[Federal Register: March 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 59)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14671-14690]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27mr02-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Critical Habitat for the Kauai Cave Wolf Spider and Kauai Cave Amphipod
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose
designation of critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf spider
(Adelocosa anops) and the Kauai cave amphipod (Spelaeorchestia koloana)
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
proposed critical habitat consists of three units whose boundaries
encompass an area of approximately 1,697 hectares (ha) (4,193 acres
(ac)) on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Critical habitat identifies
specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection.
If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent
that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat for the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We
solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this
proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the
designation. We may revise or further refine critical habitat
boundaries prior to final designation based on new information received
during the comment period.
DATES: We will accept comments until the close of business on May 28,
2002. Requests for public hearing must be received by May 13, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: If you wish to comment, you may submit
your comments and materials as follows:
(1) You may submit written comments and information to Paul Henson,
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850.
(2) You may hand-deliver written comments to our Pacific Islands
Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.
You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by
appointment, during normal business hours in the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office in Honolulu at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone: 808/
541-3441; facsimile: 808/541-3470).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Hawaiian archipelago consists of eight main islands and the
numerous shoals and atolls of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The
islands were formed sequentially by basaltic lava that emerged from a
hot spot in the earth's crust located near the current southeastern
coast of the island of Hawaii (Stearns 1985). Kauai is the oldest of
the main islands, with most of its land mass being formed between 3.6
and 5.6 million years ago (MYA) from a single, large shield volcano,
now represented by the Alakai Plateau and adjacent ridges. Younger,
secondary eruptions occurred over the eastern portion of the island as
recently as the Pleistocene era (approximately 0.6 MYA). Due to the age
of the island, the terrain is heavily eroded, with steep water-carved
valleys and gulches characterizing the slopes of the Alakai Plateau and
other isolated ridges. The Alakai Plateau is one of the wettest places
on earth, receiving an average of 1.3 meters (m) (444 inches (in)) of
rain annually (Juvik and Juvik 1998). Rain is delivered to the island
by prevailing trade winds which come from the northeast. Southern and
southwestern portions of the island lie in the rain shadow of the
Alakai Plateau, ridges, or other uplands, and receive relatively little
rain (22 to 91 centimeters (cm) (9 to 36 in) per year in Waimea Town)
(NOAA 1990-1999).
The Koloa District lies in the southeast corner of Kauai and
includes the town of Koloa and the community and resort area of Poipu.
The area is dry to mesic (moderate rainfall), receiving an average of
107 to 223 cm (42 to 88 in) of rain annually. Although the Koloa
District includes upland areas such as ridge lines derived from the
Alakai Plateau and Haupu ridge, most human-occupied areas lie between
sea level and about 183 m (600 ft) in elevation.
The Koloa area is composed of the youngest rock on Kauai, the Koloa
Volcanics (MacDonald et al. 1960;
[[Page 14672]]
Langenheim and Clague 1987), with flows dating from between 0.6 and 1.4
million years. Younger, consolidated marine deposits and lithified sand
dunes lie on top of some coastal portions of the older Koloa Volcanics.
The great age and subsequent weathering that has occurred on Kauai has
resulted in most lava tubes having been collapsed or filled with
sediments (MacDonald et al. 1960; Howarth 1973; Berger et al. 1981;
Howarth 1987), relative to younger islands (e.g., Hawaii) where lava
tubes are common features (Howarth 1983a). It is only in portions of
the Koloa District, with its younger, cave-bearing rock, relative lack
of developed soils, and minimal rainfall and subsequent sedimentation,
that caves are known to be relatively common features on Kauai (Howarth
1981).
Kauai Cave Wolf Spider
The Kauai cave wolf spider (Adelocosa anops) is a member of the
wolf spider family (Lycosidae). Spiders in this family are
characterized by a distinctive eye pattern, including two particularly
large eyes located within the middle row of eight eyes (Foelix 1982).
While wolf spiders are typically visual predators, the most conspicuous
physical character of the Kauai cave spider is its complete lack of
eyes. This character is unique among wolf spiders and, in part,
provides justification for the recognition of a separate genus for this
taxon (Gertsch 1973). A few species of wolf spider have reduced eyes,
including another cave-adapted species on the island of Hawaii, but
only in the Kauai cave wolf spider are the eyes entirely absent. Adults
of the Kauai cave wolf spider are about 12.7 to 19.0 millimeters (mm)
(0.5 to 0.75 in) in total body length with a reddish-brown carapace,
pale to silvery abdomen and beige to pale orange legs. The hind margin
of each chelicera (biting jaw) bears three large teeth, two situated
basally, and the third at the outer end of the chelicera. The tibiae of
the two front pairs of legs have four pairs of ventral spines, and the
tarsi (ultimate segments) and metatarsi (penultimate segments) of all
legs bear unusually long, silky, and shiny trichobothria (sensory
hairs) (Gertsch 1973).
Dr. Frank Howarth, of the Bishop Museum, first discovered the Kauai
cave wolf spider in Koloa in 1971, and it was formally described by
Willis Gertsch of the Bishop Museum (Gertsch 1973). The Kauai cave wolf
spider is a predator, and although blind, can detect the presence of
potential food items through chemo-tactile sensory organs and actively
stalks its prey (Howarth 1983a). Although predation has not been
observed in the field, the spider probably feeds on the Kauai cave
amphipod, other cave-inhabiting arthropods, and alien species of
arthropods that enter the cave system. Compared to most wolf spiders,
the reproductive capacity of the Kauai cave wolf spider is extremely
low, with only 15 to 30 eggs produced in each egg sac (Wells et al.
1983; Howarth 1991). Newly hatched spiderlings are unusually large for
wolf spiders, and are carried on the back of the female for only a few
days (Howarth 1991; Howarth and Mull 1992). Other species of wolf
spider may have in excess of 100 offspring per clutch and the newly
hatched spiderlings are relatively small (Foelix 1982; Howarth 1991;
Howarth and Mull 1992).
Kauai Cave Amphipod
The Kauai cave amphipod (Spelaeorchestia koloana) was discovered in
some of the same caves as the Kauai cave wolf spider in 1971 (Bousfield
and Howarth 1976). Because of the unusual attributes of a highly
reduced pincher-like condition of the first gnathopod (thoracic
appendage) of the amphipod, and the second gnathopod being mitten-like
in both sexes, this taxon is placed in its own unique genus
(Spelaeorchestia) within the family Talitridae (Bousfield and Howarth
1976). This species is also distinctive in its lack of eye facets and
pigmentation, and extremely elongate, spiny, post-cephalic appendages.
Adult cave amphipods are 7 to 10 mm (0.25 to 0.4 in) in length with a
slender, laterally compressed body and a hyaline cuticle, giving it a
shiny, translucent appearance. The second pair of antenna are slender
and elongate, with the flagellum (slender outer part of the antenna)
only slightly longer than the peduncle (narrow stalk attaching to the
body). Peraeopods (abdominal walking legs) are very elongate, with
slender, attenuated claws. All pleopods (swimming legs) are reduced,
with branches vestigial or lacking. Uropods (tail-like appendages) 1
and 2 have well-developed pre-peduncles, and brood plates in the mature
female are vestigial or entirely absent (Bousfield and Howarth 1976).
The Kauai cave amphipod is a detritivore and has been observed
feeding on the roots of Pithecellobium dulce (Manila tamarind) and
Ficus sp. (fig), rotting roots, sticks, branches, and other plant
material washed into, or otherwise carried into the caves, as well as
the fecal material of other arthropods. In large cave passages, most
individuals are found in association with roots or rotting plant
debris. When disturbed, this cave amphipod typically moves slowly away
rather than jumping like other amphipods. Nothing is known of the
reproductive biology of this amphipod, but the vestigial brood plates
of the female suggest they give birth to a small number of large
offspring (Poulson and White 1969; Bousfield and Howarth 1976).
Cave Habitat
Cave habitats have a high degree of zonation which plays a major
role in the distribution of cave-dwelling organisms. Howarth and Stone
(1990) recognize five distinct zones, not all of which are always
present within any one cave. The first zone, the ``entrance zone,''
typically receives large amounts of solar radiation and is often
vegetated with surface plants. Within the second zone, the ``twilight
zone,'' ambient light levels decrease as one moves away from the
entrance and photosynthesizing plants that may be present in the
entrance decline. The third zone is referred to as the ``transition
zone.'' The transition zone lacks light penetrance from the entrance,
but other outside factors still greatly influence the cave habitat
(e.g., ample air movement and daily temperature fluctuations). All of
the above described zones (entrance, twilight, and transition) are
typically influenced by surface conditions, daily cycles of warming and
cooling, surface humidity, and a fair degree of air exchange occurring
between these zones and surface habitats over relatively short periods
of time (daily). The fourth cave zone, the ``dark zone,'' typically
exhibits a sharp climatological change from the three previously
described zones. The dark zone largely lacks daily air exchange with
the surface and the three previously described zones. The relatively
constant conditions encountered in the dark zone are often the result
of a narrowing cave passage or low ceiling(s) that serve as physical
barriers that restrict air exchange with other cave zones, or may be
due to an up-slope orientation into a dead-end passage that traps warm,
moist air. While the dark zone may undergo drastic changes in
temperature and relative humidity, this more often is associated with
seasonal rather than diurnal changes in air temperature. As a result of
this, dark zones are seasonally stable in their micro-climatic
conditions, remaining warm and humid during warm seasons. The final
recognized cave zone is that of the ``stagnant'' zone (Howarth and
Stone 1990). This zone lies deeper than the dark zone, receiving
significantly less air exchange. As a consequence, the
[[Page 14673]]
composition of gasses within this last zone is often largely controlled
by the decomposition of organic matter and maintains high
concentrations of carbon dioxide and low concentrations of oxygen.
