswept slopes, sea cliffs, and cinder cones in Scaevola 
taccada coastal dry shrublands. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the island from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 13--Sesbania tomentosa--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa and is 79 ha 
(195 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains Pimoe and Pohakea 
summits. This unit provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial Sesbania tomentosa 
and is currently occupied by 13 plants. The habitat features contained 
in this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, windswept slopes, sea cliffs, and cinder cones in Scaevola 
taccada coastal dry shrublands. This unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony of 
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion 
of the present population. It is some distance away from the other 
critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all populations 
important for the conservation of the species on the

[[Page 26019]]

island from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Maui 13--Spermolepis hawaiiensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Spermolepis hawaiiensis and is 91 
ha (224 ac) on State (Kanaio NAR) land. The unit contains no named 
natural features. It provides habitat for one population of 500 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the annual S. hawaiiensis and is currently 
occupied by 100 plants. The habitat features contained in this unit 
that are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, 
shady spots in Dodonaea viscosa lowland dry shrubland. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Spermolepis hawaiiensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Spermolepis hawaiiensis and is 23 
ha (56 ac) on State-owned land (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR). 
The unit contains Olowalu Valley. It provides habitat for one 
population of 500 mature, reproducing individuals of the annual S. 
hawaiiensis and is currently occupied by 300 plants. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, shady spots in Dodonaea viscosa 
lowland dry shrubland. This unit is essential to the conservation of 
the species because it supports an extant colony of this species and 
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present 
population. It is some distance away from the other critical habitat 
for this species, in order to avoid all populations important for the 
conservation of the species on the island from being destroyed by one 
naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 17--Tetramolopium capillare--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Tetramolopium capillare and is 
1,782 ha (4,404 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West 
Maui Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains 
Halepohaku, Hanaulaiki, Helu, Koai, Lihau, Luakoi, and Ulaula summits. 
It provides habitat for 6 populations of 300 mature, reproducing 
individuals of the short-lived perennial T. capillare and is currently 
occupied by 50 to 100 plants. The habitat features contained in this 
unit that are essential for this species include, but are not limited 
to, rocky substrates in Heteropogon contortus lowland dry forest. This 
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
supports an extant colony of this species, includes habitat that is 
important for the expansion of the present population, and is the only 
habitat essential for the conservation of this species on Maui. 
Although we do not feel that there is enough habitat that currently 
exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this 
island-endemic species, this unit is of an appropriate size so that 
each potential populations important for the conservation of the specie 
within the unit is geographically separated enough to avoid their 
destruction by one naturally occurring event.

Maui 17--Tetramolopium remyi--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Tetramolopium remyi and is 287 ha 
(712 ac) on State (Lihau Section of the West Maui NAR, West Maui Forest 
Reserve) and privately owned land. The unit contains Olowalu Stream and 
Valley. It provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial T. remyi and is 
currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained in this unit that 
are essential for this species include, but are not limited to, red 
sandy loam soil in dry Dodonaea viscosa-Heteropogon contortus 
communities. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species 
because it provides for three populations within this multi-island 
species' historical range on Maui that are some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species from being 
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 12--Vigna o-wahuensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis and is 144 ha 
(356 ac) on State-owned land. The unit contains area east of Kamanamana 
Point. It provides habitat for one population of 300 mature, 
reproducing individuals of the short-lived perennial V. o-wahuensis and 
is currently occupied by two plants. The habitat features contained in 
this unit that are essential for this species include, but are not 
limited to, dry or mesic grassland or shrubland. This unit is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it supports an extant colony 
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the 
expansion of the present population. It is some distance away from the 
other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Maui 8--Zanthoxylum hawaiiense--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Zanthoxylum hawaiiense and is 363 
ha (895 ac) on State (Makawao Forest Reserve) and privately owned land. 
The unit contains Kahakapao Stream. It provides habitat for one 
population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived 
perennial Z. hawaiiense and is currently occupied by 3 plants. The 
habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, open lowland dry or mesic 
Nestegis sandwicensis-Pleomele auwahiensis forests or Acacia koa-
Pleomele auwahiensis forest, or montane dry forest. This unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. It is some distance away 
from the other critical habitat for this species, in order to avoid all 
populations important for the conservation of the species on the island 
from being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Kahoolawe 1--Kanaloa kahoolawensis--a

    This unit is critical habitat for Kanaloa kahoolawensis and is 562 
ha (1,388 ac) on State (KIRC) land. The unit contains Keana Keiki, Laa 
o Kealaikahiki, Honukanaenae, and Wai Honu Gulch. This unit provides 
habitat for two populations of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of 
the long-lived perennial K. kahoolawensis and is currently unoccupied. 
The habitat features contained in this unit that are essential for this 
species include, but are not limited to, steep, rocky talus slopes. 
Although we do not believe that there is enough habitat that currently 
exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this 
island-endemic species, the units are essential because they are an 
appropriate distance apart to avoid their destruction by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Kahoolawe 2--Kanaloa kahoolawensis--b

    This unit is critical habitat for Kanaloa kahoolawensis and is 613 
ha (1,515 ac) on State (KIRC) land. The unit contains Aleale, Kunaka 
Cave, Kamohio Bay, Iliililoa, Lae o Kuakaiwa, Lae O Kaka, Lae o Halona, 
Keoheuli Bay,

[[Page 26020]]

Kaukamaka Gulch, Pali o Kalapakea, Kalua o Kamohoalii, Hula Kao, and 
Lae o ka Ule. This unit provides habitat for 4 populations of 100 
mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial K. 
kahoolawensis and is currently occupied by two plants. The habitat 
features contained in this unit that are essential for this species 
include, but are not limited to, steep, rocky talus slopes. This unit 
is essential to the conservation of the species because it supports an 
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important 
for the expansion of the present population. Although we do not feel 
that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
the units are of an appropriate distance apart to avoid their 
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.

Kahoolawe 3--Kanaloa kahoolawensis--c

    This unit is critical habitat for Kanaloa kahoolawensis and is 5 ha 
(12 ac) on State (KIRC) land. The unit contains the entirety of Puu 
Koae Islet. This unit, in combination with a portion of Kahoolawe 2--
Kanaloa kahoolawensis--b, provides habitat for one population of 100 
mature, reproducing individuals of the long-lived perennial K. 
kahoolawensis and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features 
contained in this unit that are essential for this species include, but 
are not limited to, steep, rocky talus slopes. Although we do not 
believe that there is enough habitat that currently exists to reach the 
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species, 
the units are essential because they are an appropriate distance apart 
to avoid their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal action agency must enter into consultation with us. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies (action agency) to 
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent that it 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the 
designation of critical habitat when their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or 
involve Federal funding. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain 
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is 
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement, or control has been retained or is 
authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for 
which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy 
proposed critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the likelihood of the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. 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.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the critical habitat of 
one or more of the 60 plant species from Maui and Kahoolawe will 
require section 7 consultation. Activities on private or State lands 
requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.,) the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us; or some other 
Federal action, including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), or Department of Energy), regulation of airport improvement 
activities by the FAA; and construction of communication sites licensed 
by the Federal Communications Commission, may also be subject to the 
section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting critical 
habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded, 
authorized, or permitted would not require section 7 consultation as a 
result of this rule designating critical habitat.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and 
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. We 
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the primary 
constituent elements including, but not limited to: Overgrazing; 
maintenance of feral ungulates; clearing or cutting of native live 
trees and shrubs, whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other 
means (e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing, construction, road building, 
mining, herbicide application); introducing or enabling the spread of 
nonnative species; and taking actions that pose a risk of fire;
    (2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that 
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, dynamic 
wetland or other vegetative communities. Such activities may include 
manipulation of vegetation, such as timber harvesting, residential and 
commercial development, and grazing of livestock that degrades 
watershed values;
    (3) Rural residential construction that includes concrete pads for 
foundations and the installation of septic systems in wetlands where a 
permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required by 
the Corps;
    (4) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation;
    (5) Mining of sand or other minerals;

[[Page 26021]]

    (6) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant 
species into critical habitat units; and
    (7) Importation of nonnative species for research, agriculture, and 
aquaculture, and the release of biological control agents that would 
have unanticipated deleterious effects on the listed species and the 
primary constituent elements of their habitats.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed 
plants and animals, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered 
Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503/
231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)

    Pursuant to the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act, the primary constituent elements as found in any area so 
designated must also require ``special management considerations or 
protections.'' Adequate special management or protection is provided by 
a legally operative plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement 
of the essential elements and provides for the long-term conservation 
of the species. We consider a plan adequate when it: (1) Provides a 
conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must maintain or 
provide for an increase in the species' population or the enhancement 
or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by the plan); (2) 
provides assurances that the management plan will be implemented (i.e., 
those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of 
accomplishing the objectives, have an implementation schedule and have 
adequate funding for the management plan); and, (3) provides assurances 
that the conservation plan will be effective (i.e., it identifies 
biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a 
duration sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the plan's goals 
and objectives). If an area is covered by a plan that meets these 
criteria, it does not constitute critical habitat as defined by the Act 
because the primary constituent elements found there are not in need of 
special management or protection.
    Currently occupied and historically known sites containing one or 
more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the 
conservation of these 60 plant species were examined to determine the 
adequacy of special management considerations or protection are 
required and, consequently, whether such areas meet the definition of 
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A). We reviewed all available 
management information on these plants at these sites, including 
published reports and surveys; annual performance and progress reports; 
management plans; grants; memoranda of understanding and cooperative 
agreements; DOFAW planning documents; internal letters and memos; 
biological assessments and environmental impact statements; and section 
7 consultations. Additionally, we contacted the major private 
landowners on Maui and Kahoolawe by mail and we met with several 
landowners between the publication of the revised proposal on April 3, 
2002, and the end of the comment period on September 30, 2002, to 
discuss their current management for the plants on their lands. We also 
met with Maui District DOFAW staff to discuss management activities 
they are conducting on Maui. In addition, we reviewed new biological 
information and public comments received during the public comment 
periods and at the public hearing.
    In determining whether a management plan or agreement provides 
adequate management or protection, we first consider whether that plan 
provides a conservation benefit to the species. We considered the 
following threats and associated recommended management actions:
    (1) The factors that led to the listing of the species, as 
described in the final rules for listing each of the species. Effects 
of clearing and burning for agricultural purposes and of invasive non-
native plant and animal species have contributed to the decline of 
nearly all endangered and threatened plants in Hawaii (Cuddihy and 
Stone 1990; Howarth 1985; Loope 1998; Scott et al. 1986; Service 1994, 
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, 2001; Smith 1985; Stone 
1985; Vitousek 1992; Wagner et al. 1985).
    Current threats to these species include nonnative grass- and 
shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from 
feral ungulates (including axis deer, goats, cattle, and pigs); direct 
and indirect effects of nonnative plant invasions, including alteration 
of habitat structure and microclimate; and disruption of pollination 
and gene-flow processes by adverse effects of mosquito-borne avian 
disease on forest bird pollinators, direct competition between native 
and non-native insect pollinators for food, and predation of native 
insect pollinators by non-native hymenopteran insects (ants). In 
addition, physiological processes such as reproduction and 
establishment continue to be negatively affected by fruit- and flower-
eating pests such as non-native arthropods, molluscs, and rats, and 
photosynthesis and water transport are affected by non-native insects, 
pathogens, and diseases. Many of these factors interact with one 
another, thereby compounding effects. Such interactions include non-
native plant invasions altering wildfire regimes, feral ungulates 
carrying weeds and disturbing vegetation and soils, thereby 
facilitating dispersal and establishment of nonnative plants, and 
numerous nonnative insect species feeding on native plants, thereby 
increasing their vulnerability and exposure to pathogens and disease 
(Bruegmann et al. 2001; Cuddihy and Stone 1990; D'Antonio and Vitousek 
1992; Howarth 1985; Mack 1992; Scott et al. 1986; Service 1995a, 1995b, 
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Smith 1985; Tunison et 
al. 1992);
    (2) The recommendations from the HPPRCC in their 1998 report to us 
(``Habitat Essential to the Recovery of Hawaiian Plants''). As 
summarized in this report, recovery goals for endangered Hawaiian plant 
species cannot be achieved without the effective control of non-native 
species threats, wildfire, and land use changes; and
    (3) The management actions needed for assurance of survival and 
ultimate recovery of these plants. These actions are described in our 
recovery plans for these 60 species (Service 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 
1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001), in the 1998 HPPRCC report to 
us, and in various other documents and publications relating to plant 
conservation in Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Mueller-Dombois 1985; 
Smith 1985; Stone 1985; Stone et al. 1992). In addition to monitoring 
the plant populations, these actions include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Feral ungulate control; (2) non-native plant control; (3) rodent 
control; (4) invertebrate pest control; (5) fire management; (6) 
maintenance of genetic material of the endangered and threatened plant 
species; (7) propagation, reintroduction, and augmentation of existing 
populations into areas deemed essential for the recovery of these 
species; (8) ongoing management of the wild, outplanted, and augmented 
populations; and (9) habitat management and restoration in areas deemed 
essential for the recovery of these species.

[[Page 26022]]

    In general, taking all of the above recommended management actions 
into account, the following management actions are important in 
providing a conservation benefit to the species: Feral ungulate 
control; wildfire management; non-native plant control; rodent control; 
invertebrate pest control; maintenance of genetic material of the 
endangered and threatened plant species; propagation, reintroduction, 
and augmentation of existing populations into areas deemed essential 
for the recovery of the species; ongoing management of the wild, 
outplanted, and augmented populations; maintenance of natural 
pollinators and pollinating systems, when known; habitat management and 
restoration in areas deemed essential for the recovery of the species; 
monitoring of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; rare 
plant surveys; and control of human activities/access (Service 1995a, 
1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). On a case-by-case 
basis, these actions may rise to different levels of importance for a 
particular species or area, depending on the biological and physical 
requirements of the species and the location(s) of the individual 
plants.
    As shown in Table 2, the 60 species of plants are found on Federal, 
State, and private lands on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. 
Information received in response to our public notices; meetings with 
landowners of Maui County and Maui District DOFAW staff; the December 
18, 2000, and April 3, 2002, proposals; public comment periods; and the 
March 20, 2001, and September 12, 2002, public hearings; as well as 
information in our files, indicated that there is limited on-going 
conservation management action for these plants, except as noted below. 
Without management plans and assurances that the plans will be 
implemented, we are unable to find that the other areas do require 
special management or protection. The following discussion analyzes 
current management plans that provide a conservation benefit to the 
species to assess whether they meet the Service's requirements for 
adequate management or protection

Federal Lands

    The Sikes Act Improvements Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each 
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the 
conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by 
November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
(INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of 
the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found there. 
Each INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the 
installation, including needs to provide for the conservation of listed 
species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of 
management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological 
needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. We consult with 
the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for 
installations with listed species. We believe that bases that have 
completed and approved INRMPs that address the needs of the species 
generally do not meet the definition of critical habitat discussed 
above, because they require no additional special management or 
protection. Therefore, we do not include these areas in critical 
habitat designations if they meet the following three criteria: (1) A 
current INRMP must be complete and provide a conservation benefit to 
the species; (2) the plan must provide assurances that the conservation 
management strategies will be implemented; and (3) the plan must 
provide assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
effective, by providing for periodic monitoring and revisions as 
necessary. If all of these criteria are met, then the lands covered 
under the plan would not meet the definition of critical habitat.
    One species, Sesbania tomentosa, occurs on Kanaio Training Area 
(Hawaii Army National Guard) lands on the island of Maui, and we 
believe this land is essential for the conservation of this species. In 
1998, funds were provided for protective fencing and monitoring of 
Sesbania tomentosa on this land. Since then, however, these management 
activities for Sesbania tomentosa have been curtailed due to a lack of 
funding (Lt. Col. Richard Young, Hawaii Army National Guard, in litt. 
2000). Because appropriate conservation management strategies have not 
been adequately funded or effectively implemented for Sesbania 
tomentosa on this land, we cannot at this time find that management of 
this land under Federal jurisdiction is sufficient to find that they do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, this area has 
been included within the critical habitat units.
    Contractors for the U.S. Navy are clearing the state-owned island 
of Kahoolawe of military ordnance utilizing Congressional funding that 
expires in 2003. The Navy has consulted with the Service under section 
7 of the Act to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species 
during the clearance activities. In June 1998, the State of Hawaii 
Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission developed an environmental 
restoration plan for Kahoolawe (Social Science Research Institute, 
University of Hawaii 1998). The plan, however, does not address 
specific management actions to protect and conserve endangered plant 
species. While the island is isolated and remote, and access is 
restricted due to the presence of unexploded ordnance hazards, this 
action alone is not sufficient to indicate that special management is 
not required for the listed plant species, and areas on the island are 
included within the critical habitat units for Kanaloa kahoolawensis.

State of Hawaii Lands

The Upper Areas of Hanawi Natural Area Reserve (HNAR)

    Three plant species, Geranium multiflorum, and Clermontia samuelii 
ssp. hanaensis, and Cyanea mceldowneyi are reported from the upper 
areas of HNAR (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000). The HNAR was 
established in 1986, and comprises 3,035 ha (7,500 ac) of diverse 
native ecosystems and endangered forest bird habitat. The Department of 
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) manages Natural Area Reserves, except 
that any use must be specifically approved by the Natural Area Reserve 
System Commission. The State holds Natural Area Reserves in trust and 
they may not be non-nativeated except upon a finding by the DLNR of an 
imperative and unavoidable necessity. DLNR must provide public notice 
and conduct public hearings before revoking or modifying an executive 
order that sets aside lands for the reserve system (Haw. Rev. Stat. 
sections 195-1--195-11). The primary goals of the HNAR are to: (1) 
Protect the upper areas of the reserve by fencing smaller manageable 
units to restrict pig movements; (2) prevent degradation of native 
forest by reducing feral ungulate damage; and (3) improve or maintain 
the integrity of native ecosystems in selected areas of the preserve by 
reducing the effects of non-native plants.
    Specific management actions to address feral ungulate impacts 
include the construction of fences, including strategic fencing of 
smaller manageable units, and staff hunting. Currently, the upper 809 
ha (2,000 ac) has been fenced and pigs removed. Fences have been 
constructed along the western boundaries of the HNAR, along the 1,585 m 
(5,200 ft) contour to the east up to the Haleakala National Park 
boundary on State land. The Haleakala National

[[Page 26023]]

Park fence serves as the upper fence boundary for HNAR. Additionally, 
fences have been constructed to separate three distinct management 
units: Puu Alaea Unit, Poouli Unit, and Kuhiwai/Waieleele Unit. Since 
the removal of pigs in these upper forest units of the HNAR, vegetation 
monitoring has been implemented to determine recovery of native plant 
species. Currently, a fence is being constructed along the 1,100 m 
(3,600 ft) contour of the HNAR which will comprise the ``middle forest 
unit'' (Willian Evanson, DLNR, pers. comm., 1999).
    The nonnative plant control program within HNAR focuses on habitat-
modifying nonnative plants (weeds). A weed priority list has been 
compiled for HNAR, and control and monitoring of the highest priority 
species are ongoing. Weeds are controlled manually, chemically, or 
through a combination of both. Monitoring transects help locate 
developing populations of other priority weed species and, if 
necessary, removal of these populations is conducted (DLNR 1989).
    Because Geranium multiflorum and Clermontia samuelii ssp. hanaenis 
and their habitats within the upper areas of HNAR (above 1,525 m (5,000 
ft) elevation) are permanently protected and managed by State law and 
because the continued successful management of this area is assured by 
State funding, HRS 195-9 (Natural Area Reserve Fund; Heritage Program; 
established) establishes in the state treasury a special fund known as 
the natural area reserve fund to implement the purposes of this 
chapter, including the identification, establishment, and management of 
natural area reserves * * * the fund shall be administered by the 
department [DLNR]. Since its establishment, DLNR has received funding 
for this program each year from the Legislature and funding for natural 
resource programs such as this is a high priority and unlikely to be 
discontinued (Randy Kennedy, Native Resource Program Manager, DOFAW, 
pers. comm. 2003). This area is not in need of special management 
considerations or protection. Therefore, we have determined that the 
State land within the upper areas of HNAR does not meet the definition 
of critical habitat in the Act, and we are not designating this area as 
critical habitat. Should the status of this reserve change, for example 
by revocation or modification of the NAR, we will reconsider whether it 
then meets the definition of critical habitat. If so, we have the 
authority to propose to amend critical habitat to include such area at 
that time (50 CFR 424.12(g)) as workload and resources allow.