While considered inhospitable by human standards, field observations
have indicated that obligate cave-dwelling species are highly tolerant
of these conditions and many may, in fact, thrive in the stagnant air
zone of caves (Howarth and Stone 1990).
Cave habitats almost always contain small voids, cracks, and
passages (mesocaverns) that cannot be accessed by researchers (Howarth
1983b), but remain readily accessible (or preferred) by small
troglobites (obligate cave-dwelling animals). Although such voids and
cracks can occur in any zone and possess characteristics of each of the
five zones, they frequently represent areas of reduced air flow and
consequently are most similar to the dark and stagnant air zones.
Passages and mesocaverns in limestone caves can form or be destroyed at
almost anytime in the life of the cave, depending on the chemical
characteristics of the rock and normal geologic processes. Limestone
caves often become larger over time as acidic waters from the surface
dissolve away the calcium carbonate bedrock. Since water flow enlarges
and creates caves in limestone by solution, subterranean voids do not
fill through erosion. If any do, the water quickly finds a different
path and enlarges a new void. Limestone caves grow deeper as the water
table sinks and the surface over the caves dissolves away. Limestone
caves improve with age because, although individual voids and passages
may be short-lived, limestone caves continuously reform so that habitat
can remain suitable for very long time spans. Caves derived from lava
tube systems are fundamentally different from limestone in that basalt
is not as readily soluble. Hence, lava tube passages and mesocaverns do
not typically dissolve away and become larger (formed), but are subject
to filling with sediments (destroyed).
The tendency for Hawaiian basalt to shrink and crack upon cooling
results in younger lava flows having an abundance of mesocaverns
throughout their structure that may serve as habitat or as corridors
between habitats. However, the cave-building process typically stops
some time after cave and crack formation, and is replaced by the cave-
filling processes as weathering and sedimentation begin filling in
mesocaverns and passages. On younger islands, the abundance of
mesocaverns may allow cave animals to move among and between larger,
adjacent lava tubes (Berger et al. 1981; Howarth 1991). However,
because these smaller voids become filled with erosional sediment in
older flows like the Koloa Volcanics, and as a result of surface
disturbance (Mueller-Dombois and Howarth 1981; Adam Asquith, Service,
in litt., 1994a), it is less likely that the Kauai cave animals can
readily move among separate lava tubes or other cave systems.
Therefore, this places great importance on protecting the remaining
undeveloped lands since they now represent only a fraction of habitat
and interhabitat corridors where the cave animals can readily move
between areas that were present before modern (i.e., post-European
colonization) habitat modification.
Cave ecosystems are typically regarded as being food limited, and
in most caves, the resident food-web communities require food input
which is derived from surface systems based upon a photo-autotrophic
(i.e., photosynthesizing plants) food base (Culver 1986). Nutrients may
enter caves via subterranean streams or other surface runoff; as guano
from bats, birds, rodents or other cave visitors or residents; or from
plant roots that penetrate the cave (Culver 1986). Of these methods,
roots from surface plants are the primary means by which Hawaiian caves
receive nutrient input (Howarth 1973). Protection and/or restoration of
surface plant communities is, therefore, an extremely important
consideration for cave conservation in Hawaii, as it is elsewhere
(Culver et al. 2000). Factors or activities that impact or modify
surface vegetation over caves (e.g., fire, replacement of native or
other perennial vegetation with grasses or some non-native plants) can
damage or destroy the underlying cave community.
Adaptations of Troglobitic Animals
As discussed in the species descriptions of the Kauai cave wolf
spider and cave amphipod, troglobites typically possess specialized
anatomical characters that represent adaptations to life in the cave
environment. Such anatomical adaptations include enlarged and/or
elongate tactile-sensory appendages (e.g., legs or other appendages,
antennae), and the lack of, or reduced, pigmentation and/or eyes (Barr
1968). Less obvious adaptations are also present in the physiology of
troglobites and this has the potential to restrict their distribution
within various cave zones (Huppop 1985). Laboratory studies with
Hawaiian crickets were conducted that compared the abilities of closely
related surface and cave-dwelling forms (Caconemobius spp.) to cope
with desiccation (Ahearn and Howarth 1982). Surface-dwelling species
exhibited considerably lower evaporation/desiccation rates than did the
troglobitic species, and in one case, the surface species became
dehydrated at half the rate of its cave-inhabiting relative. This low
desiccation threshold largely confines these troglobites to the high-
humidity environment of the deeper portions of caves, the dark and
stagnant air zones. While such tests have not been conducted on the
Kauai cave species, a logical assumption is that they have similar
humidity tolerances, and this has been supported by field studies and
observations conducted in the Kauai caves (see below). Similar
adaptations in other troglobitic faunas (Vandel 1965; Barr 1968; Huppop
1985) support the universality of these traits in troglobitic animals.
Given the great vulnerability of troglobites to desiccation,
adjacent mesocavern habitats will contain appropriate microclimate
conditions and provide habitat or serve as refugia for troglobites when
conditions in the main cave passages become drier or otherwise less
accommodating. For example, during a previous survey of one cave of the
Koloa area, the Kauai cave amphipod was not observed (Miura and Howarth
1978). However, on a subsequent survey, the floor of a small, dead end
passage was saturated with 40 liters (10 gallons) of water, and 24
hours later amphipods had moved into this area, presumably from the
surrounding mesocaverns (Howarth 1983a, 1983b). The foraging activities
of both the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod are
restricted to dark, moist areas of large caverns and mesocaverns, and
it is possible that the majority of their time is spent within such
spaces.
Both Howarth (1983a) and Huppop (1985) have postulated that
troglobites may be adapted to cope with low levels of oxygen and/or
elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide, similar to conditions that
would be encountered in the stagnant air zone of caves. This ability
has been substantiated from observations in known stagnant air zones
(Howarth and Stone 1990), as well as under controlled laboratory
experiments. Hadley et al. (1981) conducted experiments with Hawaiian
wolf spiders, both troglobites (Lycosa howarthi) and a related surface-
dwelling species (Lycosa sp.). These researchers found the surface-
inhabiting spider had a higher metabolic rate, requiring 2.5 times more
oxygen as did its cave-dwelling relative. The reduced need for oxygen
would better allow these spiders to survive in stagnant air cave zones.
Given the ability of at least
[[Page 14674]]
some troglobites to cope with reduced oxygen and elevated carbon
dioxide, as well as their ability to inhabit inaccessible mesocaverns,
it is assured that many troglobites will be able to reside in areas not
readily surveyed by biologists. Hence, cave habitats will extend well
beyond those areas accessible by researchers (Howarth 1983a).
Species Distribution and Abundance
The Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod are generally
restricted to cave dark and stagnant air zones, or other subterranean
habitats such as cracks, voids, and other mesocaverns containing
microclimate conditions similar to those zones. However, both the cave
wolf spider and amphipod may be found in sub-optimal cave habitats
(e.g., cave transition zone) when conditions are appropriate (e.g.,
elevated humidity during periods of increased rainfall). All of the
caves where the cave amphipod has been located contain penetrating
plant roots and/or other decomposing plant material which serves as a
food source for this detritivore. Plant material upon which the
amphipods feed need not be from native plants, although non-native
toxic or indigestible plants may be inappropriate or damaging for
amphipod foraging. The Kauai cave wolf spider can be found in caves
where the cave amphipod does not occur, but, other, non-native
arthropods (e.g., cockroaches, wood lice, small spiders) can be used as
food for this generalist predator.
Since its discovery in 1971, the Kauai cave wolf spider has been
observed in only five caves in the Koloa area. Since 1996, Service
biologists have conducted annual surveys, and starting in 1998, we have
conducted biannual monitoring visits to three of the known occupied
caves. Observations recorded in these visits include a total count of
animals within each cave, potential threats to the listed cave
organisms or their habitat, and the cave's condition (e.g., human
disturbance, presence of standing water). The following information is
based on these monitoring visits.
In three of these five caves, wolf spiders have been seen on only
three occasions, but have been more often observed in two other caves.
Of the two known occupied caves, in only one of these are wolf spiders
encountered during every monitoring visit with 14 to 28 individuals
being encountered during any monitoring visit (USFWS data from 18
January 1996 to 22 June 2001). The second cave contains a smaller
number of wolf spiders (one to four per monitoring visit) and spiders
are frequently absent; since April 2000, no wolf spiders have been
observed in this cave. This decline in wolf spiders has been matched
with a corresponding increase in the number of resident brown violin
spiders, an alien, web-building species that likely preys upon both the
Kauai cave wolf spider and amphipod (A. Asquith, in litt. 1994b; David
Hopper, Service, in litt. 1999). Although these data are not
conclusive, the declining numbers in the second of the regularly
occupied caves warrants concern with regard to population persistence.
To date, the Kauai cave amphipod has been recorded from six caves
in the Koloa area but is only regularly encountered in three of these
caves. In one of these three caves, where the amphipod is found with
the wolf spider, their numbers have ranged from 8 to 37 during the
biannual monitoring visits. In another regularly occupied cave,
amphipod numbers have increased steadily from 10 to 20 individuals per
visit in pre-1998 counts to over 300 individuals during a visit in
November 2000 (Service, unpub. data).
In three of the six known occupied caves, the lack of observations
of the species is probably due to several factors. In one of these
caves, relative humidity is often below 100 percent, which is a
suboptimal condition for troglobites. Amphipods have been found in this
cave when humidity conditions were optimal, such as after heavy rains
which saturated the soil and increased the relative humidity in the
dark zone. In a second cave, amphipods appeared to be resident but were
only observed during two visits that were conducted soon after the cave
had been exposed by heavy machinery, and prior to the cave being re-
closed for road construction (A. Asquith, in litt. 1999). The last of
these caves has been visited irregularly and amphipods have been
observed during some, but not all, visits (Bousfield and Howarth 1976;
D. Hopper, in litt. 1998a; D. Hopper, in litt., 2000a).
Despite the data obtained in these biannual monitoring counts, the
quantities of animals reported do not represent sound population
estimates. The methods needed to conduct non-damaging, mark-recapture
studies for accurate estimates of population size are yet un-developed
for these animals, and no attempt to conduct such studies have been
undertaken.
Cave systems may be separated by various physical barriers such as
subterranean streams, or areas with developed soils that have filled in
the mesocavern passages or habitats of these old caves (Mueller-Dombois
and Howarth 1981). The degradation and loss of naturally occurring
mesocavern habitats and corridors has likely been accelerated with
development or other land uses which often requires clearing of
vegetation, blasting, and filling of trenches and construction sites.
These activities, as well as modern agricultural practices, exacerbate
the rates of sediment mobilization (Kirch 1982; Cuddihy and Stone 1990)
resulting in the filling of caves and mesocaverns (Howarth 1973;
Mueller-Dombois and Howarth 1981; Burney et al. 2001).
Because distinct species can evolve in adjacent lava tubes even
when cave animals can move extensively through mesocaverns (Hoch and
Howarth 1993), it is prudent to consider the separate localities of
these animals as different populations, even though intervening areas
of potential habitat cannot be surveyed. Thus, the Koloa Caves #1 and
#2 and adjacent areas are considered to harbor one population of the
spider and one population of the amphipod. The seaward Kiahuna Caves
#267 and #276 harbor another population of both the spider and
amphipod; the Kiahuna Cave #210 harbors a separate population each of
the spider and amphipod; the Mahaulepu Cave harbors a population of the
cave amphipod (Service, unpublished data, 1998-1999); and a small cave
near the Koloa bypass road harbors a fifth amphipod population.
Previous Federal Action
On June 16, 1978, we published in the Federal Register a proposal
to list the Kauai cave wolf spider as an endangered species and the
Kauai cave amphipod as threatened (43 FR 26084). That proposal was
withdrawn on September 2, 1980 (45 FR 58171) as a result of a provision
in the 1978 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that
required withdrawal of all pending proposals that were not made final
within 2 years of the proposal or within one year after passage of the
Amendments, which ever period was longer. An initial comprehensive
Notice of Review for invertebrate animals was published on May 22, 1984
(49 FR 21664), in which the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave
amphipod were treated as category 2 candidates for Federal listing.
Category 2 taxa were those for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not currently available to support
proposed rules.
We published an updated Notice of Review for animals on January 6,
1989 (54 FR 554). In this notice, the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai
cave
[[Page 14675]]
amphipod were treated as category 1 candidates for Federal listing.
Category 1 taxa were those for which we had on file substantial
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of listing proposals. However, in the Notice of Review for
all animal taxa published on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), the two
Kauai cave arthropods were listed as category 2 candidates. In the
November 15, 1994, Notice of Review for all animal taxa (59 FR 58982),
the two Kauai cave arthropods were again elevated to category 1
candidates. Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review
(61 FR 7596), we ceased using candidate category designations and
included the two cave arthropods as candidate species. Candidate
species are those for which we have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the
species as threatened or endangered. The two cave arthropods were
included as candidate species in the September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398),
Notice of Review.
A proposed rule to list these two species as endangered was
published on December 5, 1997 (62 FR 64340), and the final rule to list
them was published on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2348). Since that time,
we have conducted conservation efforts through private lands
partnerships with two landowners in the Koloa area within which the
Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod are known to occur.
In the proposed listing rule, we indicated that designation of
critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod
was not prudent. Our concern was that publication of precise maps and
descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal Register could increase
human visitation to these highly sensitive cave habitats, which could
lead to incidents of vandalism, destruction of habitat, and
unintentional cases of take. Also, we believed that critical habitat
designation would not provide any additional benefit to these species
beyond that provided through listing as endangered.
However, in the final rule, we determined that critical habitat
designation was prudent as we did not find specific evidence of taking,
vandalism, collection, or trade of these species or any other similarly
situated species. Also, we did find that there may also be some
educational or informational benefit to designating critical habitat.
Therefore, we found that the benefits of designating critical habitat
for these two species outweighed the benefits of not designating
critical habitat.
On June 2, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, in the case of Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt and
Clark, Civ. No. 99-00603 (D. Haw.), ordered us to publish the final
critical habitat designation by February 1, 2002. Currently, the
plaintiffs and the Service have entered into a consent decree dated
October 2, 2001, stating that we will jointly seek an extension of this
deadline to August 10, 2002 (Center for Biological Diversity, et al.
vs. Norton, Civil No. 01-2063 (D.D.C).
On February 14, 2001, we mailed pre-proposal letters to 96
interested parties and cave biologists informing them that we were in
the process of designating critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf
spider and Kauai cave amphipod. We requested from them information on
management of lands that are known to currently support the Kauai cave
wolf spider or amphipod. The letters contained a fact sheet describing
the two species and their habitat, and a map showing the presumed
historic and current range (based on occupied habitat and the
distribution of similar geology and soils) of one or both of these
species. The letter requested any information regarding current or
planned land management practices benefiting these animals or their
habitat, which we requested be returned to us by March 31, 2001. We
received eight responses to our landowner and interested parties
mailing.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3, paragraph (5)(A) 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. Destruction or adverse
modification is direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation 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. Aside from the added protection that may be provided under
section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of regulatory
protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because
consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on
private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus,
in such instances critical habitat designation would not afford any
additional regulatory protection under the Act.
Critical habitat also provides non-regulatory benefits to the
species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are
important for species recovery and where conservation actions would be
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat
also identifies areas that may require special management
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas
where significant threats to the species have been identified or help
to avoid accidental damage to such areas.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas that
can be occupied by a species should be designated as critical habitat
unless the Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to
the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e))
also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat
areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species
only when a designation limited to its present range would be
[[Page 14676]]
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that, when determining the
final designation of critical habitat, we take into consideration the
economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular areas as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from
critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided
the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria,
establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that decisions
made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data
available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, 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 rule for the species. Additional
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or
other unpublished materials (i.e., gray literature).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic, however, and populations may move from one area to another
over time. In addition, given the cryptic nature of these animals and
their habitat, additional populations may be discovered in other areas
over time. 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. For these
reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat
outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for
recovery. Habitat areas outside the critical habitat designation will
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, and the section 9
take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available
information at the time of the action. It is possible that federally
funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas could jeopardize those species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best
available information at the time of designation will not control the
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans, or other species conservation planning and recovery efforts if
new information available to these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
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 survival and recovery of the Kauai cave wolf spider
and the Kauai cave amphipod. This information included: peer-reviewed
scientific publications; the final listing rule for the Kauai cave wolf
spider and Kauai cave amphipod (65 FR 2348); the Hawaii Natural
Heritage Program database; unpublished field data collected by Service
biologists, unpublished field notes and communications with other
qualified biologists or experts (e.g., F. Howarth, Bishop Museum);
published descriptions of the regional geology and soils (MacDonald et
al. 1960; Foote et al. 1972); and the Recovery Outline and draft
Endangered Species Recovery Plan for Two Cave Arthropods from Kauai,
Hawaii (Service, in litt., 2000).
The Koloa lava tubes of Kauai and their associated endangered fauna
were identified as one of the ten most endangered cave communities in
the world (Tongvig and Mylroie, in litt. 1998; Belson 1999).
Approximately 36 percent of the original habitat available for the cave
animals is now designated as ``urban'' or ``urban residential'' (County
of Kauai, in litt. 1994), and the human population of the Koloa area is
expected to double by the year 2015 (KPMG Peat Marwick 1993). Thus most
of the land that potentially harbored these animals has been highly
modified, and an estimated 75 percent of the area has been rendered
uninhabitable. The remaining habitat is being degraded by current land
use or is threatened with degradation and destruction from proposed
development and alien species. The area currently known to be occupied
by the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod represents a
small percent of the species' likely range, harboring three known
(sub)populations of the Kauai cave wolf spider and five known
(sub)populations of the Kauai cave amphipod. These existing
(sub)populations would be unlikely to persist because their small sizes
make them vulnerable to extinction due to a variety of natural and
human-induced processes. Small populations are particularly vulnerable
to reduced reproductive vigor caused by inbreeding depression, and they
may suffer a loss of genetic variability over time due to random
genetic drift, resulting in decreased evolutionary potential and
ability to cope with environmental change (Frankel 1970, 1983). Small
populations are also demographically vulnerable to extinction caused by
random fluctuations in population size and sex ratio and to
catastrophes such as hurricanes (Soule 1983; Gilpin and Soule 1986). In
addition, the low reproductive potential of both cave species (less
than five percent of their surface relatives) means that they require
more time and space to recover from a disturbance than would similar
animals living on the surface (F. Howarth, in litt. 2001).