Private Lands

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii's Waikamoi and Kapunakea Preserves, 
which are located on the northeastern slopes of Haleakala and in the 
West Maui mountains, respectively

    Lands within The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii's (TNCH) Maui 
preserves were not included within proposed critical habitat. Sixteen 
species (Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bonamia menziesii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea lobata, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Melicope balloui, 
Phlegmariurus mannii, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Remya 
mauiensis, and Sanicula purpurea) are reported from TNCH's Waikamoi and 
Kapunakea Preserves, which are located on the northeastern slopes of 
Haleakala and in the West Maui mountains, respectively (TNCH 1997, 
1998; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000). Both preserves were established 
by grants of perpetual conservation easements from the private 
landowners to TNCH and are included in the State's Natural Area 
Partnership (NAP) program, which provides matching funds for the 
management of private lands that have been permanently dedicated to 
conservation (TNCH 1997, 1998).
    Under the NAP program, the State of Hawaii provides matching funds 
on a two-for-one basis for management of private lands dedicated to 
conservation. In order to qualify for this program, the land must be 
dedicated in perpetuity through transfer of fee title or a conservation 
easement to the State or a cooperating entity. The land must be managed 
by the cooperating entity or a qualified landowner according to a 
detailed management plan approved by the Board of Land and Natural 
Resources. Once approved, the six-year partnership agreement between 
the State and the managing entity is automatically renewed each year so 
that there are always six years remaining in the term, although the 
management plan is updated and funding amounts are re-authorized by the 
board at least every six years. By April 1 of any year, the managing 
partner may notify the State that it does not intend to renew the 
agreement; however, in such case the partnership agreement remains in 
effect for the balance of the existing six-year term, and the 
conservation easement remains in full effect in perpetuity. The 
conservation easement may be revoked by the landowner only if State 
funding is terminated without the concurrence of the landowner and 
cooperating entity. Prior to terminating funding, the State must 
conduct one or more public hearings. The NAP program is funded through 
real estate conveyance taxes which are placed in a Natural Area Reserve 
Fund. Participants in the NAP program must provide annual reports to 
the DLNR and DLNR makes annual inspections of the work in the reserve 
areas. See Haw. Rev. Stat. sections 195-1--195-11; Hawaii 
Administrative Rules section 13-210.
    Management programs within the preserves are documented in long-
range management plans and yearly operational plans. These plans detail 
management measures that protect, restore, and enhance the rare plants 
and their habitats within the preserves and in adjacent areas (TNCH 
1997, 1998, 1999). These management measures address factors which led 
to the listing of the ten species including control of nonnative 
species of ungulates, rodents, and weeds. In addition, habitat 
restoration and monitoring are also included in these plans.
    The primary management goals for both Kapunakea and Waikamoi 
Preserves are to (1) prevent degradation of native forest by reducing 
feral ungulate damage; (2) improve or maintain the integrity of native 
ecosystems in selected areas of the preserve by reducing the effects of 
nonnative plants; (3) increase the understanding of threats posed by 
small mammals and reduce their negative impact, where possible; (4) 
prevent extinction of rare species in the preserve; (5) track the 
biological and physical resources in the preserves and evaluate changes 
in these resources over time; (6) identify new threats to the preserves 
before they become established pests; and (7) build public 
understanding and support for the preservation of natural areas, and 
enlist volunteer assistance for preserve management (TNCH 1997, 1998).
    The goal of the ungulate program is to bring pig populations to 
zero as rapidly as possible. Specific management actions to address 
feral ungulate impacts include the construction of fences, including 
strategic fencing (fences placed in proximity to natural barriers such 
as cliffs), annual monitoring of ungulate presence transects, and 
trained staff and volunteer hunting. Since axis deer may also pose a 
threat to the preserves, TNCH is a member of the Maui Axis Deer Group 
(MADG) and staff meet regularly with other MADG members to seek 
solutions. In Waikamoi Preserve, the management actions also include 
working with community hunters in

[[Page 26024]]

conjunction with the East Maui Watershed Partnership (EMWP). In 
Kapunakea Preserve, a system of transects extends the length of the 
preserve to monitor resource threats, including ungulate presence. By 
monitoring ungulate activity within the preserve, the staff is able to 
assess the success of the hunting program. If increased hunting 
pressure does not reduce feral ungulate activity in the preserves, the 
preserve staff work with the hunting group to identify and implement 
alternative methods (TNCH 1997, 1998).
    The nonnative plant control program within both preserves focuses 
on controlling habitat-modifying nonnative plants (weeds) in intact 
native communities and preventing the introduction of additional non-
native plants. Based on the degree of threat to native ecosystems, a 
weed priority list has been compiled for the preserves, and control and 
monitoring of the highest priority species are ongoing. Weeds are 
controlled manually, chemically, or through a combination of both. 
Preventive measures (prevention protocol) are required by all who enter 
the preserves. This protocol includes such things as brushing footgear 
before entering the preserves to remove seeds of nonnative plants. 
Weeds are monitored along transects annually, weed priority maps are 
maintained, staff participate as members of the Melastome Action 
Committee and the Maui Invasive Species Committee (MISC), and cooperate 
with the State Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement 
(DOCARE) in marijuana control, as needed.
    The effects of nonnative invertebrates and small mammals on native 
Hawaiian ecosystems are poorly understood. Initial control measures 
such as anti-coagulant diphacinone bait stations are being used to 
control rats in areas of suspected impact; however, valid conclusions 
from data gathered have not been drawn. Adaptive management will be 
applied when new information becomes available (TNCH 1997, 1998).
    Natural resource monitoring and research address the need to track 
the biological and physical resources of the preserves and evaluate 
changes in these resources to guide management programs. Vegetation is 
monitored throughout the preserves to document long-term ecological 
changes, and rare plant species are monitored to assess population 
status. Cuttings of endangered plants are taken to the University of 
Hawaii's tissue culture lab at Lyon Arboretum for propagation. In 
addition, the preserve staff provides logistical support to scientists 
and others who are conducting research within the preserves.
    Kapunakea Preserve is adjacent to two areas that are also managed 
to protect natural resources: Puu Kukui Watershed Management Area (WMA) 
and the Honokowai section of the West Maui NAR. TNCH currently acts as 
a consultant to Maui Land and Pineapple Company, managers of Puu Kukui 
WMA, and has a Master Cooperative Agreement with DOFAW. These 
agreements are used to coordinate management and sharing of staff and 
equipment, and expertise to maximize management efficiency.
    Waikamoi Preserve is adjacent to three other large areas that are 
also managed to protect natural resources: Haleakala National Park, 
Koolau Forest Reserve, and the State's Hanawi NAR. An agreement between 
the DLNR, East Maui Irrigation Company, Keola Hana Maui Inc., Haleakala 
Ranch Company, County of Maui, TNCH, and Haleakala National Park was 
signed in order to implement a joint management plan (East Maui 
Watershed Partnership Plan) for the entire East Maui Watershed. 
Management efforts at Waikamoi complement the objectives of the plan as 
much as possible. The partnership agreement is being used to coordinate 
management and sharing of staff and equipment, and expertise to 
maximize management efficiency (TNCH 1998).
    Because the preserves and the continuing management plans being 
implemented for these plants and their habitats within the preserves 
provide a conservation benefit to the species and because they are 
permanently protected and managed, these lands are not in need of 
special management or protection. Therefore, we have determined that 
the private lands within Waikamoi Preserve and Kapunakea Preserve do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat in the Act, and we are not 
designating these lands as critical habitat. Should the status of any 
of these reserves change, for example by non-renewal of a partnership 
agreement or termination of NAP funding, we will reconsider whether it 
then meets the definition of critical habitat. If so, we have the 
authority to propose to amend critical habitat to include such area at 
that time (50 CFR 424.12(g)).

Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Ltd.

Maui Pineapple Company's Puu Kukui WMA, Located in The West Maui 
Mountains

    Lands within Maui Land and Pineapple Co.'s Puu Kukui Watershed 
Management Area, located in the West Maui Mountains, were included in 
proposed critical habitat on Maui. Eight species (Ctenitis squamigera, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea lobata, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Phlegmariurus mannii, Platanthera 
holochila, and Sanicula purpurea) are reported from the Puu Kukui WMA 
(GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Ltd. 
undated). In the December 18, 2000, proposal we proposed that lands 
within the Puu Kukui WMA were adequately managed for the conservation 
of the listed species that occur on those lands and were not in need of 
special management considerations or protection. Therefore, we proposed 
that these lands did not meet the definition of critical habitat in the 
Act, and we did not propose designation of these lands as critical 
habitat. However, during the comment periods on the December 18, 2000, 
proposal we received information from the Watershed Supervisor that 
funding for the conservation and management of the listed plant species 
on lands within Puu Kukui WMA was not adequate nor assured. However, 
during the comment periods for the April 3, 2002, proposal we received 
yet more information from the Watershed Supervisor that, contrary to 
the previous comments submitted, funding for Puu Kukui WMA was indeed 
secure. In his September 30, 2002, letter to us the Puu Kukui Watershed 
Supervisor stated that since 1988 Maui Land and Pineapple has 
proactively managed Puu Kukui Watershed and that they are currently in 
their second, six-year contract with the State of Hawaii's NAP Program 
to preserve the native biodiversity of their conservation lands. They 
are also receiving funding from the Service to survey for rare plants 
on their lands and build feral ungulate control fences for the 
protection of listed plants. In other words, they have a history of 
self-funding and conducting proactive conservation efforts in Puu 
Kukui, they are enrolled in the State's NAP Program and they receive 
funding from the Service to support their conservation efforts. 
Therefore, we have determined that the private land within Puu Kukui 
WMA does not meet the definition of critical habitat in the Act as 
discussed below, and we are not designating critical habitat on this 
land.
    At just over 3,483 ha (8,600 ac), the Puu Kukui WMA is the largest 
privately owned preserve in the State. In 1993, the Puu Kukui WMA 
became the first private landowner participant in the NAP program. In 
the NAP program, Puu Kukui WMA staff are pursuing four management 
programs stipulated in

[[Page 26025]]

their Long Range Management Plan with an emphasis on reducing nonnative 
species that immediately threaten the management area (Maui Pineapple 
Company 1999).
    The primary management goals within Puu Kukui WMA are to (1) 
eliminate ungulate activity in all Puu Kukui management units; (2) 
reduce the range of habitat-modifying weeds and prevent introduction of 
nonnative plants; (3) reduce the negative impacts of non-native 
invertebrates and small animals; (4) monitor and track biological and 
physical resources in the watershed in order to improve management 
understanding of the watershed's resources; and (5) prevent the 
extinction of rare species within the watershed.
    Specific management actions to address feral ungulates include the 
construction of fences surrounding 10 management units and removal of 
ungulates within the Puu Kukui WMA.
    The nonnative plant control program within Puu Kukui WMA focuses on 
habitat modifying weeds, prioritizing them according to the degree of 
threat to native ecosystems, and preventing the introduction of new 
weeds. The weed control program includes mapping and monitoring along 
established transects and manual/mechanical control. Biological control 
of Clidemia hirta was tried by releasing Antiblemma acclinalis moth 
larvae.
    Natural resource monitoring and research address the need to track 
biological and physical resources of the Puu Kukui WMA and evaluate 
changes to these resources in order to guide management programs. 
Vegetation is monitored through permanent photo points, nonnative 
species are monitored along permanent transects, and rare, endemic, and 
indigenous species are monitored. Additionally, logistical and other 
support for approved research projects, interagency cooperative 
agreements, and remote survey trips within the watershed is provided.
    For these reasons, Puu Kukui WMA meets the three criteria for 
determining that an area is not in need of special management as 
discussed above. Therefore, we have determined that the private land 
within Puu Kukui WMA does not meet the definition of critical habitat 
in the Act, and we are not designating this land as critical habitat. 
Should the status of this reserve change, for example by non-renewal of 
a partnership agreement or termination of NAP funding, we will 
reconsider whether it then meets the definition of critical habitat. If 
so, we have the authority to propose to amend critical habitat to 
include such area at that time (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
    In summary, we believe that the habitat within Waikamoi and 
Kapunakea Preserves, Puu Kukui WMA, and the upper area (above 1,525 m 
(5,000 ft)) of Hanawi NAR, are being adequately managed for the 
conservation of the listed species that occur within these areas and 
are not in need of special management considerations or protection. 
Therefore, we have determined that these lands do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat in the Act, and we are not designating 
these lands as critical habitat.

Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available, and 
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We cannot 
exclude such areas from critical habitat when exclusion will result in 
the extinction of the species concerned.

Economic Impacts

    Following the publication of the revised proposed critical habitat 
designation on April 5, 2002, a draft economic analysis (DEA) was 
prepared to estimate the potential economic impact of the proposed 
designation in accordance with the Court's decision in the N.M. 
Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 
(10th Cir. 2001). The draft analysis was made available for review on 
October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61845). We accepted comments on the draft 
analysis until November 2, 2002.
    Our draft economic analysis evaluated the potential direct and 
indirect economic impacts of section 7 associated with the proposed 
critical habitat designation for the 61 plant species from the islands 
of Maui and Kahoolawe over the next ten years. Direct impacts are those 
related to consultations under section 7 of the Act. They include the 
cost of completing the section 7 consultation process and potential 
project modifications resulting from the consultation. Indirect impacts 
are secondary costs and benefits that could occur coextensively with 
critical habitat designation, but are not necessarily directly related 
to the Act. Examples of indirect impacts include potential effects to 
property values, potential effects of redistricting of land from 
agricultural or urban to conservation, and social welfare benefits of 
ecological improvements.
    The categories of potential direct and indirect costs considered in 
the analysis included the costs associated with: (1) Conducting section 
7 consultations including incremental consultations and technical 
assistance; (2) Modifications to projects, activities, or land uses 
resulting from the section 7 consultations; (3) Uncertainty and public 
perceptions resulting from the designation of critical habitat 
including potential indirect costs resulting from the loss of hunting 
opportunities and the interaction of State and local laws; and (4) 
Potential offsetting beneficial impacts associated with critical 
habitat, including educational benefits. The most likely economic 
effects of critical habitat designation are on activities funded, 
authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency (i.e., direct costs).
    The analysis in the DEA incorporates two baselines: one which 
addresses the impact of critical habitat designation that may be 
``attributable co-extensively'' to the listing of the species and one 
which addresses the incremental impact of the critical habitat 
designation itself.
    This Addendum utilizes one baseline and analyzes the impacts of 
critical habitat designation that may be attributable co-extensively to 
the listing of the species. Because of the potential uncertainty about 
the benefits and economic costs resulting solely from critical habitat 
designations, the Service believes that it is reasonable to estimate 
the effects of the designation utilizing this approach to avoid 
understating potential economic impacts. It is important to note that 
the inclusion of impacts attributable co-extensively to the listing 
does not convert the economic analysis into a tool to be considered in 
the context of a listing decision.
    The addendum incorporates public comments on the draft analysis and 
makes other changes in the draft. These changes were primarily the 
result of modifications made to the proposed critical habitat 
designation based on biological information received during the comment 
periods. In addition, we have completed an amendment to the addendum in 
which we have examined the potential economic impacts of a critical 
habitat designation in areas that were not included in the original 
proposal because we believed they were areas essential to the 
conservation of the species but did not require special management 
considerations or protection and thus could be excluded from 
designation under section 3(5)(a) of the Act.