One of the major threats facing the Kauai cave wolf spider and the
Kauai cave amphipod is the introduction of invasive alien diseases (F.
Howarth, in litt. 2001). Of particular concern are the several disease-
causing micro-organisms that are being sold or are in development for
sale as biopesticides in the United States. These species are
inhabitants of soil, and would be expected to do well in caves. An
example of one of these micro-organisms currently used in Hawaii is BT
(Bacillus thuringiensis). Most recently BT was promoted in the State's
efforts to eradicate an outbreak of dengue fever. In addition to
intentional introductions, an unintentional introduction from a soil
source originating outside of Hawaii could begin an epizootic that
could sweep through part or all of the Koloa cave habitat. If portions
of the habitat are more or less isolated and protected, the chances are
greater that the animals would survive and eventually re-colonize their
former habitat. This situation would also apply for other surface
disturbances, such as oil spills, pollution, and pesticide application.
Human impacts in the Koloa caves, and resulting impacts on the
Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod are another concern.
Caves are frequently sought out by curiosity seekers, and over-use of
caves occurs readily due to their fragile nature (Howarth 1982; Culver
1986). In addition, both natural and cultural features (e.g., human
burials and associated artifacts) of caves are often damaged or
destroyed by collectors or
[[Page 14677]]
vandals (Howarth 1982; N. McMahon, Hawaii Dept. Historic Preservation,
pers. comm., 2001). Unauthorized visitation and vandalism is such an
issue in caves that the Cave Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 4301
et seq.; 102 Stat. 4546) was passed with the main intent of protecting
cave-associated natural and cultural resources. Unauthorized entry and
vandalism of the Koloa caves has been documented (D. Hopper, in litt.,
1998b, 2000a), and public interest in visiting caves is reflected in
the publication of the location of two of these caves in a recent
tourist guide (Doughty and Friedman 1998).
Human visitation to caves, even when not intentionally destructive,
often results in severe impacts to the resident troglobites or other
cave inhabitants. For example, nicotine is a potent insecticide that is
easily introduced into the cave environment through cigarette smoke or
discarded butts. Given the confined space and poor air circulation
encountered in caves supporting suitable troglobite habitat, the
effects of cigarette smoke are far more pronounced in caves (Howarth
1982; Howarth and Stone 1993). The impacts of cigarette smoke are not
restricted to the main cavern and will also impact mesocavern habitats,
where its effects cannot be seen. Although less toxic than cigarette
smoke, wood fire smoke may be equally damaging since far more smoke is
produced and detrital food reserves may be burned. The use of
cigarettes, as well as fire activity, have been documented in the Koloa
caves (D. Hopper, in litt., 1998b, 2000a).
The narrow confines of most caves often result in focusing human
travel and associated impacts to a small area, and increase the
likelihood of troglobite mortality from unintentional trampling and the
destruction or disturbance of food resources (e.g., roots, detrital
matter). In addition, human use of caves frequently results in the
importation of garbage, which encourages the invasion of caves by
potential competitors and predators such as cockroaches (F. Howarth,
Bishop Museum, pers. comm., 1994; A. Asquith, in litt., 1994a).
The restricted area in which the Koloa cave animals occur is
rapidly undergoing development (KPMG Peat Marwick 1993). The shallow
cave habitat has been, and continues to be, degraded or destroyed
through surface alterations such as the removal of perennial
vegetation, soil fill, grading, paving, collapsing and filling of
caves, diversion of waste water into subterranean voids and spaces, and
other activities associated with development and agriculture.
The Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod are also
increasingly at risk from predation and competition for space, water,
and nutrients by introduced, non-native animals (Howarth 1985, pers.
comm., 1994; A. Asquith, in litt., 1994a, b; D. Hopper, in litt.,
1999), biological and chemical pest control activities associated with
residential and golf course development (Hawaii Office of State
Planning 1992); and an increased likelihood of extinction from
naturally occurring events due to the small number of remaining
individuals, populations, and their limited distribution.
Due to the small number of known caves inhabited by these animals,
we remain concerned that these threats may be exacerbated by the
publication of critical habitat maps and further dissemination of
locational information. Since publication of the proposed listing rule
for these animals in 1997 (62 FR 64340), we have found evidence of
increased entry and vandalism in these caves (D. Hopper, in litt.
1998b, 2000b). While direct and intentional threats to these species
from human take and collection are not documented, the sensitive nature
of these animals and their habitat to increased human presence makes
increased human awareness of these caves a potential direct threat to
the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod.
Prior to human alteration of the surface and subsurface habitats,
which resulted in the loss of subterranean habitat and dispersal
corridors, troglobite subpopulations were probably more genetically
mixed, being exposed to a greater frequency of emigration and
immigration between these subpopulations. Connecting subpopulations via
dispersal corridors would increase the overall effective population
size and increase genetic exchange, thereby helping to alleviate the
threats associated with small population size, and would better reflect
the conditions under which the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai
cave amphipod existed prior to human alteration of the Koloa area.
Areas between known, occupied caves that could contain important
subterranean habitat (e.g., undeveloped lands) include, but are not
limited to: Active and fallow agricultural lands, livestock pasture,
golf courses, undeveloped land between ``low density'' residences, and
undisturbed, but biologically invaded (i.e., non-native weeds) forests
and shrublands. Protecting habitat areas around known subpopulations of
these endangered cave animals would increase the likelihood of their
survival since it would potentially increase the size of the habitat
patch and increase the probability of emigration and immigration with
other subpopulations. In addition, if each cave population is isolated,
it will be only a matter of time before individual events eventually
result in the extinction of each population in turn. If the caves are
connected, the animals would have a better chance at retreating from
disturbances and a disturbance affecting one or more cave systems will
be less likely to result in the extinction of the species.
Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that areas outside the
geographical area currently occupied by the species may meet the
definition of critical habitat upon determination that they are
essential for the conservation of these species. Although we do not
know whether the entire area is currently occupied, to date, all caves
that have been surveyed within the Koloa Basin, that contain the
primary constituent elements, have contained the Kauai cave amphipod
and/or cave wolf spider. Hence, where appropriate habitat occurs within
the Koloa Basin, we fully expect it will be occupied by one or both of
these species. Intervening areas between the known occupied caves, that
are comprised of cave-bearing rock, will contain occupied habitat and/
or serve as corridors between suitable habitat and all of these areas
need to be protected if these species are to be conserved. The final
rule listing the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod
stressed that these animals were at increasing risk from ``'predation
and competition for space, water, and nutrients by introduced, alien
animals; biological and chemical pesticide control activities
associated with residential and golf course development; and an
increased likelihood of extinction from naturally occurring events due
to the small number of remaining individuals and populations and their
limited distribution''' (65 FR 2348). Recovery may require augmentation
or enhancement of suitable cave habitat in areas in which the current
population densities of one or both of these animals are known to be
low due to food limitation. Protected areas around and adjacent to
accessible, occupied caves are needed for recovery since these habitat
areas will allow for the expansion of existing populations and help
alleviate the threats associated with small population size.
Subterranean habitats that lack appropriate food resources must also be
protected since such spaces will provide opportunities for dispersal
among
[[Page 14678]]
subpopulations, promoting mate location and genetic exchange, and will
allow these animals to gain access to other needed resources that may
become limiting within a smaller area.
In determining these areas we started with lands within the region
containing geologic and soil characters similar or identical to those
of known, occupied, accessible caves. This area includes the Waikomo-
Kalihi-Koloa soil association (Foote et al. 1972) where it over lies
the Koloa Volcanic Series flows (MacDonald et al. 1960). Within this
area, we conferred individually with the recognized expert on the
probable distribution of appropriate mesocaverns (F. Howarth in litt.
2001). Multiple cave entrances are known within the following
geographic zone--the area between Kukuiula Bay, northeast to Koloa Town
and east to, and including, the volcanic cones inland of Poipu, as well
as the Mahaulepu limestone bluff and cave and a wide connecting
corridor in limestone and lava along the coast from Poipu to Mahaulepu.
The whole region is similar to the Koloa Cave reserve (Kukuiula area)
in surface environment and sporadic bare lava exposures, while areas to
the south and east include prominent cave and mesocavern-bearing
limestone features. Expert opinion is that these areas represent good
habitat for the cave animals (F. Howarth, in litt. 2001). Within the
areas described above are occupied lava tubes as well as geologic
features indicating the presence of additional cave-bearing rock.
The Kukuiula area (that area lying between Kukuiula Bay, Koloa
Town, Waikomo Stream and south to the coast) is known to contain
numerous caves and cave-bearing rock. Two caves within this area are
occupied by the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod, and
one of these caves is home to the largest known population of the wolf
spider.
Three caves known to contain one or both of the Kauai cave
arthropods are located in the area east of Waikomo Stream and west of
the Poipu volcanic cones (Puu Wanawana, Puu Hunihuni, and the Puu Hi
Reservoir cone). This area is similar to the Kukuiula area in the
amount of exposed cave-bearing rock (pahoehoe lava flows) and degree of
geologic weathering. In addition, Puu Wanawana and Puu Hi are spatter
cones that are known to contain caves. In addition, the longest known
cave on Kauai was located upslope from Kiahuna, between the Koloa Mill
on the east and Koloa Town on the west. This cave was filled with cane
waste in the early 1970s, before it could be surveyed but indicates
that there are other caves and mesocaverns in the area (Howarth 1973,
and F. Howarth, pers. comm., 2001).