[[Page 26026]]

    Together, the draft economic analysis, the addendum and the 
addendum amendment constitute our final economic analysis. The draft 
economic analysis estimated the total direct cost of the designation of 
critical habitat on Maui and Kahoolawe for the 60 plant species co-
extensive with the listing to be between $418,700 and $2,075,600 over 
10 years. This direct cost was revised in the addendum to $241,700 to 
$1,441,200 over 10 years. The reduction of $177,000 to $634,400 from 
the costs estimated in the draft economic analysis is primarily due to 
the exclusion of some proposed units and the significant reduction in 
size of other proposed units. Using a seven percent discount rate and 
assuming these direct costs are distributed evenly over the 10-year 
period, the annualized direct costs range from $24,170 to $144,120 per 
year.
    Certain costs identified the final economic analysis are based on 
``worst-case'' scenarios that, while possible, do not seem likely based 
on past consultation histories for these species. In particular, the 
final economic analysis includes an evaluation of potential indirect 
costs associated with the designation of critical habitat for 60 plant 
species on Maui and Kahoolawe. These reported costs are speculative 
and, in general, thought to have a low probability of occurrence. In 
addition, the final economic analysis discusses economic benefits in 
qualitative terms rather than providing quantitative estimates because 
of the lack of information available to estimate the economic benefits 
of endangered species preservation and ecosystem improvements.
    The likely direct cost impact of designating critical habitat on 
Maui and Kahoolawe for the 60 plant species is estimated to be between 
$24,170 to $144,120 per year over the next 10 years. This estimate, 
however, includes areas that were proposed as critical habitat, but 
have been excluded under sections 3(5)(a) and/or 4(b)(2) of the Act. 
Therefore, the direct cost of designating critical habitat for these 60 
plant species is likely to be somewhat less than this amount.
    A more detailed discussion of our economic analysis is contained in 
the draft economic analysis and the addendum. Both documents are 
included in our administrative record and are available for inspection 
at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Other Impacts

    As described in the ``Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 
3(5)(A)'' section above, based on our evaluation of the adequacy of 
special management and protection that is provided in current 
management plans involving Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, 
Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia 
samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea lobata, 
Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium 
arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Hesperomannia arborescens, Melicope 
balloui, Phlegmariurus mannii, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Remya mauiensis, and Sanicula purpurea in accordance with 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not included TNCH's Waikamoi and 
Kapunakea Preserves, Maui Land and Pineapple's Puu Kukui WMA, and the 
State's upper Hanawi NAR lands, in this final designation of critical 
habitat. However, to the extent that special management considerations 
and protection may be required for these areas, and they therefore meet 
the definition of critical habitat according to section 3(5)(A)(i), 
they are properly excluded from designation under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, based on the following analysis.
    In addition, approximately 3,894 ha (9,622 ac) within five proposed 
critical habitat units (Maui units H, I1, I2, and I4) located on 
private lands owned by Ulupalakua and Haleakala Ranches are excluded 
from designation under section 4(b)(2) because the benefits provided by 
these two landowners' voluntary conservation activities within and 
adjacent to these units outweigh the benefits provided by a designation 
of critical habitat.
    The Service believes that designation of critical habitat on these 
lands would be a disincentive to those that have demonstrated a 
willingness to manage their lands in a manner compatible with the 
conservation of listed and non-listed species on Maui and Kahoolawe. 
Designation, therefore, would have a strong possibility of having a 
detrimental effect on the recovery of the listed species on these 
lands. The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat, on the other 
hand, will help improve and maintain our positive relationship with the 
landowners involved and it will also provide incentives to other 
landowners on Maui and Kahoolawe to consider implementing similar 
voluntary conservation activities, conservation partnerships, and 
beneficial natural resource programs on their lands.
    TNCH's Waikamoi and Kapunakea Preserves contain occupied habitat 
for 13 species (Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bonamia menziesii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea lobata, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Plantago 
princeps, Platanthera holochila, and Sanicula purpurea) and unoccupied 
habitat for three species (Melicope balloui, Phlegmariurus mannii, and 
Remya mauiensis). The State's upper Hanawi NAR contains occupied 
habitat for Clermontia samuelii and Geranium multiflorum, and 
unoccupied habitat for Cyanea mceldowneyi. Eight species (Ctenitis 
squamigera, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea lobata, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Phlegmariurus mannii, 
Platanthera holochila, and Sanicula purpurea) occur within the Maui 
Land and Pineapple Company's Puu Kukui WMA. For a more detailed 
description of the management activities conducted on TNCH's Waikamoi 
and Kapunakea Preserves, the State's Hanawi NAR and Maui Land and 
Pineapple's Puu Kukui WMA, see the ``Analysis of Managed Lands Under 
Section 3(5)(A)'' section.
    The portion of proposed unit Maui H on Ulupalakua Ranch lands is 
occupied habitat for nine species: Alectryon macrococcus; Bonamia 
menziesii; Cenchrus agrimonioides; Flueggea neowawraea; Geranium 
arboreum; Lipochaeta kamolensis; Melicope adscendens; Melicope 
knudsenii; and Melicope mucronulata. It is unoccupied habitat for three 
species: Clermontia lindseyana; Colubrina oppositifolia; and Diellia 
erecta.
    Ulupalakua Ranch is involved in several important voluntary 
conservation agreements and is currently carrying out some of these 
activities for the conservation of these species. For example, the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Auwahi and Puu Makua agreements were 
entered into in fiscal year 1997 and 1998 with the stated purpose of 
protecting and restoring dryland forest including construction of 
exclosure fences, a greenhouse, access road, and propagation and 
outplanting of native plants. Preservation of these areas conserves 
critically endangered species of plants and animals in one of Hawaii's 
most degraded ecosystem types (lowland dry forest). This management 
strategy is consistent with recovery of these species. The Auwahi 
agreement (Auwahi I Project) is between Ulupalakua Ranch, USGS-BRD, and 
the Service. The Service provided funding ($64,388) for fence 
materials, plant

[[Page 26027]]

propagation and outplanting, and weed control, Ulupalakua Ranch 
provided labor and materials valued at $18,000, and USGS-BRD provided 
materials and technical assistance as well as staff and volunteer 
labor. In the 4 ha (10 ac) Auwahi project area, Ulupalakua Ranch has 
built the exclosure fence, outplanted native plants grown in the 
greenhouse including Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, removed the majority of nonnative alien species 
within the fence, and removed all ungulates. The Service provided 
$31,675 through an agreement with Ulupalakua Ranch for restoration work 
at Puu Makua. Ulupalakua Ranch has provided in-kind labor and materials 
valued at $37,055 to construct a fence around the 40-ha (100-ac) 
exclosure, removal of ungulates, control of nonnative plants and out-
planting of native plants. The first two tasks have been completed, 
with weed control and out-planting ongoing.
    A third voluntary partnership project undertaken in cooperation 
with the Ulupalakua Ranch is the Auwahi II Dryforest Restoration 
Project. The Service provided $76,500 (matched by in-kind services 
valued at $52,000) for this 8-ha (20-ac) restoration effort adjacent to 
the Auwahi I project. This project is ongoing, and will employ the same 
methods used at Auwahi I: construct of ungulate exclosure fence; remove 
ungulates; control nonnative plants; and out-plant native species 
(including listed species).
    In addition, Ulupalakua Ranch entered a partnership with Ducks 
Unlimited, a private conservation organization, and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Wetland Reserve Program in 
2000, to create wetland complexes suitable for two endangered birds, 
the Hawaiian Goose, nene (Branta sandvicensis) and Hawaiian duck, koloa 
(Anas wyvilliana). NRCS Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) provided $100,000 
for funding and technical support to develop the wetland complex, Ducks 
Unlimited provided matching funds and provided full survey, design, 
construction management and completion of wetland development 
practices, and Ulupalakua Ranch provided fencing, equipment, labor or 
other in-kind services as required to match the WRP funds. Ducks 
Unlimited also conducted waterfowl monitoring at the four ponds for one 
full year after pond construction. In 2001, a 14 ha (35 ac) area was 
fenced and encompassed four constructed artificial ponds and associated 
upland habitat at a 1,585 m (5,200 ft) elevation site. The ponds were 
created to attract nene and koloa pairs to forage and nest within the 
protected pond/wetland area, which totals approximately 0.4 ha (1 ac) 
of surface water, with 1-2 m (3-6 ft) depths filled and maintained by 
natural hydrology and rainfall. Nene may naturally disperse to 
Ulupalakua Ranch from Haleakala National Park and the few koloa now 
present on Maui may disperse to potential higher elevation habitat at 
the ranch. Normal grazing and management of pasture lands throughout 
Ulupalakua Ranch will also provide additional foraging areas for nene.
    As endangered species are anticipated on the ranch, Ulupalakua 
Ranch is developing a Safe Harbor Agreement with the Service and the 
State through the Safe Harbor program. The Safe Harbor program 
encourages proactive management to benefit endangered and threatened 
species on non-Federal lands by providing regulatory assurances to 
landowners that no additional Endangered Species Act restrictions will 
be imposed on future land, water, or resource use for enrolled lands. 
The intended purpose of the ranch's Safe Harbor Agreement is to restore 
and enhance foraging and breeding habitat for two endangered Hawaiian 
waterbirds at Ulupalakua Ranch in East Maui. Under this Agreement, 
Ulupalakua Ranch will create a fenced 14-ha (35-ac) pond/wetland area 
and maintain it for 20 years. If endangered species are attracted to 
the area, Ulupalakua Ranch's voluntary conservation activities will 
contribute to recovery by increasing their reproduction, survival, and 
distribution on Maui.
    The portion of proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 on Haleakala 
Ranch Company lands is occupied habitat for seven species: Alectryon 
macrococcus; Cyanea mceldowneyi; Diellia erecta; Diplazium molokaiense; 
Geranium arboreum; Melicope balloui; and Phlegmariurus mannii. It is 
unoccupied habitat for 11 species: Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum; Asplenium fragile var. insulare; Clermontia lindseyana; 
Cyanea glabra; Geranium multiflorum; Lipochaeta kamolensis; Neraudia 
sericea; Phyllostegia mannii; Phyllostegia mollis; Plantago princeps; 
and Platanthera holochila.
    Haleakala Ranch Company is involved in several important voluntary 
conservation agreements that benefit the species included in the 
proposed critical habitat. For example, in the mid-1980s, Haleakala 
Ranch Company granted TNCH a perpetual conservation easement that 
included over 19,000 ha (47,000 ac) (Waikamoi Preserve) on Maui in 
order to protect its native forest resources and watershed from damage 
caused by pigs and cattle. Haleakala Ranch Company has been working 
with the Central Maui Soil and Water Conservation District to address 
soil and resource issues. In cooperation with the NRCS Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Haleakala Ranch Company has 
implemented a weed control program that has been on-going for over 80 
years. Eight years ago, the Haleakala Ranch Company Directors created 
and filled a Land Steward position in order to shepherd the ranch's 
conservation efforts and update the conservation plans for all 
Haleakala Ranch Company lands.
    In addition, the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Puu Pahu 
agreement with Haleakala Ranch Co. and NRCS within proposed unit Maui 
I1 was entered into in fiscal year 2001 with the stated purpose of 
protecting and restoring native subalpine dry shrubland. This agreement 
included construction of a 6.9 km (4.3 mi) exclosure fence and removal 
of ungulates within the area in order to allow the already semi-intact 
native vegetation to regenerate. Preservation of this area conserves 
critically endangered species of plants and animals in one of Hawaii's 
most restricted ecosystem types (subalpine dry shrubland). This 
management strategy is consistent with the recovery of these species. 
The Service and NRCS provided funding for fencing materials ($91,418 
from the Service) and are providing technical assistance on the 
conservation of Geranium arboreum and restoration of the subalpine dry 
shrubland. Haleakala Ranch Co. is building the fence and removing the 
ungulates (in-kind cost-share valued at $28,875). This work is planned 
for completion by August 30, 2003. Haleakala Ranch Co. has also worked 
with DOFAW for the past 2 years on an ungulate-free reserve for native 
habitat regeneration in the Waiopae area. Haleakala Ranch Co. is 
fencing the area to improve grazing management from the forest to the 
shoreline. These actions will include riparian protection to improve 
habitat for native plants, especially Lipochaeta kamolensis and 
Alectryon macrococcus, and watershed management.
    According to our published recovery plans, recovery of the species 
addressed in this rule will require self-sustaining populations 
distributed across the landscape of sufficient robustness to withstand 
periodic threats due to natural disaster or biological threats (Service 
1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). The 
highest priority recovery tasks include active management such as plant

[[Page 26028]]

propagation and reintroduction, fire control, nonnative species 
removal, and ungulate fencing. Failure to implement these management 
measures, all of which require voluntary landowner support and 
participation, virtually assures the extinction of these species. Many 
of these types of conservation actions in these areas of Maui are 
carried out as part of TNCH's, the State's, ML&P's, and Ulupalakua and 
Haleakala Ranch's participation in landowner incentive-based programs, 
and by actions taken on the landowner's initiative, as well as by 
actions taken on the State's prioritization and initiative, and 
Ulupalakua Ranch's and Haleakala Ranch's participation with the 
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife. These activities, which are 
described in more detail above, require substantial voluntary 
cooperation by each entity and other cooperating landowners and local 
residents.
    The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits 
of a critical habitat designation compared to the conservation benefits 
without critical habitat designation. In particular we considered: to 
what extent a critical habitat designation would confer additional 
regulatory conservation benefits on these species; to what extent the 
designation would provide an educational benefit to the members of the 
public that would lead to enhanced conservation; and whether the 
critical habitat designation would have a positive, neutral, or 
negative impact on voluntary conservation efforts on each landowner's 
lands as well as other non-Federal lands on Maui that could contribute 
to recovery.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    These areas contain habitat essential to the conservation of the 
species listed for each area as described above. The primary direct 
benefit of inclusion of these lands as critical habitat would result 
from the requirement under section 7 of the Act that Federal agencies 
consult with us to ensure that any proposed Federal actions do not 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    The benefit of a critical habitat designation would ensure that any 
actions authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency would not 
likely destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat. Without 
critical habitat, some site-specific projects might not trigger 
consultation requirements under the Act in areas where species are not 
currently present; in contrast, Federal actions in areas occupied by 
listed species would still require consultation under section 7 of the 
Act to determine if the action is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the listed species.
    Much of the area on TNCH's lands is already occupied habitat for 13 
of the 16 listed species. Therefore, any Federal activities that may 
affect these areas will likely require section 7 jeopardy consultation. 
Historically, we have conducted only one informal consultation under 
section 7 regarding Federal actions on TNCH's land on Maui. This 
consultation was conducted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
review the effect of feral pig removal on listed endangered and 
threatened species within Waikamoi and Kapunakea Preserves. Thirteen of 
the 60 species, Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bonamia menziesii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea lobata, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Plantago 
princeps, Platanthera holochila, and Sanicula purpurea, are known to 
occur within the preserves.
    Much of the area on State lands is already occupied habitat for two 
of the three listed species. Therefore, any Federal activities that may 
affect these areas will likely require section 7 jeopardy consultation. 
Historically, we have conducted one formal consultation and 16 informal 
consultations under section 7 on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe for 
one or more of the 60 plant species. None of these consultations 
involved this State land.
    Much of the area in the ML&P's Puu Kukui WMA is already occupied by 
Ctenitis squamigera, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea 
lobata, Cyrtandra munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Phlegmariurus 
mannii, Platanthera holochila, and Sanicula purpurea. Therefore, any 
Federal activities that may affect these areas will in all likelihood 
require section 7 jeopardy consultation. Historically, we have 
conducted one informal consultation for this property. It addressed the 
beneficial effects of Federal funding for ungulate exclusion on listed 
endangered and threatened species within the Puu Kukui Partnership 
Project area.
    On Maui, historically we have conducted only one formal 
consultation and 16 informal consultations under section 7 for any of 
the plant species found on Maui. Of these, only two informal 
consultations were conducted on Ulupalakua Ranch. These were intra-
Service consultations on the effects of fencing and outplanting within 
the Puu Makua Partnership Project area and the Auwahi Partnership 
Project area (see discussion below).
    We have never completed a section 7 consultation on Haleakala Ranch 
Company's lands (although one is in the process of being completed for 
the Puu Pahu project that the Service is funding in part).
    As a result of the low level of previous Federal activity on these 
lands, and after considering the future Federal activities that might 
occur on these lands, it is the Service's opinion that there is likely 
to be a low number of future Federal activities that would adversely 
affect habitat on the lands described above. Therefore, we anticipate 
little additional regulatory benefits from including these areas in 
critical habitat beyond what is already provided by the existing 
section 7 nexus for habitat areas occupied by the listed extant 
species.
    Another possible benefit of designating critical habitat is that 
the designation can educate the public regarding the potential 
conservation value of an area, which may contribute to conservation 
efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high 
conservation value for certain species. Information about the species 
for which suitable habitat was identified on these lands on Maui, 
including other parties engaged in conservation activities, could have 
a positive conservation benefit for the species.
    While we believe this educational outcome is important for the 
conservation of these species, we believe it has already been achieved 
through the existing management, education, and public outreach efforts 
carried out by land owners and their conservation partners. The Nature 
Conservancy of Hawaii has a well-developed public outreach 
infrastructure that includes magazines, newsletters, and well-
publicized public events on Maui and throughout Hawaii. The State has a 
well-developed public outreach infrastructure that includes websites, 
newsletters, and well-publicized public events on Maui and throughout 
Hawaii. ML&P features the Puu Kukui Watershed preserve on its Web site 
(http://www.maui.net/mauilnp/puu_kukui.html) and the Puu Kukui 
Watershed department staff hold monthly volunteer weed service trips 
throughout the year. An annual boardwalk hike ($1,500/person) for a 
dozen people is held in August/September with one free ``prize'' slot 
reserved for the student winner of an environmental essay contest from 
Maui County high schools (Randy Bartlett, Watershed Management 
Supervisor, ML&P, in litt., 2002). Through the

[[Page 26029]]

critical habitat designation process, the portion of unit Maui H that 
lies within Ulupalakua Ranch and the portion of units Maui H, I1, I2, 
and I4 that lie within Haleakala Ranch have been identified as 
essential to the conservation of 25 of the 60 Maui plant species 
addressed in this rule. In addition, the existing conservation 
activities being conducted within proposed unit Maui H that lies within 
Ulupalakua Ranch and the portion of proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and 
I4 that lie within Haleakala Ranch, as well as other portions of each 
ranch, by the Service and other Federal agencies (e.g., USDA NRCS), the 
State, and private organizations (e.g., Ducks Unlimited) demonstrate 
that the public is already aware of the importance of this area for the 
conservation of the species located on each ranch. These examples and 
other media extol and explain the conservation importance of these 
lands and their conservation value. A final designation of critical 
habitat would simply affirm what is already widely accepted by Hawaii's 
conservationists, public agencies, and most of the public concerning 
the conservation value of these lands.
    In sum, we believe that a critical habitat designation for listed 
plants on these lands on Maui would provide a relatively low level of 
additional regulatory conservation benefit to each of the plant species 
beyond what is already provided by existing section 7 consultation 
requirements due to the physical presence of the listed species. Any 
regulatory conservation benefits would accrue through the benefit 
associated with additional section 7 consultation associated with 
critical habitat. Based on a review of past consultations and 
consideration of the likely future activities in this specific area, 
there is little Federal activity expected to occur on this land that 
would trigger section 7 consultation. The Service also believes that a 
final critical habitat designation provides little additional 
educational benefits since the conservation value is already well known 
by the landowner, the State, Federal agencies, private organizations, 
and the public.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    Proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary to prevent 
the extinction and promote the recovery of these listed plant species 
on Maui and other Hawaiian islands (Shogren et al. 1999, Wilcove and 
Chen 1998, Wilcove et al. 1998). Consideration of this concern is 
especially important in areas where species have been extirpated and 
their recovery requires access and permission for reintroduction 
efforts (Bean 2002, Wilcove et al. 1998). For example, three of the 16 
species associated with Waikamoi and Kapunakea Preserve are extirpated 
from TNCH lands, Cyanea mceldownei associated with Hawaii NAR lands, 
three of the 12 species associated with proposed unit Maui H on 
Ulupalakau Ranch, and 11 of the 18 species associated with proposed 
units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 on Haleakala Ranch Company are extirpated 
from these respective lands, and repopulation is likely not possible 
without human assistance and landowner cooperation. Although none of 
the species associated with ML&P lands are extirpated, augmentation of 
existing populations and establishment of new populations are also 
likely not possible without human assistance and landowner cooperation.
    As described earlier, TNCH, the State, and ML&P have a history of 
entering into conservation agreements with various Federal and State 
agencies and other private organizations on their lands. The Nature 
Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 
communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting 
the lands and waters they need to survive. The State's NAR mission is 
to preserve and protect representative samples of the Hawaiian 
biological ecosystems and geological formations. One of ML&P's missions 
is to practice prudent stewardship of their land and water resources 
ensuring the protection of crucial water resources for the community, 
as well as the rare and endangered species of plants and animals.
    To address the conservation needs of the species in a larger area, 
Ulupalakua Ranch has expanded their Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
projects with the Service, in cooperation with the State NAR program 
for conserving additional areas, which include the following important 
voluntary actions by Ulupalakua Ranch: (1) Construction of exclosure 
fencing around a portion of Ulupalakua Ranch and the Kanaio NAR (a 
portion of proposed Maui unit H) with $50,000 provided by Service, 
matched by in-kind services (e.g., labor and materials) valued at 
$50,000; (2) Active management of feral ungulates that are negatively 
impacting listed plants within the fenced areas; (3) Active management 
of nonnative grasses and other fire hazards, and development of fire 
control measures; and (4) Nursery propagation and planting of native 
flora, including some of the 12 species, within the fenced areas.
    Haleakala Ranch Company informed the Service that they are 
currently devising management plans for conserving resources, which 
include the following important voluntary actions by Haleakala Ranch 
Company: (1) Construction of a 9 ha (22 ac) exclosure fence around 
Keokea Gulch in Kihei to reduce sedimentation on the shoreline and reef 
and to reduce the fire hazard in the area by using R-1 reclaimed water 
to irrigate a riparian buffer. construction of an exclosure fence for a 
dryland lava flow in the Keokea area. In cooperation with DOFAW, fence 
construction of an exclosure in the Waiopae area for habitat protection 
of native forest and riparian areas (proposed units H, I1, I2, and I4); 
(2) Control of feral ungulates that are negatively impacting listed 
plants within the fenced areas; (3) Control of nonnative grasses and 
other fire hazards, and development of fire control measures; and (4) 
Habitat protection for natural regeneration of native flora within the 
fenced areas.
    The Service believes that each of the listed species within these 
areas is benefitting substantially from the landowner's proactive 
management actions. Voluntary management actions include a reduction in 
ungulate browsing and habitat conversion, a reduction in competition 
with nonnative weeds, a reduction in risk of fire, and the 
reintroduction of species currently extirpated from various areas, and 
for which the technical ability to propagate these species currently 
exists or will be developed in the near future.
    The conservation benefits of critical habitat are primarily 
regulatory or prohibitive in nature. But on Maui, simply preventing 
``harmful activities'' alone will not slow the extinction of listed 
plant species (Bean 2002). Where consistent with the discretion 
provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary to implement 
policies that provide positive incentives to private landowners to 
voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove or reduce 
disincentives to conservation (Wilcove et al. 1998). Thus, we believe 
it is essential for the recovery of these species to build on continued 
conservation activities such as these with a proven partner, and to 
provide positive incentives for other private landowners on Maui who 
might be considering implementing voluntary conservation activities but 
have concerns about incurring incidental regulatory or economic 
impacts.
    Approximately 80 percent of imperiled species in the United States 
occur partly or solely on private lands where the Service has little 
management