The exposed sea cliffs along the coast from Poipu to Mahulepu are
composed of calcified marine deposits. These karst outcrops are part of
the same geologic deposits that contain the cave at Mahulepu that is
occupied by the Kauai cave amphipod. Solution pockets and voids are
abundant in this rock type and, like the cave at Mahulepu, lie on top
of old, lava-tube-bearing pahoehoe flows. The presence of both basalt
and calcareous cave-bearing rock along this coast line indicates that
there is suitable habitat connecting the Mahaulepu caves with those of
the lava tubes of the Koloa area.
Because a recovery plan for neither of these species has been
completed, in making this determination we looked to the most likely
historical distribution of the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai
cave amphipod. We included areas within the region containing geologic
and soil characters similar or identical to those of known occupied
habitat, and further refined it by conferring with the recognized
expert on the probable distribution of mesocaverns in the Koloa area
(F. Howarth in litt. 2001). This approach is consistent with the
approved recovery outline for the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai
cave amphipod. If, after critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf
spider and the Kauai cave amphipod is designated, a final approved
recovery plan for these animals calls for a different approach to the
conservation of the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod,
we will consider amending the critical habitat designation, subject to
resource and workload priorities.
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 consider those physical and biological
features essential to the species' conservation that may require
special management considerations and protection. Such features are
termed primary constituent elements, and include but are not limited
to: Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
food, water, air, minerals and other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; and habitats that are protected from
disturbance and represent the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of the species.
The habitat requirements of the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai
cave amphipod may differ slightly as the wolf spider can feed on other
arthropods that become trapped in caves or reside in caves
facultatively. However, as observed elsewhere in Hawaii, the presence
of a healthy, intact cave ecosystem, which includes roots or other
sources of naturally occurring detritus and an associated detritivore
or herbivore fauna, contains larger numbers of healthy troglobitic
predators (A. Asquith, pers. comm., 2001). While native, troglobitic
predators, detritivores, and herbivores may be present in caves lacking
naturally occurring plant biomass, this situation represents an un-
healthy cave ecosystem. Native troglobitic assemblages occurring in
``sterile'' caves (those lacking roots or other sources of active
nutrient input) probably represent declining populations that will be
extirpated as the existing plant biomass is consumed.
As with most troglobites, both the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai
cave amphipod require dark or stagnant air zone habitats in caves.
These zones typically have atmospheres with humidity at saturation
levels (greater or equal to 100 percent), which is necessary to prevent
desiccation and death of the troglobites.
A sustainable food base, such as the roots of living perennial
plants or other sources of detritus, is necessary to support a breeding
population and for the long-term survival of the Kauai cave amphipod
and other herbivorous or detritivorous troglobites. In turn, healthy
populations of herbivores or detritivores will help ensure that co-
evolved predators, such as the Kauai cave wolf spider, will also
persist as viable populations.
There is little information on what, if any, species of food plants
are preferred by the Kauai cave amphipod. Since the amphipod is
regarded as a detritivore, there may be little or no food
specialization by these animals. However, plant species containing
naturally occurring toxic compounds, such as tannins or alkaloids,
might be of low food value, inhibit feeding, or result in the direct
mortality of cave organisms. For this reason plant species and their
potential toxicity must be considered as well. Likely candidates for
suitable plants would be native species like ohia (Metrosideros
polymorpha), maiapilo (Capparis sandwichiana), and aalii (Dodonea
viscosa).
The primary constituent elements required by the Kauai cave wolf
spider and the Kauai cave amphipod consist of two environmental
parameters. The first of these is the presence of subterranean
[[Page 14679]]
spaces from 5 mm to 25 cm (0.2 in to 10 in) at the narrowest dimension
(collectively termed ``mesocaverns'') or caves or passages, (spaces
greater than 25 cm) (>10 in) that have dark and/or stagnant air zones
that maintain microclimates with humidity at saturation levels. The
second is the presence of roots from living, non-toxic plants such as,
but not limited to, ohia (Metrosideros polymorpha), maiapilo (Capparis
sandwichiana), and aalii (Dodonea viscosa) in these types of
mesocaverns or caves.
The areas proposed as critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf
spider and the Kauai cave amphipod are designed to incorporate what is
essential for their conservation. Habitat components that are essential
for these two species include the primary biological needs of foraging,
reproduction, intra-specific communication, dispersal, genetic
exchange, or non-restricted movement to appropriate microclimates in
mesocaverns, and refugia from human induced or other environmental
threats. Caves and mesocaverns containing actively growing tree roots
or other sources of detritus provide a food source for herbivorous or
detritivorous troglobites, which in turn provide food for predators.
Such caves will be necessary for the long-term persistence of viable
populations of the endangered troglobites by providing areas for
foraging and reproduction. Caves and or mesocaverns lacking food
resources but containing appropriate microclimates are important in
providing corridors which facilitate movement and genetic exchange
between populations or subpopulations. In addition, these areas may
also provide dispersal opportunities from areas impacted by human-
induced or other environmental threats, and may provide humid refugia
at times when main cave passages become temporarily drier or otherwise
less accomodating.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We used several criteria to identify and select lands for
designation as critical habitat. First we selected critical habitat
areas based on the known distributions of the Kauai cave wolf spider
and the Kauai cave amphipod (known occupied habitat). We then added
lands containing the primary constituent elements that are needed for
recovery of the species but where, due to the cryptic nature of the
habitat, it is unknown whether they are occupied or not. As discussed
in greater detail in the Methods section, in deciding which areas were
essential for recovery, we used the areas within the region containing
geologic and soil characters similar or identical to those of known
occupied habitat. In addition, we conferred individually with the
recognized expert on the probable distribution of mesocaverns in the
Koloa area. These areas are likely to contain caves or appropriate
mesocavern habitats. For the purpose of this proposed determination,
critical habitat units have been described using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates using a
scale of 1:85,000. Soil series was determined using information and
maps from soil surveys (Foote et al. 1972). Geologic and soil features
that appear to limit the distribution of cave and mesocavern habitats
were determined using information and maps from MacDonald et al. (1960)
and Foote et al. (1972).
We were unable to map the critical habitat unit boundaries in
sufficient detail to exclude all existing developed lands that do not
contain the primary constituent elements. As specified in the proposed
rule language, existing features and structures within the boundaries
of the mapped units that have resulted in below-surface modification or
alteration are excluded from critical habitat designation. Human-
constructed structures and features, such as large buildings, homes,
major roads, and other activities or projects that require trenching,
filling, and/or excavation, likely resulting in loss or severe
degradation of the primary constituent elements and are therefore not
included within this critical habitat designation. Such human-
constructed structures and features would include homes and buildings
for which the underlying bedrock has been altered for their
construction through incorporation of or connection to buried
structural foundations, septic tanks, city sewage and drainage systems,
or water and underground electrical supply corridors and conduits.
Additional areas that are also excluded from critical habitat include
paved roads, locations of prior or current use as a quarry, and sewage
treatment facilities. Included in critical habitat are areas that have
been modified on the surface, but for which below-surface modifications
have not severely altered the underlying bedrock and subterranean
habitat. These land uses include but are not limited to-- agriculture
(e.g., sugar cane, corn, coffee), range land, golf courses, county and
city parks, unimproved roads, and undeveloped lands. These areas may
lie adjacent to areas that have undergone extensive below-surface
modification. Prior to finalizing this rule, we will seek ways to
refine our mapping in order to exclude, from within the critical
habitat boundary, developed areas or other areas that do not contain
the primary constituent elements and therefore, would not be considered
to be critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Proposal
Lands proposed as critical habitat provide the full range of
primary constituent elements needed by the Kauai cave wolf spider and
Kauai cave amphipod, including cave-bearing rock underlying undeveloped
areas and areas with minimum or moderate surface modification in the
Koloa District, to be used for foraging, shelter, and raising of
offspring. Habitat that provides for dispersal of individuals and
allows genetic exchange between populations has also been incorporated.
Undeveloped areas lying between known occupied caves will contain
subterranean spaces and voids that will provide primary habitat or act
as corridors for movement of animals between foraging sites and
dispersal between subpopulations, and should be regarded as critical
habitat. We may revise this proposal prior to final designation to
incorporate or address new information received during the comment
period.
Lands proposed as critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf spider
and Kauai cave amphipod occur in three separate units. The approximate
area encompassing the proposed designation of critical habitat by land
ownership is shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--Approximate Proposed Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (acres (ac)) by Land Ownership
[Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not the primary constituent elements within]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit State/Local Private Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a. Waikomo................................................. 128 ha 1,480 ha 0 ha 1,608 ha
316 ac 3,658 ac 0 ac 3,974 ac
1b. Waikomo................................................. 0 ha 7 ha 0 ha 7 ha
[[Page 14680]]
0 ac 17 ac 0 ac 17 ac
2. Haula.................................................... 0 ha 68 ha 0 ha 68 ha
0 ac 168 ac 0 ac 168 ac
3. Puu Keke................................................. 0 ha 14 ha 0 ha 14 ha
0 ac 34 ac 0 ac 34 ac
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 128 ha 1,569 ha 0 ha 1,697 ha
316 ac 3,877ac 0 ac 4,193 ac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed critical habitat includes land under private, county, and
State ownership. Proposed lands include areas known to be occupied by
the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod and includes
habitat with similar distribution of geologic and soil characteristics
of known occupied habitat and that contain the most probable
distribution of appropriate mesocaverns. A brief description of each
unit and reasons for proposing it as critical habitat are presented
below.