[[Page 26030]]

authority (Wilcove et al. 1996). In addition, recovery actions 
involving the reintroduction of listed species onto private lands 
require the voluntary cooperation of the landowner (Bean 2002, James 
2002, Knight 1999, Main et al. 1999, Norton 2000, Shogren et al. 1999, 
Wilcove et al. 1998). Therefore, ``a successful recovery program is 
highly dependent on developing working partnerships with a wide variety 
of entities, and the voluntary cooperation of thousands of non-Federal 
landowners and others is essential to accomplishing recovery for listed 
species' (Crouse et al. 2002). Because the Federal government manages 
relatively little land on Maui, and because large tracts of land 
suitable for conservation of threatened and endangered species are 
mostly owned by private landowners, successful recovery of listed 
species on Maui is especially dependent upon working partnerships and 
the voluntary cooperation of non-Federal landowners.
    Therefore, the Service believes that excluding these lands from 
critical habitat will help maintain and improve our partnership 
relationship with these landowners by recognizing their positive 
contribution to conservation on Maui. It will also reduce the cost and 
logistical burden of unnecessary regulatory oversight. We also believe 
this recognition will provide other landowners with a positive 
incentive to undertake voluntary conservation activities on their 
lands, especially where there is no regulatory requirement to implement 
such actions.

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined 
that the benefits of excluding the following areas as critical habitat 
for the Maui plant species concerned that occur on these lands as 
described above: TNCH's Maui preserves, the State's Hawaii NAR, ML&P's 
Kukui WMA, the Ulupalakua Ranch portion of proposed unit Maui H, and 
the Haleakala Ranch portion of proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4.
    This conclusion is based on the following factors:
    (i) TNCH's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 
communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting 
the lands and waters they need to survive. Therefore, all of their 
preserve lands are currently being managed on a voluntary basis in 
cooperation with the Service, State, and other private organizations to 
achieve important conservation goals. In the past, TNCH has cooperated 
with Federal and State agencies, and private organizations to implement 
voluntary conservation activities on their lands that have resulted in 
tangible conservation benefits.
    The State's NAR mission is to preserve and protect representative 
samples of the Hawaiian biological ecosystems and geological 
formations. Therefore, the Hanawi NAR lands are currently being managed 
on a proactive basis in cooperation with the Service, the National 
Park, and private organizations to achieve important conservation 
goals. In the past, the State has cooperated with Federal agencies, and 
private organizations to implement proactive conservation activities on 
their lands that have resulted in tangible conservation benefits.
    One of ML&P's missions is to practice prudent stewardship of their 
land and water resources ensuring the protection of crucial water 
resources for the community, as well as the rare and endangered species 
of plants and animals. Therefore, all of their Puu Kukui WMA lands are 
currently being managed on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the 
Service, State, and other private organizations to achieve important 
conservation goals. In the past, ML&P has cooperated with Federal and 
State agencies, and private organizations to implement voluntary 
conservation activities on their lands that have resulted in tangible 
conservation benefits.
    A substantial amount of the Ulupalakua Ranch portion of proposed 
unit Maui H are currently being managed by the landowner on a voluntary 
basis in cooperation with us, the State of Hawaii, and USGS-BRD to 
achieve important conservation goals. In the past, Ulupalakua Ranch has 
cooperated with us, the State, and other organizations to implement 
voluntary conservation activities on their lands that have resulted in 
tangible conservation benefits.
    A substantial amount of the Haleakala Ranch Co. portion of proposed 
units H, I1, I2, and I4 is currently being managed by the landowner on 
a voluntary basis in cooperation with us, the State of Hawaii, USGS-
BRD, and TNCH to achieve important conservation goals. In the past, 
Haleakala Ranch has cooperated with us, the State, and other 
organizations to implement voluntary conservation activities on their 
lands that have resulted in tangible conservation benefits.
    (ii) Simple regulation of ``harmful activities'' is not sufficient 
to conserve these species. Landowner cooperation and support is 
required to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of 
the listed species on Maui due to the need to implement proactive 
conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed control, fire 
suppression, plant propagation, and outplanting.
    The need for TNCH's cooperation is especially acute because 3 of 
the 16 reported species are not currently found on the preserves. 
Future conservation efforts, such as translocation of these three plant 
species on to these lands and expansion of the extant species, will 
require the cooperation of TNCH and other non-Federal landowners on 
Maui. Exclusion of TNCH lands from this critical habitat designation 
will help the Service maintain and improve this partnership by formally 
recognizing the positive contributions of TNCH to plant recovery, and 
by streamlining or reducing redundant regulatory oversight.
    The need for the State's cooperation is also especially acute 
because the upper Hanawi NAR is unoccupied by Cyanea mceldowneyi. 
Future conservation efforts, such as translocation of this plant 
species back into unoccupied habitat on this land and expansion of the 
extant species, will require the cooperation of the State and other 
non-Federal landowners on Maui. Exclusion of the State's Hanawi NAR 
lands from this critical habitat designation will help the Service 
maintain and improve this partnership by formally recognizing the 
positive contributions of the State NAR to plant recovery, and by 
streamlining or reducing unnecessary regulatory oversight.
    The need for ML&P's cooperation is necessary because future 
conservation efforts, such as expansion of the extant species, will 
require the cooperation of ML&P and other non-Federal landowners on 
Maui. Exclusion of ML&P lands from this critical habitat designation 
will help the Service maintain and improve this partnership by formally 
recognizing the positive contributions of ML&P to plant recovery, and 
by streamlining or reducing unnecessary regulatory oversight.
    The need for Ulupalakua Ranch's cooperation is important because 
the proposed unit Maui H is unoccupied by 3 of the 12 species. Future 
conservation efforts, such as translocation of these three plant 
species back into unoccupied habitat on these lands, will require the 
cooperation of Ulupalakua Ranch.
    The need for Haleakala Ranch Co.'s cooperation is especially acute 
because the proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 are unoccupied by 11 
of the 18 species. Future conservation efforts,

[[Page 26031]]

such as reintroduction of these 11 plant species back into unoccupied 
habitat on these lands, will require the cooperation of Haleakala Ranch 
Co.
    (iii) The Service believes the additional regulatory and 
educational benefits of including these lands as critical habitat are 
relatively small. The current partnership agreements between TNCH and 
many organizations, the State and many organizations, ML&P and many 
organizations, and current agreements between the Service and 
Ulupalakua Ranch and Haleakala Ranch already provide significant 
conservation and educational benefits.
    The designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the 
general public as well as conservation organizations regarding the 
potential conservation value of an area, but this goal is already being 
accomplished through the identification of this area in the management 
plans described above and through public outreach efforts. Likewise, 
there will be little additional Federal regulatory benefit to the 
species because (a) there is a low likelihood that these proposed 
critical habitat units will be negatively affected to any significant 
degree by Federal activities requiring section 7 consultation, and (b) 
on land owned by TNCH, the State, Ulupalakua and Haleakala Ranches, and 
ML&P much of the areas are already occupied by listed species and a 
section 7 nexus already exists. The Service is unable to identify any 
other potential benefits associated with critical habitat for these 
proposed units.
    (iv) It is documented that publicly and privately owned lands and 
lands owned by conservation organizations such as these, alone, are too 
small and poorly distributed to provide for the conservation of most 
listed species (Bean 2002, Crouse et al. 2002). Excluding these lands 
from critical habitat may, by way of example, provide positive social, 
legal, and economic incentives to other non-Federal landowners on Maui 
who own lands that could contribute to listed species recovery if 
voluntary conservation measures on these lands are implemented (Norton 
2000, Main et al. 1999, Shogren et al. 1999, Wilcove and Chen 1998). As 
resources allow, the Service would be willing to consider future 
revisions or amendments to this final critical habitat rule if 
landowners affected by this rule develop conservation programs or 
partnerships (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, 
conservation agreements, etc.) on their lands that outweigh the 
regulatory and educational benefits of a critical habitat designation.
    As described above, the overall benefits to these species of a 
critical habitat designation for these areas are relatively small. In 
contrast, we believe that this exclusion will enhance our existing 
partnership with each landowner and it will set a positive example and 
provide positive incentives to other non-Federal landowners who may be 
considering implementing voluntary conservation activities on their 
lands. There is a higher likelihood of beneficial conservation 
activities occurring in these and other areas of Maui without 
designated critical habitat than there would be with designated 
critical habitat in these areas. In conclusion, we find that the 
designation of critical habitat on the TNCH Maui preserves, the State's 
Hawaii upper Hanawi NAR, ML&P's Kukui WMA, the Ulupalakua Ranch portion 
of proposed unit Maui H, and the Haleakala Ranch portion of proposed 
units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 would most likely have a negative effect 
on the recovery and conservation of the Maui plant species concerned. 
Therefore, the Service's conclusion is that the net benefits of 
excluding these areas from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
including these areas.

(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species

    In considering whether or not exclusion of the TNCH preserve lands 
might result in the extinction of any of the 16 reported species, the 
Service first considered the impacts to the five species endemic to 
Maui (Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Geranium arboreum, 
Geranium multiflorum, Melicope balloui, and Remya mauiensis).
    For both the five endemic and the 11 ``multi-island'' species, it 
is the Service's conclusion that the TNCH's mission and management 
plans will provide as much or more net conservation benefits as would 
be provided if these preserves were designated as critical habitat. 
These management plans, which are described above, will provide 
tangible proactive conservation benefits that will reduce the 
likelihood of extinction for the listed plants in these areas of Maui 
and increase their likelihood of recovery. Extinction for any of these 
species as a consequence of this exclusion is unlikely because there 
are no known threats in these preserves due to any current or 
reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under 
section 7 of the Act. The DEA indicates that there may be future 
programmatic consultations. These management actions were designed to 
protect and provide for the conservation of these species and will not 
create any threats or risks of extinction to these species. Further, 
these areas are already occupied by 13 of the 16 species and thereby 
benefit from the section 7 protections of the Act, should such an 
unlikely Federal threat actually materialize. The exclusion of these 
preserves will not increase the risk of extinction to any of these 
species, and it may increase the likelihood that these species will 
recover by encouraging other landowners to implement voluntary 
conservation activities as TNCH has done.
    In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of 
Maui for all five of the endemic species (9--Argyroxiphium sandwicense 
ssp. macrocephalum--a, Maui 9--Geranium arboreum--a, Maui 14--Geranium 
arboreum--b, Maui 15--Geranium arboreum--c, Maui 8--Geranium 
multiflorum--a, Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--b, Maui 9--Geranium 
multiflorum--c, Maui 8--Melicope balloui--a, Maui 9--Melicope balloui--
b, Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--a, Maui 17--Remya mauiensis--b, Maui 17--
Remya mauiensis--c, and Maui 18--Remya mauiensis--d), and critical 
habitat has been designated elsewhere on Maui, and proposed or 
designated on other islands for the remaining 11 multi-island species 
consistent with the guidance in recovery plans. These other 
designations identify conservation areas for the maintenance and 
expansion of the existing populations and are sufficient to prevent 
extinction of the species concerned.
    In considering whether or not exclusion of the State's upper Hanawi 
NAR might result in the extinction of Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea 
mceldowneyi, and Geranium multiflorum the Service considered potential 
impacts. For all three endemic species, it is the Service's conclusion 
that the State's NAR mission and management provide a significant 
conservation benefit. The management will provide tangible proactive 
conservation benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for 
the listed plants in this area of Maui and increase their likelihood of 
recovery. Extinction for any of these species as a consequence of this 
exclusion is unlikely because there are no known threats in the NAR due 
to any current or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be 
regulated under section 7 of the Act. Further, this area is already 
occupied by two of the three species and thereby benefits from the 
section 7 protections of the Act, should such an unlikely Federal 
threat actually

[[Page 26032]]

materialize. The exclusion of this NAR will not increase the risk of 
extinction to any of these species, and it may increase the likelihood 
these species will recover by encouraging other landowners to implement 
voluntary conservation activities as the State has done.
    In addition, critical habitat is being designated on another area 
of Maui for all three endemic species (Maui 9--Clermontia samuelii--a, 
Maui 8--Cyanea mceldowneyi--a, Maui 8--Geranium multiflorum--a, Maui 
9--Geranium multiflorum--b, and Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--c). These 
other designations identify conservation areas for the maintenance and 
expansion of the existing populations.
    In considering whether or not exclusion of the Puu Kukui WMA might 
result in the extinction of any of the eight species, the Service first 
considered the impacts to the Maui endemic, Hesperomannia arborescens.
    For both the endemic Hesperomannia arborescens and the seven 
``multi-island'' species, it is the Service's conclusion that ML&P's 
mission and management programs will provide as much or more net 
conservation benefits as would be provided if this area was designated 
as critical habitat. These management programs, which are described 
above, will provide tangible proactive conservation benefits that will 
reduce the likelihood of extinction for the listed plants in these 
areas of Maui and increase their likelihood of recovery. Extinction for 
any of these species as a consequence of this exclusion is unlikely 
because there are no known threats in Puu Kukui WMA due to any current 
or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under 
section 7 of the Act. Further, this area is already occupied by all of 
the eight species and thereby benefit from the section 7 protections of 
the Act, should such an unlikely Federal threat actually materialize. 
The exclusion of Puu Kukui WMA will not increase the risk of extinction 
to any of these species, and it may increase the likelihood these 
species will recover by encouraging other landowners to implement 
voluntary conservation activities as ML&P has done.
    In addition, critical habitat has been designated elsewhere on 
Maui, and proposed or designated on other islands for the remaining 
seven multi-island species consistent with the guidance in recovery 
plans. These other designations identify conservation areas for the 
maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
    In considering whether or not exclusion of Ulupalakua Ranch's 
proposed unit Maui H might result in the extinction of any of the 12 
species, the Service first considered the impacts to the three species 
endemic to Maui (Geranium arboreum, Lipochaeta kamolensis, and Melicope 
adscendens), and second to the nine species known from Maui and one or 
more other Hawaiian islands.
    For both the three endemic and the nine ``multi-island'' species, 
it is the Service's conclusion that the partnership agreements 
developed by Ulupalakua Ranch and the Service will provide more net 
conservation benefits than would be provided by designating the portion 
of proposed unit Maui H as critical habitat. These agreements, which 
are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation 
benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the listed 
plants in this area of Maui and increase their likelihood of recovery. 
Extinction for any of these species as a consequence of this exclusion 
is unlikely because there are no known threats in this portion of 
proposed unit Maui H due to any current or reasonably anticipated 
Federal actions that might be regulated under section 7 of the Act. 
Implementation of the partnership agreements between the landowner and 
the Service and the exclusion of the portion of proposed unit Maui H 
have the highest likelihood of preventing extinction of these 12 
species, especially the species endemic to the island of Maui.
    In addition, critical habitat is being designated on another area 
of Maui for all three of the endemic species (Maui 9--Geranium 
arboreum--a, Maui 9--Lipochaeta kamolensis--a, and Maui 13--Melicope 
adscendens--a). These other designations identify conservation areas 
for the maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
    In considering whether or not exclusion of Haleakala Ranch 
Company's portions of proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 might 
result in the extinction of any of the 18 species, the Service first 
considered the impacts to the six species endemic to Maui 
(Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Cyanea mceldowneyi, 
Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Lipochaeta kamolensis, and 
Melicope balloui), and second to the 12 species known from Maui and one 
or more other Hawaiian islands.
    For both the six endemic and the 12 ``multi-island'' species, it is 
the Service's conclusion that the partnership agreements developed by 
Haleakala Ranch and the Service will provide more net conservation 
benefits than would be provided by designating the portion of proposed 
units H, I1, I2, and I4 as critical habitat. These agreements, which 
are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation 
benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the listed 
plants in this area of Maui and increase their likelihood of recovery. 
Extinction for any of these species as a consequence of this exclusion 
is unlikely because there are no known threats in these portions of 
proposed units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4 due to any current or reasonably 
anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under section 7 of 
the Act. Implementation of the partnership agreements between the 
landowner and the Service, and the exclusion of the portion of proposed 
units Maui H, I1, I2, and I4, have the highest likelihood of preventing 
extinction of these 18 species, especially the species endemic to the 
island of Maui.
    In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of 
Maui for all six of the endemic species (Maui 9--Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a, Maui 8--Cyanea mceldowneyi--a, Maui 
9--Geranium arboreum--a, Maui 14--Geranium arboreum--b, Maui 14--
Geranium arboreum--c, Maui 8--Geranium multiflorum--a, Maui 8--Geranium 
multiflorum--b, Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--c, Maui 9--Lipochaeta 
kamolensis--a, Maui 8--Melicope balloui--a, and Maui 8--Melicope 
balloui--b), and critical habitat has been designated elsewhere on 
Maui, and proposed or designated on other islands for the remaining 12 
multi-island species consistent with the guidance in the recovery plans 
for these species. These other designations identify conservation areas 
for the maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
    In addition, Sec.  195D-4 (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Endangered 
species and threatened species) stipulates that species determined to 
be endangered or threatened under the Federal ESA shall be deemed 
endangered or threatened under the state law. It is unlawful under the 
state law, with some exceptions, to ``take'' such species, or to 
possess, sell, carry or transport them. For plants, take is defined in 
the State statute as to ``cut, collect, uproot, destroy, injure, or 
possess''. The statutory protections for these plants provide 
additional assurances that exclusion of these areas from critical 
habitat will not result in extinction of the species in question.
    In sum, the above analysis concludes that an exclusion of these 
areas from final critical habitat on Maui will have a net beneficial 
impact with little risk of


[[Continued on page 26033]]


From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]                         
 
[[pp. 26033-26082]] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for 60 Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe, HI

[[Continued from page 26032]]

[[Page 26033]]

negative impacts. Therefore the exclusion of these lands will not cause 
extinction and should in fact improve the chance of recovery for 
Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, 
Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea neowawraea, 
Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Lipochaeta kamolensis, Melicope adscendens, Melicope balloui, Melicope 
knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia sericea, Phlegmariurus 
mannii, Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia mollis, Plantago princeps, 
Platanthera holochila, Remya mauiensis, and Sanicula purpurea.

Taxonomic Changes

    At the time we listed Clermontia peleana, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Delissea undulata, Mariscus pennatiformis, 
Phyllostegia parviflora, and Phyllostegia mollis, we followed the 
taxonomic treatments in Wagner et al. (1990), the widely used and 
accepted Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. For Phlegmariurus 
mannii, we used the ``Revised Checklist of Hawaiian Pteridophytes'' 
(Wagner and Wagner 1994). Subsequent to the final listing, we became 
aware of new taxonomic treatments of these species. Also, in the 
recently published Hawaii's Ferns and Fern Allies (Plamer 2003), the 
family name for Ctenitis squamigera has changed (from Aspleniaceae to 
Dryopteridaceae). Due to the court-ordered deadlines, we are required 
to publish this final rule to designate critical habitat on Maui and 
Kahoolawe before we can prepare and publish a notice of taxonomic 
changes for these nine species. We plan to publish a taxonomic change 
notice for these nine species after we have published the final 
critical habitat designations on Maui and Kahoolawe.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation 
is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an 
annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any 
economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or 
other units of government. This designation will not create 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will not 
materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or 
the rights and obligations of their recipients. Finally, this 
designation will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, 
OMB has not formally reviewed this final critical habitat designation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 
whenever a Federal 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 
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to 
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis 
for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    Based on the information in our economic analysis (draft economic 
analysis, supplement, and addendum), we are certifying that the 
critical habitat designation for 60 Maui and Kahoolawe plant species 
will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small 
entities because a substantial number of small entities are not 
affected by the designation.
    SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or 
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a 
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this 
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small 
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis 
considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit 
margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur 
a ``significant economic impact.'' Federal courts and Congress have 
indicated that an RFA/SBREFA analysis should be limited to all impacts 
to entities directly subject to the requirements of the regulation (See 
Mid-Tex Electric Co-Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. and America Trucking 
Associations, Inc. v. EPA.). As such, entities indirectly impacted by 
the plant listings and critical habitat and, therefore, not directly 
regulated by the listing or critical habitat designation are not 
considered in this section of the analysis.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, such as 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Refer to the draft 
economic analysis for a further discussion of the definition of small 
entities.
    The RFA/SBREFA defines ``small governmental jurisdiction'' as the 
government of a city, county, town, school district with a population 
of less than 50,000. By this definition, Federal government agencies 
are not small business under SBA guidelines, and State agencies are not 
considered small governments under the RFA. The County of Maui is also 
not a small governmental jurisdiction because its population was 
approximately 128,240 in 2000.
    SBREFA further defines ``small organization'' as any not-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field. The East Maui Watershed Partnership and the West Maui 
Watershed Partnership are not independently owned but are public-
private partnerships between Federal agencies, State agencies, private 
landowners, and community organizations that are dominant in setting 
policy for watershed protection. While the definition of ``small 
organization'' leaves some room for interpretation, based on the above 
factors, the economic analysis does not consider either partnership to 
be a ``small organization.'' Our draft economic analysis further 
identified one other organization that may be affected by the critical 
habitat designation on Maui, although, to this point, we have never 
consulted with them directly or indirectly, as Hawaii Television 
Broadcasters Association (HTBA). The HTBA is a Hawaii nonprofit 
corporation that represents the common interests of Hawaii's television 
broadcasters, each of which has annual revenues in excess of $750,000. 
As the entity representing all the local broadcast stations, HTBA 
appears to be dominant in its field and therefore does not appear to 
meet SBREFA's definition of a ``small organization.''

[[Page 26034]]

    The RFA/SBREFA requires that agencies use the SBA's definition of 
``small business,'' which is codified at 13 CFR 121.201. The draft 
economic analysis identified the following small businesses. Zond Pond, 
a company formed to develop wind projects in Hawaii that have not yet 
been constructed, and several livestock operations. Zond Pond currently 
has no sales by which to evaluate whether it meets the definition of a 
small business. However, our DEA concluded, based on a public 
declaration from Zond Pond that it is not a small business and the 
projected scale of its windfarm projects, that Zond Pond does not 
qualify as a ``small business'' under SBA's small business definitions. 
In 2000, there were 170 cattle livestock operations in Maui County. The 
combined cattle sales of all of these operations in 2000 was about $3.2 
millions (Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture, 2000). Since this implies 
average annual cattles sales per business of $19,000, it is likely that 
all of almost all of the Maui County cattle operations meet the 
definition of a small business (annual sales less thant $750,000).
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.) in this 
particular area/market affected by the regulation. We apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small 
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement, and so will not be affected 
by critical habitat designation.
    The primary projects and activities that might be affected by the 
designation and could affect small entities include ranching operations 
in Maui County. The economic analysis predicts that between zero and 
two section 7 consultations will be conducted over the next 10 years on 
ranches in Maui County. The economic analysis estimates that these 
consultations may affect one to four businesses out of 170 (1 to two 
percent) of the small businesses in the cattle industry in Maui County. 
(This is an overestimate of the number of businesses potentially 
affected because it is based on more consultations occurring than is 
currently estimated.)
    The entire island of Kahoolawe is under State ownership and within 
the State Conservation District. The current and projected land uses on 
Kahoolawe are land restoration and ordnance removal (Decision Analysts 
Hawaii (DAHI) 2001). For these reasons, the draft economic analysis 
concluded that the proposed rule would not affect a substantial number 
of small entities on the island of Kahoolawe. Based on the above 
analysis, a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities will not result from the proposed critical habitat 
designation on Maui and Kahoolawe.
    This conclusion are supported by the history of consultations on 
Maui. Since these 60 plant species were listed (between 1991 and 1999), 
on the island of Maui we have conducted only one formal consultation 
and 16 informal consultations, in addition to consultations on Federal 
grants to State wildlife programs, which do not affect small entities. 
Three informal consultations were conducted with the U.S. Air Force, 
for the Maui Space Surveillance Site, who requested we review their 
final draft ``Environmental Assessment, ``Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan for the Maui Space Surveillance Complex,'' and the 
effects of the construction of the surveillance site on listed and 
proposed endangered and threatened species. Three informal 
consultations were conducted with Haleakala National Park, regarding a 
collecting permit for two of the 60 species, Geranium arboreum and 
Geranium multiflorum, and we reviewed the ``Environmental Assessment 
for Replacement of the Summit Comfort Station and Utilities Systems' 
and a park highway resurfacing project. One informal consultation was 
conducted with the Service's Ecological Services Program for the 
effects of fencing and replanting on listed endangered and threatened 
species within the Auwahi Partnership Project area. One informal 
consultation was conducted with the Service's Ecological Services 
Program for the effects of fencing and hunting on listed endangered and 
threatened species within the Kahikinui Partnership Project area. One 
informal consultation was conducted with the Service's Ecological 
Services Program, for the effects of fencing and outplanting on listed 
endangered and threatened species within the Puu Makua Partnership 
Project area. One informal consultation was conducted with the Service 
for the effects of ungulate exclusion on listed endangered and 
threatened species within the Puu Kukui Partnership Project area. One 
informal consultation was conducted with the Department of Defense for 
review of the effects of the Kanaio National Guard Training Area on 
listed endangered and threatened species and review of ``Natural 
Resources Management Plan: Kanaio Guard Training Area.'' Two informal 
consultations were conducted with the Department of Transportation for 
review of the effects of the proposed Kihei-Upcountry Highway on listed 
endangered and threatened species. One informal consultations was 
conducted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for review of the 
effect of feral pig removal on listed endangered and threatened species 
within Waikamoi and Kapunakea Preserves. One informal consultation was 
conducted with the Service's Ecological Services Program for the 
effects of fencing and replanting listed endangered and threatened 
species within the Puu O Kali restoration area. One informal 
consultation was conducted with NRCS for the effects of ranching 
operations on listed endangered and threatened species within 38 acres 
of private land. One formal consultation was conducted with the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) for the review of the ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, Kahului Airport Improvements.''
    None of these consultations affected or concerned small entities. 
In all 16 informal consultations, we concurred with each agency's 
determination that the project, as proposed, was not likely to 
adversely affect listed species. For the formal consultation, we 
determined that the airport improvement project, which included a 
mandatory state-of-the-art alien species interdiction facility, was not 
likely to jeopardize listed species nor adversely affect designated 
critical habitat for Gouania hillebrandii on the island of Maui. In 
addition, only the FAA's proposed airport improvement project is 
ongoing. The FAA is not a small entity. Therefore, the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation for ongoing projects will not affect a 
substantial number of small entities on Maui.
    There has been one informal consultation on the island of 
Kahoolawe. The consultation was conducted on behalf of the Department 
of the Navy for the effects of ordnance cleanup on listed endangered 
and threatened species. The Department of the Navy is not a small 
entity; therefore this consultation did not affect or concern small 
entities. In this case, we concurred with the agency's determination 
that the project as proposed was not likely to adversely affect listed 
species. Although this project is ongoing, it does not affect nor 
concern small entities, so the

[[Page 26035]]

requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing projects will not 
affect a substantial number of small entities on Kahoolawe.
    In addition, on Maui, nearly all of the land within the critical 
habitat units is unsuitable for development, land uses, and activities. 
This is due to their remote locations, lack of access, and rugged 
terrain. Approximately 86 percent of this land, and all of the land on 
Kahoolawe, is within the State Conservation District where State land-
use controls severely limit development and most activities, and 
approximately 14 percent of this land is within the State Agricultural 
District.
    Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to 
critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations 
for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those that, 
in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse 
modification determinations under section 7--can be implemented 
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. These measures by definition must be economically 
feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency 
involved in the consultation.
    For these reasons, we are certifying that the designation of 
critical habitat for Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense 
ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Flueggea neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, 
Geranium multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis 
mannii, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum 
byrone, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta 
kamolensis, Lysimachia lydgatei, Mariscus pennatiformis, Melicope 
adscendens, Melicope balloui, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, 
Melicope ovalis, Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum 
sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia mannii, Phyllostegia 
mollis, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, 
Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, 
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed 
assessment of the economic effects of this designation are described in 
the draft economic analysis, the final addendum and the supplement to 
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in these 
documents, we believe that this rule will not have an effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more per year, will not cause a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final addendum to 
the economic analysis for a discussion of the effects of this 
determination.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. According to OMB, this 
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866, and we do not expect to significantly affect energy production 
supply and distribution facilities because no significant energy 
production, supply, and distribution facilities are included within 
designated critical habitat. Further, for the reasons described in the 
economic analysis, we do not believe that designation of critical 
habitat for the 60 species on Maui and Kahoolawe will affect future 
energy production. 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.):
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will not be affected unless they propose an action 
requiring Federal funds, permits, or other authorizations. Any such 
activities will require that the Federal agency ensure that the action 
will not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State or local 
governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any 
year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat 
imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the 60 species from Maui and Kahoolawe 
in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications 
assessment concludes that this final rule does not pose significant 
takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not 
have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of Interior policy, we requested 
information from appropriate State agencies in Hawaii. This rule 
imposes no regulatory requirements unless an agency is seeking Federal 
funding or authorization, so it does not have Federal implications. In 
addition, this rule will not have substantial direct compliance costs 
because many of the planned projects that could affect critical habitat 
have no Federal involvement.
    The designations may have some benefit to these governments, in 
that the areas essential to the conservation of these species are more 
clearly defined and the primary constituent elements of the habitat 
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. 
While this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultation to occur.

[[Page 26036]]

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interiors's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the 60 plant species from 
Maui and Kahoolawe.

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

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. 
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reason for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 
determination does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    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, 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. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of these 60 
plant species. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for these 60 
species does not involve any Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff of the Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
as set forth below:
0
a. Under the table's heading FLOWERING PLANTS, by revising the entries 
for Alectryon macrococcus, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, 
Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Clermontia samuelii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea mceldowneyi, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, Geranium multiflorum, Gouania vitifolia, 
Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis, Lipochaeta kamolensis, Lysimachia lydgatei, Mariscus 
pennatiformis, Melicope adscendens, Melicope balloui, Melicope 
knudsenii, Melicope mucronulata, Melicope ovalis, Neraudia sericea, 
Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia mannii, 
Phyllostegia mollis, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Remya 
mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, 
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense to 
read as follows: and
0
b. Under the table's heading FERNS AND ALLIES, by revising the entries 
for Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia 
erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, and Pteris lidgatei; by removing the 
entry for Huperzia (=Phlegmariurus, =Lycopodium) mannii; and by adding 
an entry for Phlegmariurus (=Lycopodum, =Huperzia) mannii to read as 
follows.


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------         Historic range                      Family               Status     When          Critical habitat          Special
          Scientific name                      Common name                                                                                      listed                                    rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Flowering Plants
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Alectryon macrococcus..............  Mahoe.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Sapindaceae...................        E     467    17.99(a)(1), (c) and (e)(1)...       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.       Ahinahina.....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        T     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
 macrocephalum.
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha....  Kookoolau.....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     467    17.96(b) and 17.99(e)(1)......       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Bonamia menziesii..................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Convolvulaceae................        E     559    17.99(a)(1) and (e)(1)........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Brighamia rockii...................  Pua ala.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     480    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cenchrus agrimonioides               Kamanomano....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Poaceae.......................        E     592    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA

[[Page 26037]]


 (=Sandbur, agrimony)
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Centaurium sebaeoides..............  Awiwi.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Gentianaceae..................        E     448    17.99(a)(1), (c) and (e)(1)...       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Clermontia lindseyana..............  Oha wai.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     532    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.         Oha wai.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
 mauiensis
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Clermontia samuelii................  Oha wai.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     666    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Colubrina oppositifolia............  Kauila........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rhamnaceae....................        E     532    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea copelandii ssp.               Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     666    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
 haleakalaensis
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea glabra......................  Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     666    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.               Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     592    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
 grimesiana
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.              Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     666    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
hamatiflora
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea lobata......................  Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyanea mceldowneyi.................  Haha..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Campanulaceae.................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Cyrtandra munroi...................  Haiwale.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Gesneriaceae..................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis..  Naenae........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     666    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Flueggea neowawraea................  Mehamehame....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Euphorbiaceae.................        E     559    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Geranium arboreum..................  Hawaiian red-flowered geranium  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Geraniaceae...................        E     465    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Geranium multiflorum...............  Nohoanu.......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Geraniaceae...................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Gouania vitifolia..................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rhamnaceae....................        E     541    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Hedyotis coriacea..................  Kioele........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rubiaceae.....................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Hedyotis mannii....................  Pilo..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rubiaceae.....................        E     480    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Hesperomannia arbuscula............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     448    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Hibiscus brackenridgei.............  Mao hau hele..................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Malvaceae.....................        E     559    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Ischaemum byrone...................  Hilo ischaemum................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Poaceae.......................        E     532    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Isodendrion pyrifolium.............  Wahine noho kula..............  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Violaceae.....................        E     532    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Kanaloa kahoolawensis..............  Kohe malama malama o kanaloa..  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Fabaceae......................        E     666    17.99(e)(2)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Lipochaeta kamolensis..............  Nehe..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Lysimachia lydgatei................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Primulaceae...................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Mariscus pennatiformis.............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Cyperaceae....................        E     559    17.99(a)(1) and (e)(1)........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Melicope adscendens................  Alani.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     565    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Melicope balloui...................  Alani.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     565    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Melicope knudsenii.................  Alani.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     530    17.99(a)(1) and (e)(1)........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Melicope mucronulata...............  Alani.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     467    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Melicope ovalis....................  Alani.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     565    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Neraudia sericea...................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Urticaceae....................        E     559    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Nototrichium humile................  Kului.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Amaranthaceae.................        E     448    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Peucedanum sandwicense.............  Makou.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Apiaceae......................        T     530    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Phyllostegia mannii................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Lamiaceae.....................        E     480    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA

[[Page 26038]]


                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Phyllostegia mollis................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Lamiaceae.....................        E     448    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Plantago princeps..................  Laukahi kuahiwi...............  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Plantaginaceae................        E     559    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Platanthera holochila..............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Orchidaceae...................        E     592    17.99(a)(1) and (e)(1)........       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Remya mauiensis....................  Maui remya....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     413    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Sanicula purpurea..................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Apiaceae......................        E     592    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Schiedea haleakalensis.............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Caryophyllaceae...............        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Sesbania tomentosa.................  Ohai..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Fabaceae......................        E     559    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Spermolepis hawaiiensis............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Apiaceae......................        E     559    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Tetramolopium capillare............  Pamakani......................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     555    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Tetramolopium remyi................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Asteraceae....................        E     435    17.96(b) and 17.99(e)(1)......       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Vigna o-wahuensis..................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Fabaceae......................        E     559    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.............  Ae............................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Rutaceae......................        E     532    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
          FERNS AND ALLIES
Asplenium fragile var. insulare....  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Aspleniaceae..................        E     553    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Ctenitis squamigera................  Pauoa.........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Aspleniaceae..................        E     553    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Diellia erecta.....................   Asplenium-leaved diellia.....  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Aspleniaceae..................        E     559    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Diplazium molokaiense..............  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Aspleniaceae..................        E     553    17.99(a)(1), (c), and (e)(1)..       NA
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Phlegmariurus                        Wawaeiole.....................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Lycopodiaceae.................        E     467    17.99(e)(1)...................       NA
 (=Lycopodium,=Huperzia) mannii.
                                                                                          * * * * * * *
Pteris lidgatei....................  None..........................  U.S.A. (HI)...................  Adiantaceae...................        E     553    17.99(c) and (e)(1)...........       NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.99 as set forth below:
0
a. By revising the section heading to read as follows: and
0
b. By adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.99  Critical habitat; plants on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, 
Molokai, Maui and Kahoolawe, HI.