Unit 1: Waikomo
Unit 1 is the largest unit, encompassing 1,615 ha (3,991 ac) of the
greater Koloa Basin from sea level to elevations of approximately 120 m
(400 ft) above sea level. This unit has been further divided into two
subunits, 1A and 1B, since intervening areas between these units have
undergone development and the below surface habitats have been
extensively modified. Natural features of the unit include Kaulala
Point to the southwest, Makahuena Point to the extreme south, Puna-hoa
Point to the southeast, and Puu Hunihuni. Developed areas within the
unit include Koloa Town and the Poipu residential and resort area.
Unit (subunit) 1A is the larger of the two subunits, comprising the
vast majority of the proposed critical habitat (1,608 ha (3,974 ac)).
The western portion of this subunit does not include areas along the
coast where prior intensive development (e.g., major road, resort, and
home construction) have greatly altered the subsurface habitats.
Coastal areas excluded from this subunit include developed areas from
Kaulala Point to western Makahuena Point. This subunit does include
coastal areas from the Puu Ainako and Makawehi Bluff/Bench areas and to
the east to the end of this subunit (i.e. Punahoa Point and Mahaulepu).
Unit 1B is a relatively small subunit (7 ha (17 ac)) that is
comprised of undeveloped basalt and calcareous sea cliffs and adjacent
areas from eastern Makahuena Point, east to areas above but adjacent to
western Shipwreck Beach (Keoneloa Bay). This area has been spared from
extensive development and the cave-bearing nature of the rock is
identical to the Mahaulepu area which includes a cave occupied by the
cave amphipod.
The Koloa Basin was the first location where large-scale sugar cane
cultivation was established in Hawaii. Although sugar cane is no longer
commercially harvested in Koloa, it is present over extensive areas
where soils are relatively well developed and other land uses have not
been implemented. Given the long history and use of this area by
Polynesian and European cultures, very little native vegetation is
present and the area is dominated by alien species such as kiawe
(Prosopis pallida), koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), banyan (Ficus
spp.), Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium deluce), and numerous other
naturalized ornamentals and cultivars. Adjacent areas containing more
contiguous stands of native vegetation are located at higher
elevations, in areas of well-developed soils, outside of the Waikomo
Soils area and the proposed critical habitat.
This unit (two subunits) contains all of the known occupied
habitats of both the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod
(i.e., a total of seven caves), and all of these caves occur within
private or county land. All of the occupied caves occur in volcanic
flows of the Koloa Volcanic Series, which are present as exposed rock
or covered under the shallow soils of the Waikomo-Kalihi-Koloa soil
association (Foote et al. 1972), or in depositions of cave-bearing,
calcareous (e.g., calcified dunes, limestone) deposits. Proposed lands
in Unit 1 provide for expansion of subpopulations by providing areas
that share geologic and soil characteristics of known occupied habitat
and include the most probable distribution of required mesocaverns.
This habitat also has the largest human presence, which is likely to
grow and increase, and therefore is under the greatest threat from
human visitation and development. Inclusion of this additional habitat
is essential to provide for: population expansion and dispersal, refuge
from catastrophic events, and habitat corridors needed to maintain
gene-flow within the population and/or subpopulations.
Unit 2: Haula
Unit 2 is the second largest of the three units, being
approximately 68 ha (168 ac) in total area covered. The elevational
range of this unit is sea level to approximately 110 m (360 ft) above
sea level. Natural features of the unit include Haula, Paoo Point, and
a portion of the coast of Kawailoa Bay. Unit 2 contains no developed
areas, but the area has been greatly altered from various human uses
such as grazing, and has been altered by the invasion of alien plants
such as koa haole and iron wood (Casuarina equisetifolia). Native
dryland vegetation such as ilima (Sida fallax) and maiapilo (Capparis
sandwichiana) is common along portions of the coast line and uplands.
The high-elevation portions of the unit need further surveys but are
expected to be alien-dominated.
Unit 2 is composed of uplifted coral and algal reefs and
consolidated calcareous deposits (MacDonald et al. 1960), and exposed,
basaltic flows are not believed to be present within this unit. This
unit lies only a short distance (approximately 350 m (1,100 ft)) from
the occupied Waikomo Unit, and was likely once connected to that unit
in the geologic past (Pleistocene Era) by deposits that have since
eroded away or have been covered by unconsolidated sediments. It is not
known if this unit is currently occupied by the Kauai cave wolf spider,
Kauai cave amphipod, or other endemic troglobites.
Recent visits to this unit have found that the area is composed of
exposed calcareous deposits containing cracks and solution pockets,
which are indicative of the presence of underlying cave and mesocavern
habitats. While
[[Page 14681]]
accessible caves have not been located, air-passages, holes, and
fissures visible above ground strongly suggest the presence of
underlying caves or mesocaverns. Critical habitat designation of this
unit is proposed because of the cave-bearing nature of the geology, and
because of the occurrence of occupied habitat in adjacent areas with
similar geologic features. Because the types of voids that occur in
these calcareous formations continuously reform thereby providing
suitable habitat for very long time spans, this area is essential to
provide for expansion and refuge from human and catastrophic
environmental threats. This unit currently has minimal human presence
in the area and there are no known current plans for development.
Unit 3: Puu Keke
Approximately 14 ha (35 ac) in total area, Unit 3 is the smallest
of the three units and lies between 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) above
sea level. It's geographic and geologic setting is similar to that of
Unit 2 which lies less than 46 m (150 ft) to the east. Like Unit 2, the
vegetation is not well characterized but most likely is largely
dominated by alien vegetation.
This unit is also composed of consolidated calcareous deposits, and
has a high probability of containing subsurface habitats, but details
of the composition of these deposits are not known. The presence of
obligate cave-dwelling organisms is presently unknown. Critical habitat
designation of this unit is proposed because of the cave-bearing nature
of the geology, and because of the occurrence of occupied habitat in
adjacent areas with similar geologic features. Because the types of
voids that occur in these calcareous formations continuously reform
thereby providing suitable habitat for very long time spans, this area
is essential to provide for expansion and refuge from human and
catastrophic environmental threats. This unit currently has minimal
human presence in the area and there are no known current plans for
development.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7. Consultation
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Destruction or
adverse modification occurs when a Federal action directly or
indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent it appreciably
diminishes the value of the 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 only if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal
permit, license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation
recommendations in a conference report are advisory. We may issue a
formal conference report, if requested by the Federal action agency.
Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared according
to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was listed or critical habitat was
designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the biological
opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat is designated,
if no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the
content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are unlikely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the
Federal agency would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy
or adversely modify 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 would 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 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.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been
completed if those actions may affect designated critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the Kauai cave wolf
spider or Kauai cave amphipod or their critical habitat 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 (ACOE) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or
some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS)) will also continue to be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not
federally funded or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly 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. Activities that
may result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat include those that alter the primary constituent elements to an
extent that the value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery
of the Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod is appreciably
reduced. We note that such activities also may jeopardize the continued
existence of the species.
[[Page 14682]]
Activities that may directly or indirectly adversely affect critical
habitat for these cave animals include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying perennial surface vegetation
occurring directly above or adjacent to the cave or within the cave
(roots) or mesocaverns (as defined in the primary constituent elements
discussion), whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or other means
(e.g., wood cutting, grading, overgrazing, construction, road building,
mining, herbicide application, etc.);
(2) Activities within or outside of the cave or other mesocavern
(i.e., all cave-bearing rock) that promotes prolonged soil-disturbance,
resulting in the filling of caves, voids, and mesocaverns, with
sediments or other materials, or alters airflow, and/or light
penetration such that habitat microclimates are exposed to conditions
of desiccation. These activities include, but are not limited to:
utilizing caves for the disposal of wastes or unwanted soil or rock,
elevated and prolonged soil disturbance above or adjacent to cave-
bearing rock, closing existing cave openings, breeching existing caves
(i.e., creating new openings), modifying the natural geomorphology of a
cave interior, passage, or opening;
(3) Appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality through
indirect effects (e.g., introduction or promotion of potential
troglophilic) (i.e., non-obligate cave visitors) predators,
parasitoids, diseases, or disease vectors (e.g., non-native
arthropods), vertebrate or invertebrate food competitors, or invasive
plant species), habitat fragmentation, overgrazing, water diversion or
impoundment, groundwater pumping, inappropriately planned ground water
disposal (e.g., diversion into potential habitat or prevention of
natural water recharge into soils and rock above and adjacent to caves)
or other activities that could potentially alter water quality or
quantity to an extent that vegetation structure is affected, reduced
cave humidity levels, habitat is flooded, or toxic materials (e.g.,
pesticides, fuel, solvents, or other household or industrial chemicals)
are transported into habitat, and activities that increase the risk of
fire within or outside habitats above the cave;
(4) Application of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides
or other such chemicals within, above, or adjacent to known habitat,
that may directly or indirectly affect troglobitic organisms; and
(5) Release of certain biological control organisms within or
outside of the critical habitat area. Biological organisms include, but
are not limited to: predaceous or parasitoid vertebrates or
invertebrates, fungi, bacteria, or other natural or bio-engineered bio-
control organisms.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat.
Actions likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the
species concerned, particularly when the area affected by the proposed
action is occupied by the species concerned. In those cases, critical
habitat provides little additional protection to a species, and the
ramifications of its designation are few or none. However, critical
habitat designation in unoccupied areas may trigger consultation under
section 7 of the Act where it would not have otherwise occurred if
critical habitat had not been designated.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
where the species may be affected by their projects to ensure that
their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
These actions include, but are not limited to:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the ACOE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization by Federal agencies;
(3) Development on private or State lands requiring permits from
other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development;
(4) Construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission;
(5) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities by Federal agencies;
(6) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the FEMA;
and
(7) Activities not previously mentioned that are funded or
authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service,
NRCS), Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Department
of Energy, Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service), Department of Commerce
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), ACOE, FEMA,
Environmental Protection Agency, or any other Federal agency.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities would
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
wildlife and plants, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits,
should be directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Species Act Section 10 Program at the same address.