* * * * *
    (e) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions for the islands of 
Maui and Kahoolawe, HI. The following sections contain the legal 
descriptions of the critical habitat units designated for the islands 
of Maui and Kahoolawe, HI. Existing manmade features and structures 
within the boundaries of the mapped areas, such as buildings; roads; 
aqueducts and other water system features--including but not limited to 
pumping stations, irrigation ditches, pipelines, siphons, tunnels, 
water tanks, gaging stations, intakes, reservoirs, diversions, flumes, 
and wells; existing trails; campgrounds and their immediate surrounding 
landscaped area; scenic lookouts; remote helicopter landing sites; 
existing fences; telecommunications towers and associated structures 
and equipment; electrical transmission lines and distribution, and 
communication facilities and regularly maintained associated rights-of-
way and access ways; radars and telemetry antennas; missile launch 
sites; arboreta and gardens; heiau (indigenous places of worship or 
shrines) and other archaeological sites; airports; other paved areas; 
and lawns and other rural residential landscaped areas do not contain 
the primary constituent elements described for each species in 
paragraph (f) of this section, except for the elevation primary 
constituent element, and therefore are not included in the critical 
habitat designations.
    (1) Maui. Critical habitat units are described below. Coordinates 
in UTM Zone 4 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 
(NAD83). The following map shows the general locations of the 136 
critical habitat units designated on the island of Maui.

    (i) Note: Map 1--Index map--follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 26039]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.001

    (ii) Maui 1--Centaurium sebaeoides--a (71 ha; 174 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 93 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 751112, 2326166; 754099, 2324756; 
754053, 2324754; 754053, 2324754; 753973, 2324765; 753966, 2324891; 
753771, 2325042; 753692, 2325076; 753669, 2325092; 753524, 2325277; 
753446, 2325286; 753446, 2325286; 753388, 2325342; 753388, 2325342; 
753381, 2325348; 753372, 2325347; 753367, 2325346; 753332, 2325352; 
753325, 2325353; 753299, 2325342; 753270, 2325329; 753238, 2325323; 
753221, 2325320; 753189, 2325314; 753085, 2325303; 753085, 2325303; 
753085, 2325303; 753077, 2325294; 753069, 2325293; 752894, 2325153; 
752865, 2325227; 752886, 2325361; 752884, 2325378; 752893, 2325419; 
752878, 2325426; 752833, 2325446; 752831, 2325447; 752829, 2325444; 
752827, 2325442; 752732, 2325363; 752732, 2325363; 752732, 2325363; 
752725, 2325288; 752717, 2325268; 752711, 2325276; 752692, 2325301; 
752671, 2325491; 752670, 2325500; 752591, 2325471; 752535, 2325474; 
752535, 2325474; 752535, 2325474; 752475, 2325438; 752566, 2325581; 
752580, 2325602; 752559, 2325613; 752455, 2325669; 752444, 2325674; 
752441, 2325676; 752268, 2325670; 751992, 2325839; 751990, 2325840; 
751898, 2325842; 751835, 2325769; 751804, 2325709; 751734, 2325826; 
751730, 2325834; 751715, 2325826; 751714, 2325826; 751713, 2325825; 
751653, 2325794; 751526, 2325562; 751530, 2325511; 751525, 2325510; 
751492, 2325530; 751475, 2325549; 751475, 2325549; 751461, 2325680; 
751461, 2325835; 751461, 2325837; 751461, 2325837; 751461, 2325837; 
751273, 2325927; 751251, 2325921; 751218, 2325911; 751187, 2325954; 
751173, 2325973; 751154, 2325968; 751123, 2325981; 751122, 2325980; 
751117, 2326075; 751115, 2326111; 751112, 2326166; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 2 follows:

[[Page 26040]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.002

    (iii) Maui 1--Sesbania tomentosa--a (38 ha; 94 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 54 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 752505, 2325951; 754099, 2324756; 
754053, 2324754; 754053, 2324754; 753994, 2324762; 753966, 2324896; 
753718, 2325117; 753656, 2325144; 753550, 2325285; 753389, 2325341; 
753388, 2325342; 753384, 2325343; 753372, 2325347; 753346, 2325356; 
753332, 2325352; 753332, 2325352; 753325, 2325353; 753300, 2325342; 
753299, 2325342; 753238, 2325323; 753231, 2325321; 753221, 2325320; 
753036, 2325303; 752894, 2325153; 752865, 2325227; 752886, 2325361; 
752882, 2325396; 752886, 2325418; 752878, 2325426; 752850, 2325454; 
752833, 2325446; 752829, 2325444; 752753, 2325409; 752739, 2325369; 
752739, 2325369; 752732, 2325363; 752730, 2325339; 752708, 2325279; 
752708, 2325280; 752700, 2325498; 752671, 2325491; 752593, 2325471; 
752535, 2325474; 752535, 2325474; 752487, 2325446; 752567, 2325578; 
752566, 2325581; 752559, 2325613; 752549, 2325657; 752455, 2325669; 
752443, 2325670; 752444, 2325674; 752504, 2325951; 752505, 2325951; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.003
    
    (iv) Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--a (6 ha; 14 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 757892, 2319612; 757868, 2319613; 
757861, 2319624; 757862, 2319690; 757862, 2319690; 757794, 2319720; 
757771, 2319757; 757765, 2319756; 757726, 2319818; 757700, 2319852; 
757688, 2319868; 757645, 2319908; 757645, 2319908; 757626, 2319942; 
757626, 2319942; 757371, 2320024; 757371, 2320024; 757333, 2320052; 
757268, 2320058; 757266, 2320058; 757272, 2320064; 757278, 2320070; 
757288, 2320086; 757296, 2320107; 757292, 2320137; 757312, 2320161; 
757387, 2320119; 757388, 2320120; 757892, 2319612; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.140
    
    (v) Maui 2--Brighamia rockii--b (17 ha; 42 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 47 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 757133, 2322103; 757301, 2320290; 
757290, 2320310; 757286, 2320313; 757279, 2320318; 757264, 2320330; 
757264, 2320389; 757248, 2320415; 757247, 2320416; 757241, 2320425; 
757211, 2320467;

[[Page 26041]]

757209, 2320469; 757193, 2320485; 757174, 2320504; 757148, 2320525; 
757157, 2320542; 757190, 2320563; 757188, 2320568; 757183, 2320582; 
757167, 2320630; 757140, 2320705; 757145, 2320746; 757139, 2320784; 
757137, 2320794; 757102, 2320856; 757102, 2320918; 757125, 2321030; 
757126, 2321037; 757127, 2321042; 757107, 2321136; 757104, 2321149; 
757082, 2321207; 757031, 2321316; 757019, 2321449; 757019, 2321491; 
757069, 2321583; 757108, 2321658; 757109, 2321661; 757127, 2321696; 
757312, 2321727; 757278, 2321778; 757132, 2321784; 757073, 2321843; 
757052, 2321922; 757086, 2322052; 757133, 2322103; 757133, 2322103; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 5 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.004
    
    (vi) Maui 2--Centaurium sebaeoides--b (27 ha; 66 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 106 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 757167, 2321145; 758803, 2318519; 
758719, 2318510; 758683, 2318554; 758580, 2318620; 758534, 2318638; 
758445, 2318673; 758344, 2318706; 758258, 2318748; 758224, 2318802; 
758205, 2318870; 758210, 2318971; 758198, 2319087; 758172, 2319133; 
758100, 2319189; 758059, 2319236; 757995, 2319372; 758013, 2319396; 
758013, 2319396; 758013, 2319396; 757861, 2319563; 757861, 2319624; 
757862, 2319690; 757794, 2319720; 757771, 2319757; 757727, 2319831; 
757700, 2319852; 757658, 2319885; 757645, 2319908; 757626, 2319942; 
757371, 2320024; 757267, 2320057; 757268, 2320058; 757272, 2320064; 
757287, 2320085; 757291, 2320139; 757294, 2320164; 757273, 2320164; 
757242, 2320158; 757201, 2320133; 757176, 2320121; 757115, 2320110; 
757111, 2320116; 757132, 2320151; 757173, 2320169; 757193, 2320192; 
757198, 2320217; 757211, 2320231; 757274, 2320293; 757290, 2320303; 
757286, 2320313; 757285, 2320316; 757279, 2320318; 757259, 2320326; 
757259, 2320339; 757260, 2320395; 757247, 2320416; 757243, 2320423; 
757241, 2320425; 757213, 2320452; 757209, 2320469; 757205, 2320484; 
757193, 2320485; 757184, 2320485; 757169, 2320504; 757152, 2320502; 
757143, 2320509; 757089, 2320510; 757068, 2320516; 757067, 2320526; 
757083, 2320535; 757093, 2320554; 757100, 2320567; 757138, 2320580; 
757188, 2320568; 757191, 2320567; 757183, 2320582; 757171, 2320606; 
757168, 2320622; 757167, 2320630; 757156, 2320685; 757142, 2320706; 
757148, 2320745; 757139, 2320784; 757136, 2320795; 757126, 2320807; 
757087, 2320802; 757054, 2320808; 757050, 2320822; 757051, 2320829; 
757079, 2320846; 757094, 2320878; 757098, 2320909; 757087, 2320942; 
757083, 2320967; 757092, 2320990; 757125, 2321030; 757127, 2321033; 
757126, 2321037; 757124, 2321043; 757096, 2321047; 757094, 2321055; 
757103, 2321074; 757107, 2321136; 757107, 2321139; 757167, 2321145; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 6 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.005
    
    (vii) Maui 3--Brighamia rockii--c (4 ha; 9 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 31 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 793379, 2311347; 793988, 2310722; 
793937, 2310735; 793921, 2310750; 793918, 2310815; 793926, 2310829; 
793943, 2310864; 793938, 2310875; 793940, 2310881; 793940, 2310881; 
793940, 2310881; 793940, 2310881; 793940, 2310881; 793931, 2310894; 
793906, 2310935; 793885, 2310962; 793883, 2310973; 793856, 2311001; 
793796, 2311026; 793781, 2311037; 793781, 2311037; 793768, 2311053; 
793690, 2311134; 793635, 2311144; 793569, 2311152; 793544, 2311158; 
793534, 2311167; 793459, 2311247; 793399, 2311287; 793362, 2311345; 
793379, 2311347; return to starting point.


[[Page 26042]]


    (B) Note: Map 7 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.006
    
    (viii) Maui 4--Brighamia rockii--d (1 ha; 2 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the entire offshore island located at 
approximately: 794212, 2310986.

    (B) Note: Map 8 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.007
    
    (ix) Maui 4--Peucedanum sandwicense--a (1 ha; 2 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the entire offshore island located at 
approximately: 794212, 2310986.

    (B) Note: Map 9 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.008
    
    (x) Maui 5--Brighamia rockii--e (6 ha; 15 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 46 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 794814, 2310166; 794778, 2310176; 
794770, 2310182; 794756, 2310193; 794756, 2310217; 794742, 2310240; 
794739, 2310261; 794733, 2310282; 794733, 2310282; 794733, 2310282; 
794732, 2310303; 794731, 2310313; 794728, 2310324; 794728, 2310324; 
794728, 2310324; 794721, 2310337; 794712, 2310344; 794707, 2310362; 
794706, 2310368; 794706, 2310368; 794706, 2310368; 794665, 2310393; 
794660, 2310404; 794652, 2310413; 794642, 2310419; 794632, 2310428; 
794632, 2310428; 794629, 2310436; 794625, 2310446; 794622, 2310523; 
794573, 2310595; 794492, 2310647; 794439, 2310671; 794411, 2310685; 
794335, 2310724; 794326, 2310728; 794266, 2310740;

[[Page 26043]]

794242, 2310754; 794222, 2310764; 794210, 2310773; 794177, 2310772; 
794066, 2310705; 794050, 2310688; 794040, 2310715; 794043, 2310738; 
794043, 2310738; return to starting point.
    (B) Note: Map 10 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.009
    
    (xi) Maui 6--Ischaemum byrone--a (17 ha; 43 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 34 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 799822, 2306499; 801132, 2305284; 
801131, 2305234; 801117, 2305232; 801048, 2305275; 800891, 2305373; 
800731, 2305387; 800581, 2305284; 800517, 2305297; 800481, 2305305; 
800472, 2305307; 800472, 2305307; 800265, 2305505; 800166, 2305599; 
800166, 2305599; 800166, 2305599; 800159, 2305694; 800147, 2305843; 
800147, 2305849; 800147, 2305849; 800190, 2305990; 800138, 2306094; 
800138, 2306094; 800060, 2306148; 800001, 2306188; 800001, 2306188; 
799917, 2306240; 799879, 2306263; 799874, 2306386; 799796, 2306425; 
799795, 2306425; 799795, 2306425; 799795, 2306425; 799822, 2306499; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 11 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.010
    
    (xii) Maui 6--Mariscus pennatiformis--a (30 ha; 75 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 47 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 799656, 2306630; 799606, 2306800; 
799516, 2306902; 799516, 2306902; 801972, 2305512; 801972, 2305512; 
801981, 2305435; 801840, 2305416; 801825, 2305385; 801734, 2305421; 
801628, 2305464; 801558, 2305455; 801466, 2305444; 801320, 2305260; 
801117, 2305232; 801067, 2305263; 801048, 2305275; 800896, 2305373; 
800734, 2305390; 800586, 2305288; 800517, 2305297; 800517, 2305297; 
800481, 2305305; 800481, 2305305; 800289, 2305482; 800265, 2305505; 
800171, 2305595; 800159, 2305694; 800150, 2305769; 800147, 2305842; 
800147, 2305843; 800171, 2305927; 800190, 2305990; 800156, 2306059; 
800136, 2306101; 800060, 2306148; 800060, 2306148; 800001, 2306188; 
799917, 2306240; 799917, 2306240; 799886, 2306262; 799874, 2306391; 
799795, 2306425; 799789, 2306428; 799723, 2306527; 799721, 2306530; 
799656, 2306630; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 12 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.011
    

[[Page 26044]]


    (xiii) Maui 7--Ischaemum byrone--b (11 ha; 27 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at 811597, 2302341; 811983, 2301617; 
811982, 2301617; 811936, 2301585; 811916, 2301671; 811945, 2301774; 
812026, 2301885; 812133, 2301927; 812193, 2301995; 812092, 2302061; 
811938, 2302135; 811849, 2302164; 811717, 2302172; 811546, 2302307; 
811597, 2302341; return to starting point.; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 13 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.012
    
    (xiv) Maui 8--Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis--a (501 ha; 
1,238 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at 
787682, 2306203; 787708, 2306208; 787902, 2306166; 787967, 2306151; 
788003, 2306143; 788005, 2306134; 788521, 2304072; 786138, 2304072; 
785730, 2304957; 785457, 2305842; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 14 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.013
    
    (xv) Maui 8--Cyanea glabra--a (450 ha; 1,112 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points: Start at 
783933, 2305472; 783933, 2305473; 783961, 2305480; 784075, 2305511; 
784100, 2305536; 784575, 2306024; 784578, 2306020; 786938, 2302713; 
786676, 2302611; 786661, 2302613; 786491, 2302633; 786339, 2302653; 
786280, 2302660; 786106, 2302680; 786032, 2302690; 785884, 2302707; 
785796, 2302718; 785680, 2302732; 785510, 2302753; 785357, 2302772; 
785246, 2302785; 785242, 2302786; 785188, 2302835; 784760, 2303276; 
784660, 2303678; 784487, 2303704; 784079, 2304760; 784008, 2305132; 
783955, 2305292; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 15 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.014
    
    (xvi) Maui 8--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora--a (611 ha; 1,509 
ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 17 boundary points: Start at 
789198, 2305890; 789215, 2305911; 789515, 2306162; 790281, 2306097; 
790352, 2305511; 790360, 2305448; 790364, 2305412; 790482, 2304451; 
789577, 2302791; 789530, 2302705; 789179, 2302726; 788179, 2302942; 
788149, 2302948; 787716, 2303565; 788077, 2303893; 788127, 2304437; 
788521, 2305059; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 16 follows:

[[Page 26045]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.015

    (xvii) Maui 8--Cyanea mceldowneyi--a (2,127 ha; 5,256 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 56 boundary points: Start at 
784578, 2306020; 784691, 2306136; 785400, 2306325; 785976, 2306411; 
786598, 2306408; 786651, 2306403; 786837, 2306385; 787682, 2306203; 
788005, 2306134; 789162, 2305885; 789198, 2305890; 789297, 2305904; 
789492, 2305870; 790364, 2305412; 791696, 2304712; 791696, 2304710; 
791671, 2304359; 791781, 2304297; 791780, 2304294; 791653, 2304101; 
791627, 2303742; 791158, 2303230; 791158, 2302616; 791149, 2302250; 
791407, 2301760; 791550, 2301582; 790766, 2302188; 790511, 2302348; 
790503, 2302354; 790502, 2302354; 790198, 2302345; 790198, 2302344; 
789827, 2302625; 788750, 2303441; 788540, 2303493; 788181, 2303547; 
787765, 2303538; 787076, 2303479; 786758, 2303386; 786339, 2303226; 
786095, 2303051; 785740, 2302863; 785554, 2302748; 785510, 2302753; 
785357, 2302772; 785246, 2302785; 785206, 2302791; 785067, 2302898; 
784947, 2303017; 784875, 2303047; 784803, 2303101; 784660, 2303678; 
784551, 2303694; 783794, 2305326; 784087, 2305516; 784183, 2305615; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 17 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.016
    
    (xviii) Maui 8--Diplazium molokaiense--a (574 ha; 1,419 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 91 boundary points: Start at 
788179, 2302942; 788284, 2302790; 788714, 2302383; 789527, 2301802; 
789911, 2301569; 789906, 2301556; 791083, 2300859; 791083, 2300858; 
791164, 2300577; 790858, 2300440; 790545, 2300227; 790534, 2300210; 
790469, 2300111; 790425, 2300143; 790396, 2300164; 790270, 2300253; 
790224, 2300285; 790198, 2300304; 790089, 2300382; 790055, 2300406; 
790028, 2300425; 789912, 2300508; 789880, 2300531; 789749, 2300625; 
789706, 2300655; 789647, 2300697; 789572, 2300752; 789531, 2300780; 
789502, 2300802; 789471, 2300823; 789458, 2300832; 789393, 2300880; 
789355, 2300906; 789339, 2300917; 789210, 2301009; 789182, 2301030; 
789152, 2301051; 789038, 2301132; 789009, 2301153; 788981, 2301173; 
788864, 2301257; 788834, 2301279; 788804, 2301301; 788692, 2301381; 
788635, 2301422; 788527, 2301498; 788489, 2301526; 788434, 2301565; 
788343, 2301629; 788313, 2301650; 788288, 2301668; 788190, 2301738; 
788141, 2301774; 788117, 2301792; 787998, 2301875; 787965, 2301899; 
787938, 2301919; 787838, 2301989; 787796, 2302020; 787771, 2302038; 
787661, 2302116; 787622, 2302144; 787597, 2302162; 787492, 2302236; 
787423, 2302286; 787307, 2302369; 787253, 2302408; 787141, 2302489; 
787105, 2302512; 787079, 2302531; 787026, 2302568; 787026, 2302569; 
786951, 2302579; 786738, 2302604; 786661, 2302613; 786491, 2302633; 
786339, 2302653; 786280, 2302660; 786106, 2302680; 786032, 2302690; 
785884, 2302707; 785796, 2302718; 785680, 2302732; 785510, 2302753; 
785504, 2302754; 785239, 2303033; 785221, 2303039; 785230, 2303043; 
785221, 2303052; 785248, 2303050; 787496, 2303927; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 18 follows:

[[Page 26046]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.017

    (xix) Maui 8--Geranium multiflorum--a (46 ha; 113 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 32 boundary points: Start at 
790534, 2300210; 790525, 2300071; 790425, 2300143; 790396, 2300164; 
790270, 2300253; 790224, 2300285; 790198, 2300304; 790089, 2300382; 
790055, 2300406; 790028, 2300425; 789912, 2300508; 789880, 2300531; 
789749, 2300625; 789706, 2300655; 789647, 2300697; 789572, 2300752; 
789531, 2300780; 789502, 2300802; 789466, 2300826; 789393, 2300880; 
789355, 2300906; 789339, 2300917; 789210, 2301009; 789182, 2301030; 
789152, 2301051; 789038, 2301132; 789009, 2301153; 788981, 2301173; 
788881, 2301245; 789034, 2301393; 790128, 2300638; 790551, 2300470; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 19 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.018
    
    (xx) Maui 8--Melicope balloui--a (151 ha; 374 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 42 boundary points: Start at 
787661, 2302116; 787622, 2302144; 787597, 2302162; 787492, 2302236; 
787423, 2302286; 787307, 2302369; 787253, 2302408; 787141, 2302489; 
787105, 2302512; 787079, 2302531; 787026, 2302568; 787026, 2302569; 
786951, 2302579; 786738, 2302604; 786661, 2302613; 786491, 2302633; 
786339, 2302653; 786280, 2302660; 786106, 2302680; 786032, 2302690; 
785884, 2302707; 785796, 2302718; 785680, 2302732; 785510, 2302753; 
785357, 2302772; 785248, 2302785; 785306, 2302888; 785406, 2302943; 
785630, 2303011; 785923, 2303157; 786143, 2303330; 786357, 2303424; 
786541, 2303481; 786781, 2303481; 787100, 2303408; 787288, 2303230; 
787513, 2302911; 787513, 2302859; 787634, 2302639; 787702, 2302252; 
787717, 2302148; 787677, 2302105; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 20 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.019
    
    (xxi) Maui 8--Phlegmariurus mannii--a (221 ha; 547 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 28 boundary points: Start at 
787622, 2302144; 787597, 2302162; 787492, 2302236; 787423, 2302286; 
787307, 2302369; 787253, 2302408; 787141, 2302489; 787105, 2302512; 
787079, 2302531; 787026, 2302568; 787026, 2302569; 786951, 2302579; 
786738, 2302604; 786661, 2302613; 786491, 2302633; 786339, 2302653; 
786280, 2302660; 786106, 2302680; 786032, 2302690; 785884, 2302707; 
785796,

[[Page 26047]]

2302718; 785680, 2302732; 785510, 2302753; 785414, 2302765; 785047, 
2303112; 787157, 2303805; 787966, 2302253; 787643, 2302129; return to 
starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 21 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.020
    
    (xxii) Maui 8--Phyllostegia mannii--a (570 ha; 1,407 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 26 boundary points: Start at 
789827, 2302625; 789610, 2302774; 789577, 2302791; 788148, 2303539; 
787484, 2303692; 786396, 2303777; 785739, 2304188; 785794, 2304239; 
785860, 2304480; 785944, 2304792; 786485, 2304912; 787026, 2304936; 
787302, 2305014; 787488, 2305093; 787615, 2305093; 788065, 2304906; 
788906, 2304672; 789100, 2304588; 789615, 2304203; 789825, 2303873; 
790084, 2303525; 790288, 2303290; 790396, 2303032; 790324, 2302870; 
790294, 2302671; 790206, 2302365; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 22 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.021
    
    (xxiii) Maui 8--Phyllostegia mollis--a (128 ha; 316 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: Start at 
785938, 2302701; 785884, 2302707; 785796, 2302718; 785680, 2302732; 
785510, 2302753; 785357, 2302772; 785247, 2302785; 785274, 2302870; 
785281, 2302986; 784974, 2303191; 784840, 2303242; 784725, 2303477; 
785401, 2303682; 785589, 2303726; 785845, 2303639; 786322, 2303224; 
786467, 2303065; 786660, 2302911; 786775, 2302757; 786962, 2302596; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 23 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.022
    
    (xxiv) Maui 8--Zanthoxylum hawaiiense--a (362 ha; 895 ac)
    (A) Unit consists of the following 24 boundary points: Start at 
783221, 2305104; 783425, 2305329; 783765, 2305418; 783933, 2305472; 
783961, 2305480; 783967, 2305482; 784075, 2305511; 784083, 2305519; 
784480, 2305646; 784882, 2305244; 785713, 2303193; 785079, 2302889; 
785056, 2302911; 784947, 2303017; 784803, 2303101; 784660, 2303678; 
783584, 2303838; 783583, 2303838; 783559, 2304310; 783487, 2304405; 
783488, 2304406; 783486, 2304406; 783228, 2304747; 783196, 2305076; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 24 follows:

[[Page 26048]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.023

    (xxv) Maui 9--Alectryon macrococcus--a (1,893 ha; 4,678 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 87 boundary points: Start at 
787503, 2286804; 787552, 2286825; 787793, 2286254; 787882, 2286300; 
787924, 2286322; 787969, 2285836; 787982, 2285645; 788112, 2285409; 
788112, 2285408; 788269, 2285261; 788387, 2285086; 788485, 2284821; 
788486, 2284815; 788116, 2284626; 788115, 2284625; 786708, 2284032; 
786514, 2283946; 786511, 2283963; 786509, 2283964; 786072, 2283891; 
786071, 2283889; 786091, 2283757; 785721, 2283591; 782955, 2282353; 
782675, 2282228; 779507, 2281898; 779470, 2281894; 779468, 2281911; 
779453, 2282018; 779433, 2282157; 779422, 2282233; 779414, 2282298; 
779404, 2282370; 779384, 2282500; 779372, 2282586; 779369, 2282603; 
779370, 2282710; 779372, 2282813; 779377, 2282926; 779379, 2283091; 
779379, 2283156; 779384, 2283260; 779385, 2283362; 779386, 2283461; 
779389, 2283570; 779391, 2283672; 779394, 2283769; 779397, 2283875; 
779398, 2283992; 779401, 2284094; 779401, 2284203; 779403, 2284241; 
779406, 2284322; 779413, 2284560; 779419, 2284768; 779424, 2284997; 
779552, 2285008; 780605, 2285094; 781897, 2285373; 781955, 2285060; 
781922, 2284849; 781966, 2284605; 781901, 2284319; 782031, 2283673; 
782383, 2282985; 782730, 2282341; 782731, 2282340; 783230, 2282513; 
783231, 2282514; 783231, 2282515; 783112, 2282851; 782588, 2283565; 
782997, 2283742; 783717, 2283910; 784941, 2284105; 784942, 2284105; 
784943, 2284107; 784824, 2284610; 785088, 2284723; 785089, 2284725; 
785013, 2285109; 785013, 2285110; 784720, 2285273; 784639, 2285527; 
784482, 2285614; 784385, 2285911; 786496, 2286367; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 25 follows:

[[Page 26049]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.024

    (xxvi) Maui 9--Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum--a 
(9,041 ha; 22,340 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 159 boundary points: Start at 
778986, 2288684; 778989, 2288687; 779048, 2288746; 779070, 2288768; 
780400, 2290082; 780392, 2290088; 780380, 2290097; 781358, 2291060; 
781772, 2291467; 783957, 2293620; 784132, 2293514; 784471, 2294125; 
785753, 2295387; 785766, 2295377; 785773, 2295373; 785784, 2295366; 
785798, 2295356; 785812, 2295346; 785831, 2295333; 785843, 2295325; 
785871, 2295305; 785887, 2295294; 785904, 2295283; 785906, 2295281; 
785922, 2295270; 785931, 2295264; 785949, 2295252; 785962, 2295242; 
785975, 2295233; 785995, 2295220; 786007, 2295211; 786012, 2295208; 
786032, 2295194; 786034, 2295193; 786047, 2295183; 786054, 2295179; 
786071, 2295167; 786099, 2295147; 786102, 2295145; 786104, 2295144; 
786108, 2295141; 786113, 2295137; 786127, 2295127; 786136, 2295121; 
786146, 2295115; 786153, 2295110; 786155, 2295108; 786173, 2295096; 
786193, 2295082; 786225, 2295060; 786238, 2295051; 786290, 2295015; 
786293, 2295013; 786317, 2294997; 786332, 2294986; 786344, 2294978; 
786351, 2294973; 786354, 2294971; 786363, 2294965; 786368, 2294961; 
786378, 2294954; 786390, 2294945; 786395, 2294943; 786413, 2294930; 
786415, 2294929; 786420, 2294926; 786424, 2294923; 786464, 2294895; 
786474, 2294887; 786483, 2294882; 786493, 2294875; 786507, 2294865; 
786518, 2294857; 786525, 2294853; 786537, 2294844; 786558, 2294830; 
786582, 2294813; 786597, 2294803; 786600, 2294801; 786616, 2294789; 
786634, 2294777; 786668, 2294753; 786701, 2294730; 786716, 2294721; 
786759, 2294691; 786775, 2294680; 786777, 2294679; 786791, 2294668; 
786810, 2294655; 786824, 2294646; 786843, 2294633; 786895, 2294597; 
786905, 2294591; 786915, 2294583; 786917, 2294582; 786938, 2294566; 
786957, 2294554; 786990, 2294532; 787001, 2294523; 787015, 2294513; 
787022, 2294508; 787024, 2294508; 787025, 2294508; 787038, 2294530; 
787082,

[[Page 26050]]

2294593; 786188, 2295812; 788190, 2297786; 788404, 2297994; 788742, 
2298301; 788752, 2298310; 788754, 2298309; 788785, 2298291; 788906, 
2298219; 788934, 2298204; 788940, 2298201; 788942, 2298200; 788965, 
2298185; 789012, 2298158; 789034, 2298146; 789372, 2297947; 789683, 
2297771; 789712, 2297753; 789756, 2297728; 789999, 2297585; 790577, 
2297304; 790826, 2297180; 791591, 2296795; 794000, 2295593; 795810, 
2295621; 795945, 2295623; 796322, 2295627; 796366, 2295628; 796367, 
2295628; 796710, 2295632; 796712, 2295633; 796712, 2295635; 796322, 
2295917; 796064, 2296102; 795805, 2296286; 795433, 2296550; 797565, 
2295906; 797569, 2295864; 797581, 2295638; 797634, 2295413; 798056, 
2292032; 798056, 2292031; 798107, 2291624; 798165, 2291162; 796929, 
2290891; 796545, 2290807; 795794, 2290643; 795424, 2290939; 795382, 
2290933; 789630, 2290134; 789516, 2290615; 789343, 2291348; 787469, 
2291492; 786812, 2289742; 778932, 2288646; return to starting point.
    (B) Excluding the area bounded by the following 42 boundary points 
(76ha; 189ac):
    Start at 784680, 2291987; 784747, 2292015; 784786, 2292031; 784910, 
2292083; 784946, 2292099; 784984, 2292116; 785051, 2292143; 785110, 
2292167; 785146, 2292182; 785204, 2292207; 785308, 2292250; 785341, 
2292265; 785383, 2292282; 785501, 2292330; 785537, 2292346; 785576, 
2292362; 785614, 2292410; 785643, 2292390; 785674, 2292428; 785689, 
2292448; 785732, 2292503; 785780, 2292466; 785847, 2292414; 785871, 
2292394; 785930, 2292350; 785942, 2292341; 785983, 2292310; 785993, 
2292302; 786016, 2292284; 786041, 2292263; 786107, 2292213; 786138, 
2292189; 786181, 2292155; 786209, 2292133; 786238, 2292111; 786263, 
2292091; 785264, 2291677; 784769, 2291468; 784742, 2291524; 784703, 
2291618; 784568, 2291939; 784568, 2291941; return to starting point.

    (C) Note: Map 26 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.025
    

[[Page 26051]]


    (xxvii) Maui 9--Asplenium fragile var. insulare--a (362 ha; 894 
ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 74 boundary points: Start at 
788543, 2298123; 788563, 2298140; 788600, 2298173; 788754, 2298309; 
788785, 2298291; 788906, 2298219; 788934, 2298204; 788942, 2298200; 
788965, 2298185; 789012, 2298158; 789097, 2298111; 789125, 2298094; 
789154, 2298077; 789279, 2298004; 789310, 2297986; 789342, 2297969; 
789450, 2297905; 789495, 2297879; 789521, 2297863; 789656, 2297787; 
789683, 2297771; 789712, 2297753; 789841, 2297681; 789867, 2297664; 
789901, 2297645; 789955, 2297614; 790033, 2297574; 790061, 2297560; 
790093, 2297545; 790216, 2297485; 790249, 2297467; 790279, 2297452; 
790304, 2297441; 790412, 2297387; 790443, 2297372; 790472, 2297357; 
790581, 2297304; 790638, 2297276; 790666, 2297261; 790719, 2297235; 
790800, 2297196; 790831, 2297181; 790865, 2297163; 790992, 2297102; 
791409, 2296895; 791824, 2296689; 792240, 2296482; 792444, 2296380; 
792449, 2296378; 792655, 2296275; 793070, 2296068; 793155, 2296026; 
793157, 2295951; 793118, 2295890; 792901, 2295834; 792611, 2295823; 
792304, 2295750; 791909, 2295901; 791480, 2296046; 791067, 2296068; 
790755, 2296079; 790543, 2296118; 789819, 2296246; 789629, 2296452; 
789535, 2296731; 789485, 2296976; 789512, 2297221; 789514, 2297223; 
789451, 2297316; 789306, 2297478; 789212, 2297600; 789145, 2297717; 
788799, 2298069; 788554, 2298124; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 27 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.026
    
    (xxviii) Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--a (1,563 ha; 
3,861 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points: Start at 
796545, 2290807; 796545, 2290801; 796458, 2289725; 796454, 2289679; 
796453,

[[Page 26052]]

2289665; 794502, 2289839; 794488, 2289840; 794474, 2289837; 791519, 
2289316; 789966, 2288718; 789516, 2290615; 790559, 2290844; 791422, 
2291618; 791566, 2291747; 794576, 2292372; 796609, 2291606; return to 
starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 28 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.027
    
    (xxix) Maui 9--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--b (2,116 ha; 5,229 
ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 
779048, 2288746; 779070, 2288768; 779512, 2289205; 780627, 2289332; 
782572, 2289555; 786928, 2290052; 786812, 2289742; 786580, 2289125; 
786747, 2288730; 787145, 2287787; 782967, 2286486; 782162, 2286366; 
781652, 2286290; 781485, 2286623; 781454, 2286686; 779524, 2286194; 
779600, 2288162; 778935, 2288132; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 29 follows:

[[Page 26053]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.028

    (xxx) Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--a (177 ha; 438 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 5 boundary points: Start at 
787444, 2287080; 787071, 2286938; 786501, 2286762; 785851, 2288424; 
786721, 2288791; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 30 follows:

[[Page 26054]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.029

    (xxxi) Maui 9--Clermontia lindseyana--b (60 ha; 148 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 25 boundary points: Start at 
776854, 2288875; 776854, 2288876; 776882, 2288864; 776920, 2288848; 
776994, 2288817; 777561, 2288580; 777275, 2288186; 777275, 2287757; 
777159, 2287487; 776983, 2287585; 776726, 2287694; 776756, 2287770; 
776817, 2287928; 776860, 2288037; 776871, 2288068; 776895, 2288122; 
776938, 2288237; 776979, 2288341; 777002, 2288401; 777006, 2288411; 
777006, 2288412; 777006, 2288413; 777005, 2288413; 777005, 2288414; 
776698, 2288553; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 31 follows:

[[Page 26055]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.030

    (xxxii) Maui 9--Clermontia samuelii--a (3,130 ha; 7,734 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 
799099, 2295658; 799092, 2295661; 799244, 2295662; 799663, 2295668; 
800082, 2295673; 800414, 2295677; 800379, 2295672; 800982, 2295684; 
801296, 2295688; 801297, 2295688; 801369, 2295851; 802993, 2299556; 
806459, 2298838; 807604, 2297939; 808913, 2296912; 805091, 2293218; 
805090, 2293218; 801679, 2294214; 801640, 2294225; 801796, 2294569; 
801346, 2294743; 801340, 2294745; 800636, 2295040; 800633, 2295036; 
800632, 2295034; 800624, 2295037; 800620, 2295038; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 32 follows:

[[Page 26056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.031

    (xiii) Maui 9--Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis--b (1,709 ha; 
4,224 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: Start at 
805053, 2293180; 806644, 2292314; 808301, 2291412; 806062, 2289747; 
805115, 2291183; 804741, 2291728; 804610, 2289526; 804598, 2289317; 
803684, 2289877; 803296, 2290115; 802589, 2290350; 802215, 2290953; 
801641, 2291671; 801871, 2292015; 801641, 2292647; 801699, 2293766; 
802359, 2294139; 802646, 2294024; 802761, 2293680; 802962, 2293852; 
803432, 2294063; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 33 follows:

[[Page 26057]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.032

    (xxxiv) Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--b (650 ha; 1,605 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 50 boundary points: Start at 
801146, 2294134; 801147, 2294134; 801185, 2294156; 801306, 2294225; 
801376, 2294265; 801594, 2294228; 801679, 2294214; 801771, 2294198; 
802073, 2294198; 802434, 2294198; 802655, 2294131; 802883, 2293924; 
803365, 2293596; 803600, 2293468; 803707, 2293361; 803713, 2293247; 
803425, 2292852; 803318, 2292564; 803312, 2292196; 803372, 2292055; 
803713, 2291855; 803988, 2291687; 804008, 2291560; 803894, 2291480; 
803680, 2291366; 803486, 2291265; 803305, 2291078; 803044, 2290763; 
802850, 2290709; 802722, 2290743; 802542, 2290884; 802227, 2291017; 
801979, 2291212; 801832, 2291439; 801745, 2291560; 801637, 2291660; 
801550, 2291788; 801544, 2291848; 801604, 2291955; 801611, 2292069; 
801517, 2292370; 801497, 2292538; 801443, 2292638; 801330, 2292757; 
801229, 2292846; 801175, 2293006; 801182, 2293134; 801242, 2293401; 
801142, 2293689; 801062, 2294018; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 34 follows:

[[Page 26058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.033

    (xxxv) Maui 9--Cyanea glabra--c (363 ha; 898 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 38 boundary points: Start at 
805090, 2293218; 805068, 2293196; 805053, 2293181; 805053, 2293180; 
804943, 2293067; 804871, 2293032; 804680, 2293002; 804400, 2293049; 
804298, 2293049; 804161, 2293121; 804036, 2293276; 804024, 2293342; 
803964, 2293634; 803917, 2293843; 803988, 2293950; 804084, 2294076; 
804245, 2294261; 804298, 2294398; 804245, 2294571; 804191, 2294750; 
804215, 2295007; 804304, 2295144; 804489, 2295275; 804573, 2295394; 
804650, 2295454; 804895, 2295550; 805367, 2295538; 805534, 2295460; 
805587, 2295365; 805695, 2295150; 805933, 2294828; 806166, 2294684; 
806184, 2294631; 806178, 2294595; 805981, 2294362; 805677, 2294016; 
805480, 2293718; 805188, 2293318; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 35 follows:

[[Page 26059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.034

    (xxxvi) Maui 9--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora--b (1,309 ha; 
3,235 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 34 boundary points: Start at 
801996, 2294274; 803261, 2294116; 805475, 2292702; 805159, 2292328; 
804474, 2292692; 804184, 2292587; 803762, 2292824; 803635, 2293097; 
803235, 2293299; 803340, 2292930; 803288, 2292113; 803657, 2291823; 
804421, 2291454; 804289, 2291058; 803920, 2290900; 803077, 2290716; 
803548, 2289729; 803114, 2290141; 801935, 2289265; 800788, 2289185; 
800516, 2289662; 800342, 2289966; 799912, 2289966; 799418, 2289552; 
799034, 2289728; 799006, 2289910; 801285, 2290452; 801917, 2291085; 
801678, 2291389; 801153, 2292060; 800860, 2293524; 801185, 2294156; 
801306, 2294225; 801759, 2294089; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 36 follows:

[[Page 26060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.035

    (xxxvii) Maui 9--Diellia erecta--a (2 ha; 5 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 9 boundary points: Start at 
776678, 2288562; 776714, 2288648; 776729, 2288680; 776747, 2288719; 
776756, 2288719; 776808, 2288717; 776832, 2288598; 776823, 2288519; 
776820, 2288498; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 37 follows:

[[Page 26061]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.036

    (xxxviii) Maui 9--Diellia erecta--b (175 ha; 431 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 9 boundary points: Start at 
787240, 2287564; 787475, 2287007; 786302, 2286613; 785862, 2287663; 
785861, 2287662; 785789, 2287851; 785769, 2287902; 785806, 2287916; 
786914, 2288334; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 38 follows:

[[Page 26062]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.037

    (xxxix) Maui 9--Diplazium molokaiense--b (162 ha; 401 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 4 boundary points: Start at 
786149, 2287088; 785806, 2288547; 786747, 2288730; 787339, 2287329; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 39 follows:

[[Page 26063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.038

    (xl) Maui 9--Flueggea neowawraea--a (52 ha; 128 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 6 boundary points: Start at 
780345, 2283357; 781056, 2283374; 781342, 2282594; 781160, 2282542; 
781012, 2282863; 780388, 2282689; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 40 follows:

[[Page 26064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.039

    (xli) Maui 9--Geranium arboreum--a (731 ha; 1,805 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 78 boundary points: Start at 
776678, 2288562; 776714, 2288648; 776729, 2288680; 776769, 2288768; 
776801, 2288841; 776816, 2288873; 776823, 2288888; 776854, 2288875; 
776994, 2288817; 777437, 2288634; 777736, 2288504; 777822, 2288467; 
778221, 2288151; 778821, 2288569; 778986, 2288684; 779630, 2288318; 
780757, 2288633; 782012, 2288542; 781788, 2286699; 781485, 2286623; 
779450, 2286115; 779447, 2286116; 779447, 2286118; 779447, 2286148; 
779449, 2286273; 779451, 2286428; 779453, 2286528; 779457, 2286767; 
779463, 2287069; 779466, 2287187; 779469, 2287405; 779474, 2287664; 
779478, 2287896; 779480, 2288005; 779481, 2288094; 779481, 2288097; 
779480, 2288099; 779379, 2288090; 779098, 2288064; 778964, 2288051; 
778864, 2288041; 778675, 2288023; 778485, 2288006; 778407, 2287998; 
778397, 2287997; 778396, 2287997; 778295, 2287839; 778290, 2287830; 
778201, 2287689; 778141, 2287597; 778127, 2287576; 778122, 2287567; 
778097, 2287528; 778072, 2287490; 778051, 2287458; 778008, 2287395; 
777941, 2287295; 777929, 2287273; 777926, 2287268; 777872, 2287190; 
777820, 2287111; 777670, 2287202; 777221, 2287452; 776983, 2287585; 
776726, 2287694; 776756, 2287770; 776817, 2287928; 776860, 2288037; 
776871, 2288068; 776895, 2288122; 776938, 2288237; 776979, 2288341; 
777002, 2288401; 777006, 2288411; 777006, 2288412; 777006, 2288413; 
777005, 2288413; 777005, 2288414; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 41 follows:

[[Page 26065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.040

    (xlii) Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--b (4,817 ha; 11,903 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 155 boundary points: Start at 
788163, 2297782; 788209, 2297823; 788474, 2298061; 788549, 2298128; 
788563, 2298140; 788752, 2298310; 788754, 2298309; 788785, 2298291; 
788906, 2298219; 788934, 2298204; 788940, 2298201; 788945, 2298198; 
788965, 2298185; 789012, 2298158; 789097, 2298111; 789125, 2298094; 
789154, 2298077; 789279, 2298004; 789310, 2297986; 789342, 2297969; 
789450, 2297905; 789495, 2297879; 789521, 2297863; 789656, 2297787; 
789683, 2297771; 789712, 2297753; 789841, 2297681; 789867, 2297664; 
789901, 2297645; 789955, 2297614; 790033, 2297574; 790061, 2297560; 
790093, 2297545; 790216, 2297485; 790249, 2297467; 790279, 2297452; 
790304, 2297441; 790412, 2297387; 790443, 2297372; 790472, 2297357; 
790581, 2297304; 790633, 2297278; 790637, 2297277; 790638, 2297276; 
790666, 2297261; 790712, 2297238; 790778, 2297205; 790851, 2297171; 
790865, 2297163; 790992, 2297102; 791049, 2297073; 791253, 2296971; 
791748, 2296726; 792093, 2296555; 792239, 2296482; 792302, 2296451; 
792444, 2296380; 792449, 2296378; 792490, 2296357; 792655, 2296275; 
793070, 2296068; 793303, 2295953; 793307, 2295951; 793422, 2295894; 
793425, 2295892; 793482, 2295864; 793485, 2295863; 793542, 2295834; 
793701, 2295755; 794013, 2295601; 794376, 2295605; 794739, 2295608; 
795102, 2295612; 795523, 2295618; 795945, 2295623; 796322, 2295627; 
796366, 2295628; 796367, 2295628; 796710, 2295632; 796712, 2295633; 
796712, 2295635; 796322, 2295917; 796064, 2296102; 795805, 2296286; 
795412, 2296565; 794929, 2296911; 794586, 2297162; 794089, 2297517; 
793843, 2297693; 793840, 2297695; 793717, 2297782; 793715, 2297784; 
793592, 2297871; 793096, 2298227; 792850, 2298402; 792846, 2298405; 
792724, 2298492; 792721, 2298494; 792661, 2298537; 792659, 2298539; 
792630, 2298559; 792627, 2298561; 792614, 2298570; 792612, 2298572; 
792606, 2298576; 792604, 2298578; 792602,

[[Page 26066]]

2298579; 792600, 2298581; 792599, 2298581; 792395, 2298727; 792392, 
2298730; 792290, 2298802; 792288, 2298804; 792238, 2298839; 792236, 
2298841; 792212, 2298858; 792210, 2298860; 792199, 2298867; 792197, 
2298869; 792193, 2298872; 792190, 2298874; 792187, 2298876; 791820, 
2299139; 792911, 2298800; 794323, 2298361; 795561, 2297771; 797414, 
2297495; 797590, 2295645; 797591, 2295643; 797602, 2295643; 797615, 
2295643; 797793, 2295645; 798243, 2295649; 800429, 2295671; 801112, 
2295683; 801148, 2295656; 800620, 2295038; 800619, 2295037; 799580, 
2293819; 798494, 2292544; 798490, 2292539; 798357, 2292680; 798374, 
2292403; 798056, 2292031; 797894, 2291841; 792958, 2292187; 790618, 
2291998; 789902, 2292186; 790128, 2293507; 789788, 2294035; 788807, 
2294262; 788770, 2295129; 789109, 2296601; 789675, 2297733; 789185, 
2297997; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 42 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.041
    
    (xliii) Maui 9--Geranium multiflorum--c (182 ha; 451 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 4 boundary points: Start at 
786997, 2288137; 784544, 2287319; 786824, 2289775; 786580, 2289125; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 43 follows:

[[Page 26067]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.042

    (xliv) Maui 9--Lipochaeta kamolensis--a (1,475 ha; 3,644 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 42 boundary points: Start at 
782955, 2282353; 783327, 2282400; 784164, 2282607; 784741, 2282683; 
785726, 2282934; 786198, 2283073; 786228, 2282888; 786228, 2282887; 
786230, 2282886; 786701, 2282954; 786702, 2282955; 786702, 2282956; 
786655, 2283208; 787384, 2283423; 787548, 2283495; 787945, 2283669; 
788905, 2284089; 788984, 2283995; 789152, 2283770; 789288, 2283565; 
789391, 2283327; 789514, 2283129; 787773, 2282368; 786596, 2281853; 
786087, 2281631; 786085, 2281630; 784789, 2281189; 784708, 2281139; 
784251, 2281019; 784001, 2280899; 783805, 2280811; 781021, 2279811; 
780368, 2279811; 780216, 2279920; 780139, 2280453; 780063, 2280787; 
780052, 2280834; 779976, 2281160; 780031, 2281595; 780248, 2281900; 
781662, 2282128; 782206, 2282259; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 44 follows:

[[Page 26068]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.043

    (xlv) Maui 9--Melicope balloui--b (394 ha; 973 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 45 boundary points: Start at 
801687, 2292860; 801740, 2293120; 801749, 2293217; 801736, 2293388; 
801740, 2293476; 801793, 2293617; 801894, 2293723; 802092, 2293736; 
802374, 2293512; 802708, 2293331; 802840, 2293212; 802889, 2293116; 
802955, 2293094; 803069, 2293173; 803087, 2293287; 803047, 2293446; 
803047, 2293538; 803140, 2293582; 803316, 2293437; 803545, 2293314; 
803619, 2293116; 803769, 2292957; 804016, 2292781; 804266, 2292645; 
804249, 2292561; 804051, 2292403; 803963, 2292244; 803945, 2292099; 
803945, 2291945; 803928, 2291870; 803804, 2291844; 803681, 2291848; 
803413, 2291949; 803272, 2292020; 803153, 2292051; 803109, 2292020; 
803118, 2291804; 803091, 2291562; 802964, 2291430; 802770, 2291368; 
802422, 2291298; 802088, 2291417; 802000, 2291518; 801758, 2292262; 
801714, 2292447; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 45 follows:

[[Page 26069]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.044

    (xlvi) Maui 9--Melicope knudsenii--a (28 ha; 69 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 26 boundary points: Start at 
779378, 2283038; 779379, 2283091; 779379, 2283156; 779384, 2283260; 
779385, 2283362; 779386, 2283461; 779389, 2283570; 779391, 2283672; 
779394, 2283769; 779397, 2283858; 779397, 2283869; 779397, 2283875; 
779398, 2283992; 779401, 2284094; 779401, 2284203; 779403, 2284241; 
779406, 2284322; 779408, 2284377; 779408, 2284385; 779408, 2284390; 
779413, 2284560; 779419, 2284768; 779424, 2285004; 779427, 2285134; 
779523, 2285126; 779547, 2283051; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 46 follows:

[[Page 26070]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.045

    (xlvii) Maui 9--Melicope mucronulata--a (34 ha; 83 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 23 boundary points: Start at 
779374, 2282861; 779377, 2282926; 779379, 2283091; 779379, 2283156; 
779384, 2283260; 779385, 2283362; 779386, 2283461; 779389, 2283570; 
779391, 2283672; 779394, 2283769; 779397, 2283875; 779398, 2283992; 
779401, 2284094; 779401, 2284203; 779403, 2284241; 779406, 2284322; 
779413, 2284560; 779419, 2284768; 779424, 2285004; 779427, 2285144; 
779552, 2285134; 779552, 2285008; 779544, 2282873; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 47 follows:

[[Page 26071]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.046

    (xlviii) Maui 9--Melicope ovalis--a (933 ha; 2,306 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 
803684, 2289877; 803574, 2289704; 803114, 2290141; 803112, 2290139; 
801383, 2291766; 801145, 2291990; 800743, 2293514; 800900, 2294126; 
801146, 2294134; 801147, 2294134; 801148, 2294134; 801758, 2294144; 
804700, 2292498; 804245, 2292498; 803895, 2292463; 804438, 2291482; 
804352, 2291008; 803667, 2290169; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 48 follows:

[[Page 26072]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.047

    (xlix) Maui 9--Neraudia sericea--a (623 ha; 1,540 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 7 boundary points: Start at 
787503, 2286804; 782284, 2285907; 782162, 2286366; 782046, 2286802; 
786980, 2288178; 787198, 2287662; 787557, 2286813; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 49 follows:

[[Page 26073]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.048

    (l) Maui 9--Nototrichium humile--a (398 ha; 982 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 9 boundary points: Start at 
780063, 2280787; 779707, 2280753; 779507, 2281898; 779466, 2282131; 
779455, 2282613; 781370, 2282843; 781731, 2281716; 781818, 2281027; 
781425, 2280917; return to starting point.

    (B)Note: Map 50 follows:

[[Page 26074]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.049

    (li) Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--b (383 ha; 947 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 4 boundary points: Start at 
787536, 2286861; 784465, 2286413; 784226, 2287486; 786946, 2288260; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 51 follows:

[[Page 26075]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.050

    (lii) Maui 9--Phlegmariurus mannii--c (476 ha; 1,176 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 12 boundary points: Start at 
801935, 2289265; 800788, 2289185; 800342, 2289966; 799912, 2289966; 
799418, 2289552; 799083, 2289679; 799034, 2289728; 798541, 2290221; 
798585, 2290346; 801831, 2290999; 802185, 2291070; 803010, 2290064; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 52 follows:

[[Page 26076]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.051

    (liii) Maui 9--Phyllostegia mollis--b (508 ha; 1,256 ac)
    (A) Unit consists of the following 9 boundary points: Start at 
787430, 2287113; 786267, 2286707; 785468, 2286458; 784537, 2286331; 
784388, 2286734; 784109, 2287909; 785061, 2288163; 785507, 2288294; 
786709, 2288819; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 53 follows:

[[Page 26077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.052

    (liv) Maui 9--Plantago princeps--a (164 ha; 406 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 
794508, 2291589; 794636, 2292209; 795824, 2291911; 796274, 2290033; 
796133, 2290112; 796008, 2290304; 795864, 2290318; 795807, 2290385; 
795821, 2290462; 795400, 2290907; 795299, 2291051; 795213, 2291075; 
794614, 2291434; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 54 follows:

[[Page 26078]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.053

    (lv) Maui 9--Platanthera holochila--a (241 ha; 596 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 
800379, 2295672; 800982, 2295684; 801296, 2295688; 801297, 2295688; 
801367, 2295845; 802309, 2296025; 802197, 2294658; 801820, 2294614; 
801346, 2294743; 801343, 2294744; 800511, 2295191; 800001, 2295168; 
799735, 2294991; 799557, 2294880; 799402, 2294969; 798778, 2295470; 
799935, 2295528; 800349, 2295462; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 55 follows:

[[Page 26079]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.054

    (lvi) Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--a (26 ha; 64 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 4 boundary points: Start at 
789350, 2295087; 789223, 2294975; 788711, 2295251; 789089, 2295825; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 56 follows:

[[Page 26080]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.055

    (lvii) Maui 9--Schiedea haleakalensis--b (77 ha; 189 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 8 boundary points: Start at 
794791, 2292187; 795274, 2292032; 795602, 2291475; 795788, 2291001; 
795397, 2290929; 795031, 2291796; 794146, 2291863; 793984, 2292184; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 57 follows:

[[Page 26081]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.056


[[Page 26082]]


    (lviii) Maui 10--Alectryon macrococcus--b (402 ha; 992 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 25 boundary points: Start at 
790161, 2287892; 790167, 2287894; 792132, 2288649; 792550, 2288788; 
792695, 2288207; 792207, 2288023; 792491, 2286865; 792021, 2286624; 
791018, 2286111; 790896, 2286265; 790745, 2286503; 790526, 2286863; 
790525, 2286864; 790342, 2287060; 790170, 2287235; 790166, 2287238; 
790160, 2287244; 790149, 2287257; 790135, 2287278; 790113, 2287317; 
790099, 2287341; 790085, 2287359; 790061, 2287386; 790031, 2287426; 
790244, 2287538; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 58 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.057
    
    (lix) Maui 11--Lipochaeta kamolensis--b (42 ha; 105 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points: Start at 
791492, 2285251; 791757, 2285370; 791758, 2285368; 792019, 2284935; 
792107, 2284459; 792107, 2284447; 792107, 2284163; 792103, 2284162; 
791825, 2284087; 791831, 2284136; 791831, 2284137; 791825, 2284347; 
791825, 2284348; 791736, 2284527; 791629, 2284802; 791506, 2285203; 
return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 59 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.058
    
    (lx) Maui 12--Vigna o-wahuensis--a (144 ha; 357 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: Start at Start at 771207, 2278581; 771207, 
2278581; 772344, 2278517; 773349, 2278461; 773349, 2278461; 773349, 
2278461; 773296, 2277638; 773294, 2277610; 772830, 2277758; 772830, 
2277758; 772839, 2278087; 772691, 2278009; 772697, 2277944; 772464, 
2277817; 772464, 2277818; 772464, 2277873; 772302, 2277904; 772291, 
2277823; 772291, 2277823; 771941, 2277804; 772001, 2278009; 771861, 
2277996; 771858, 2277785; 771283, 2278049; 771283, 2278049; 771283, 
2278049; 771207, 2278581; return to starting point.; return to starting 
point.

    (B) Note: Map 60 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.059
    
    (lxi) Maui 13--Alectryon macrococcus--c (418 ha; 1,034 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: Start at 
777409, 2281715; 777399, 2281716; 775210, 2281944; 775397, 2282390; 
775399, 2282405; 775595, 2284266; 776003, 2284682; 776042, 2284722; 
776732,


[[Continued on page 26083]]


From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]                         
 
[[pp. 26083-26132]] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for 60 Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe, HI

[[Continued from page 26082]]

[[Page 26083]]

2284778; 776737, 2284731; 776802, 2284151; 776861, 2283642; 776886, 
2283406; 776919, 2283097; 776983, 2282542; 777020, 2282206; 777020, 
2282205; 777021, 2282204; 777365, 2282220; 777408, 2281728; return to 
starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 61 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.060
    
    (lxii) Maui 13--Bonamia menziesii--a (536 ha; 1,325 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 
777534, 2280121; 777558, 2279855; 777557, 2279856; 775339, 2281114; 
774656, 2281501; 775099, 2281680; 775397, 2282390; 775399, 2282405; 
775433, 2282731; 775436, 2282755; 776398, 2283391; 776891, 2283357; 
776919, 2283097; 776983, 2282542; 777020, 2282206; 777020, 2282205; 
777021, 2282204; 777348, 2282219; return to starting point.

    (B) Note: Map 62 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY03.061
    
    (lxiii) Maui 13--Cenchrus agrimonioides--a (237 ha; 586 ac).
    (A) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 
775397, 2282390; 775399, 2282405; 775513, 2283488; 776422, 2283239; 
776896, 2283308; 776919, 2283097; 776983, 2282542; 777020, 2282206; 
77