Exclusions Under Section 3(5)(A) Definition
Critical habitat is defined in section 3, paragraph (5)(A) 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. Special management and protection are not
required if adequate management and protection are already in place.
Adequate special management or protection is provided by a legally
operative plan/agreement that addresses the maintenance and improvement
of the primary constituent elements important to the species and
manages for the long-term conservation of the species. If any areas
containing the primary constituent elements are currently being managed
to address the conservation needs of the Kauai cave wolf spider and/or
the Kauai cave amphipod and do not require additional management or
protection, we may exclude such areas from the proposed rule because
they would not meet the definition of critical habitat in section
3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
We used the following three guidelines to determine if a plan
provides adequate management or protection--(1) A current plan
specifying the management actions must be complete and provide
sufficient conservation benefit to the species; (2) the plan must
provide assurances that the conservation management strategies will be
implemented; and (3) the plan
[[Page 14683]]
must provide assurances that the conservation management strategies
will be effective.
In determining if management strategies are likely to be
implemented, we considered whether: (1) A management plan or agreement
exists that specifies the management actions being implemented or to be
implemented; (2) there is a timely schedule for implementation; (3)
there is a high probability that the funding source(s) or other
resources necessary to implement the actions will be available; and (4)
the party(ies) have the authority and long-term commitment to the
agreement or plan to implement the management actions, as demonstrated,
for example, by a legal instrument providing enduring protection and
management of the lands.
In determining whether an action is likely to be effective, we
considered whether: (1) The plan specifically addresses the management
needs, including reduction of threats to the species; (2) such actions
have been successful in the past; (3) there are provisions for
monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of the management
actions; and (4) adaptive management principles have been incorporated
into the plan.
Based on information provided to us by landowners and managers to
date, we find no areas are adequately managed and protected to address
all of the threats to Kauai cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod
and thus no areas qualify for exclusion under section 3(5)(A) of the
Act. Several areas are covered under management plans and are currently
managed in a manner that meets some of the conservation needs of the
Kauai cave wolf spider and/or the Kauai cave amphipod, but we find that
in none of these areas does present management adequately reduce all
the primary threats to these species or that such management will be
implemented into the future. For example, we have no assurance that one
cave system, currently free of development plans, will retain a
protected status for the long-term. Other areas of habitat lack a
timely implementation schedule and appropriate management has lagged.
Adequate reduction of the threat from non-native predators (e.g.,
brown violin spider), already present within some caves may, to some
extent, require different management activities. This may be difficult
for managers to control and is not, at this time, a requirement in
determining whether an area is being adequately managed such that it
does not meet the definition of critical habitat.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, and that we consider the economic and other relevant impacts
of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude
areas from critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct an economic
analysis for this proposal prior to making a final determination. When
completed, we will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-
day comment period on the draft economic analysis and proposed rule at
that time.
We believe that in most instances the benefits of excluding habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) from critical habitat designations will
outweigh the benefits of including them. Currently, there are no HCPs
including the Kauai cave wolf spider and/or the Kauai cave amphipod as
covered species. However, two separate landowners have entered into
cooperative agreements with us that cover both of these species.
Conservation actions were outlined in those agreements to benefit these
species, and one landowner has initiated a couple of those actions,
such as gating and locking one of the caves to prevent disturbance, and
planting suitable vegetation above the cave foot print to enhance the
below-ground habitat. The other landowner has not yet initiated
conservation actions outlined in their agreement. In the event that
these cooperative agreements are developed into HCPs, or future HCPs
are developed within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, we
will work with applicants to encourage them to provide for protection
and management of habitat areas essential for the conservation of these
species. This could be accomplished by either directing development and
habitat modification to nonessential areas, or appropriately modifying
activities within essential habitat areas to minimize impacts to
critical habitat.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments
or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We are particularly interested in
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any area should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the number and/or distribution of Kauai
cave wolf spider and/or the Kauai cave amphipod, and what areas are
essential to the conservation of these species and why;
(3) Whether lands within proposed critical habitat are currently
being managed to address the conservation needs of the Kauai cave wolf
spider and/or the Kauai cave amphipod;
(4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(5) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families;
(6) Whether future development and approval of conservation
measures (e.g., Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, etc.)
should be excluded from critical habitat and, if so, by what mechanism;
and,
(7) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for the Kauai cave wolf spider and/or the Kauai cave amphipod,
such as those derived from non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, sight-
seeing, enhanced watershed protection, improved air quality, increased
soil retention, ``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative
costs).
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see addresses).
The Service is soliciting comments and additional information on the
Kauai cave wolf spider and amphipod, their habitats, and any new
information on their status or status of the habitat or lands
throughout the proposed critical habitat area.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their home
address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some
circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at
the
[[Page 14684]]
beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of such review is to ensure listing and critical habitat decisions are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will
send copies of this proposed rule to these peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these
peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed
designations of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and data received during the 60-day
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the proposed rule in the supplementary information
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the document? (5) Is
the background information useful and is the amount appropriate? (6)
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, this document is a
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below. We
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which
will be available for public comment, to determine the economic
consequences of designating the specific areas as critical habitat. The
availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced in the
Federal Register so that it is available for public review and comment.
(a) While we will prepare an economic analysis to assist us in
considering whether areas would be excluded from critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we do not believe this
rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or safety,
or State, local or tribal communities. Therefore, we do not believe a
cost benefit and economic analysis pursuant to E.O. 12866 is required.
Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting
activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal
agency. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
they do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based on
our experience with the species and its needs, we believe that any
Federal action or authorized action that could potentially cause an
adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat would currently
be considered as jeopardy to the species under the Act in areas
occupied by the species.
Accordingly, we do not expect the designation of areas as critical
habitat within the geographical range of the species to have any
incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal
authorization or funding. The designation of areas as critical habitat
where section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the
critical habitat designation may have impacts on what actions may or
may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons who
receive Federal authorization or funding that are not attributable to
the species listing. We will evaluate any impact through our economic
analysis (under section 4 of the Act: see the ``Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2)'' section of this rule). Non-Federal persons who do not
have a Federal sponsorship of their actions are not restricted by the
designation of critical habitat.
(b) We do not believe this rule would create inconsistencies with
other agencies' actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been
required to ensure that their actions not jeopardize the continued
existence of the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod
since its listing in January 2000 (66 FR 4770). We will evaluate any
additional impact through our economic analysis. Because of the
potential for impacts on other Federal agencies activities, we will
continue to review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with
other Federal agencies actions.
(c) We do not believe this rule, if made final, would materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are currently
required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species, and, as discussed above, we
will evaluate any additional impacts through an economic analysis.
(d) OMB has determined that this rule raises novel legal or policy
issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
[[Page 14685]]
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a
certification statement. In today's rule, we are certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The following discussion explains our
rationale.
According to the Small Business Association, small entities include
small organizations, such as independent non-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as
small businesses. Small businesses include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with
fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than
$5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses
with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade
contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To
determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are
significant, we consider the types of activities that might trigger
regulatory impacts under this rule as well as the types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term significant
economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
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.). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. In some circumstances, especially with
proposed critical habitat designations of very limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial. 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.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are
not affected by the designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect the Kauai cave wolf spider or the Kauai cave amphipod. If
this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies must
also consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical
habitat. However, we do not believe this will result in any additional
regulatory burden on Federal agencies or their applicants where
consultation would already be required due to the presence of the
listed species, because the duty to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat would not likely trigger additional regulatory impacts
beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Even if the duty to avoid adverse modification does not trigger
additional regulatory impacts in areas where the species is present,
designation of critical habitat could result in an additional economic
burden on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, since the Kauai
cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod have only been listed
since January 2000, and no consultations have occurred involving these
species, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for ongoing
projects will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
When the species is clearly not present, designation of critical
habitat could trigger additional review of Federal activities under
section 7 of the Act. Because the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai
cave amphipod have been listed only a relatively short time and no
activities with Federal involvement have occurred in these areas during
this time, there is no history of any formal consultations based on the
listing of these species. Therefore, for the purposes of this review
and certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are assuming
that any future consultations in the area proposed as critical habitat
will be due to the critical habitat designation.
None of the proposed designation is on Federal lands. One of the
three units contain land parcels owned and managed by the State of
Hawaii. All of these State owned parcels are zoned as ``urban.'' On
State lands, activities with no Federal involvement would not be
affected by the critical habitat designation.
All three units of the proposed designation include private land.
On private lands, activities that lack Federal involvement would not be
affected by the critical habitat designation.
On the Island of Kauai, previous consultations under section 7 of
the Act between us and other Federal agencies most frequently involved
the Department of the Navy, and the ACOE. In the case of ACOE
consultations, the applicant is often the County of Kauai which is not
considered a small entity as defined here. ACOE consultations involve
wetlands or waterways and occur due to the presence of species that
spend at least part of their life in aquatic habitats. Consultation
with the ACOE may occur if a permit is required for a project in
Waikomo Stream that may negatively impact adjacent cave systems.
Waikomo Stream runs between two known occupied cave systems and
consultation may be required if the activities on the stream may affect
the cave systems and the Kauai cave amphipod and Kauai cave wolf
spider.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements. First, if we
conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modify its
critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.''
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of listed species or resulting in adverse
modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an applicant may
elect to implement a reasonable and prudent alternative associated with
a biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse modification of
critical habitat. An agency or applicant could alternatively choose to
seek an exemption from the requirements of the Act or proceed without
implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative. However, unless an
exemption were obtained, the Federal agency or applicant would be at
risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed
without implementing the reasonable and prudent alternatives. Secondly,
if we find that a proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed animal species, we may identify
reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize the amount or
extent of take and require the Federal agency or applicant to implement
such measures through non-discretionary terms and conditions. However,
the Act does not prohibit the take of listed plant species or require
terms and conditions to minimize
[[Page 14686]]
adverse impact to critical habitat. We may also identify discretionary
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,
help implement recovery plans, or develop information that could
contribute to the recovery of the species.
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 in section 7 consultations-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. Although we have no consultation history
for the Kauai cave wolf spider or the Kauai cave amphipod prior to
their listing as endangered species, a road project was slightly
modified when a cave occupied by the Kauai cave amphipod was breeched
and threatened by the construction. The Service provided technical
assistance to the Federal Highways Administration (FHA) which resulted
in the project being implemented in a timely fashion without major
changes, little or no added project costs, and without impacting the
cave habitat. The modifications suggested were based on the geometry of
the cave in relation to the road construction project, and our
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces,
especially as described in the final listing rule, the draft Recovery
Plan, and in this proposed critical habitat designation, as well
scientific papers on the habitat requirements of troglobitic species.
The kinds of actions that may be included in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives include conservation set-asides, identification
and protection of occupied habitats, management of competing non-native
species and predators, restoration and management of degraded habitat
(surface and subterranean), and regular monitoring. For most
foreseeable projects, these measures are not likely to result in a
significant economic impact to project proponents because based on our
experience, no proposed projects have been prevented from being
implemented with or without some modification, due to the presence of
known occupied caves, and some of these activities have been carried
out by other private landowners with Service involvement. As required
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we will conduct an analysis of the
potential economic impacts of this proposed critical habitat
designation, and will make that analysis available for public review
and comment before finalizing this designation.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed rule would
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. It would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The entire designation involves
three units which primarily includes private land as well as some State
and County lands. Probable future land uses in these areas are not
expected to result in a Federal nexus or section 7 consultations.
Projects likely to occur in these areas would likely involve only
private funding and are not likely to require Federal permits. In these
areas, Federal involvement-- and thus section 7 consultations, the only
trigger for economic impact under this rule--would be limited to a
subset of the area proposed. The most likely Federal involvement would
be associated with activities involving the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Highways Administration (U.S. Department of
Transportation), or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This rule
would result in project modifications only when proposed Federal
activities would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While
this may occur, it is not expected frequently enough to affect a
substantial number of small entities. Even when it does occur, we do
not expect it to result in a significant economic impact since we
expect that most proposed projects, with or without modification, can
be implemented in such a way as to avoid adversely modifying critical
habitat, as the measures included in reasonable and prudent
alternatives must be economically feasible and consistent with the
proposed action. The kinds of measures we anticipate we would provide
can usually be implemented at low cost and include activities or
measures such as modification of project foot-print, landscaping with
native, perennial vegetation, and controlled use of pesticides. We are
certifying that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai cave amphipod will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and that this proposed rule does not meet the criteria under SBREFA as
a major rule: therefore an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is a significant action
under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
August 25, 2000 et seq.):
a. This rule, as proposed, will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the
critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are
currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated
to result from critical habitat designation of occupied areas. In our
economic analysis, we will evaluate any impact of designating areas
where section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the
critical habitat designation.
b. This rule, as proposed, will not produce a Federal mandate on
State, local, or tribal 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 Kauai cave wolf spider and the
Kauai cave amphipod in a preliminary takings implication assessment.
The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed rule
does not pose significant takings implications. Once the revised
economic analysis is completed for this proposed rule, we will review
and revise this preliminary assessment as warranted.
[[Page 14687]]
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by the Kauai cave wolf spider and the Kauai
cave amphipod would have little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. 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 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.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior's
Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We propose to designate
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and will
plan public hearings on the proposed designation during the comment
period, if requested. 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 Kauai
cave wolf spider and Kauai cave amphipod.
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 an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as
amended. A notice outlining our reason for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
This proposed rule 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 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. The
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf spider
and Kauai cave amphipod does not contain any Tribal lands or lands that
we have identified as impacting Tribal trust resources.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available, upon request, from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
This rule was primarily prepared by 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.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
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.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entries for ``spider, Kauai cave
wolf'' under ``ARACHNIDS'' and ``amphipod, Kauai cave'' under
``CRUSTACEANS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------------------ population
where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
ARACHNIDS
* * * * * * *
Spider, Kauai cave wolf.................. Adelocosa anops............. U.S.A. (HI) NA E 676 17.95(g) NA
* * * * * * *
CRUSTACEANS
* * * * * * *
Amphipod, Kauai cave..................... Spelaeorchestia koloana..... U.S.A. (HI) NA E 676 17.95(h) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 by adding, in the same alphabetical order as
these species occur in Sec. 17.11(h):
a. In paragraph (g), critical habitat for the Kauai cave wolf
spider (Adelocosa anops); and
b. In paragraph (h), critical habitat for the Kauai cave amphipod
(Spelaeorchestia koloana), as set forth below.
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(g) Arachnids.
Kauai cave wolf spider (Adelocosa anops)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for the island of Kauai,
Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements for the Kauai cave wolf spider
and the
[[Page 14688]]
Kauai cave amphipod are the presence of subterranean spaces from 5 mm
to 25 cm (0.2 in to 10 in) at their narrowest point (collectively
termed ``mesocaverns'') and/or cave passages greater than 25 cm (>10
in) that have dark and/or stagnant air zones that maintain relative
humidity at saturation levels (100 percent); and the
presence in these types of mesocaverns or caves of roots from living,
non-toxic plants such as, but not limited to, ohia (Metrosideros
polymorpha), maiapilo (Capparis sandwichiana), and aalii (Dodonea
viscosa). All critical habitat areas contain one or more of the primary
constituent elements for the Kauai cave wolf spider.
(3)(i) Existing human-constructed features and structures within
the boundaries of mapped units that required trenching, filling or
excavation resulting in below-surface modification or alteration would
not contain either of the primary constituent elements and are excluded
from critical habitat designation. Such features and structures include
but are not limited to: Homes and buildings for which the underlying
bedrock has been altered for their construction or through
incorporation of or connection to buried structural foundations, septic
tanks, city sewage and drainage systems, or water or underground
electrical supply corridors; paved roads; and areas previously or
currently used as a quarry.
(ii) Areas that have been modified on the surface but without
trenching, filling or excavation resulting in below-surface
modification or alteration are included in the critical habitat
designation, even if they are adjacent to areas that have undergone
below-surface modification. Such areas include but are not limited to:
Active or fallow agricultural lands; range land; golf courses; county
and city parks; unimproved road; and undeveloped lands.
(4) Unit 1--Waikomo Unit, Island of Kauai (1,615 ha (3,991 ac)):
(i) Unit 1A. Unit 1A consists of boundary points with the following
coordinates in UTM Zone 4, with the units in meters, using North
American Datum of 1983 (Nad83):
(A) 451377, 2420941; 451318, 2421296; 451365, 2421383; 451432,
2421109; 451596, 2421040; 451959, 2421072; 452051, 2421203; 452003,
2421772; 452057, 2421775; 452169, 2421853; 452125, 2421972; 451884,
2422006; 452107, 2422210; 452088, 2422291; 452683, 2421992; 452828,
2422429; 452693, 2422516; 452580, 2422426; 452535, 2422471; 452566,
2422602; 452491, 2422655; 452558, 2422751; 452872, 2422984; 453183,
2422994; 453561, 2422770; 453689, 2422802; 453710, 2423076; 453803,
2423173; 453928, 2423094; 454010, 2423198; 453900, 2423337; 453989,
2423437; 454124, 2423472; 454142, 2423601; 454096, 2423765; 454199,
2423872; 454267, 2423643; 454452, 2423640; 454616, 2424086; 454780,
2424043; 454757, 2423914; 454891, 2423911; 454673, 2423458; 454987,
2423312; 454770, 2422941; 454834, 2422595; 454688, 2422555; 454631,
2422409; 454866, 2422399; 455030, 2422481; 455001, 2422349; 455009,
2422131; 455631, 2421763; 456040, 2421846; 456196, 2422136; 456445,
2422235; 456572, 2421329; 456982, 2421024; 457171, 2421036; 457345,
2420833; 457027, 2420606; 456763, 2420391; 456728, 2419912; 456456,
2419772; 455868, 2419764; 455633, 2419645; 455601, 2419531; 455389,
2419219; 455225, 2419029; 455014, 2418947; 455014, 2419015; 454875,
2419059; 454861, 2419151; 455014, 2419182; 455056, 2419329; 455001,
2419400; 454781, 2419487; 454388, 2419255; 453419, 2419161; 453425,
2419586; 453516, 2419934; 453495, 2420106; 453368, 2420082; 453384,
2419931; 453275, 2419923; 453275, 2419438; 453252, 2419031; 453114,
2419045; 453162, 2419267; 452950, 2419349; 453029, 2419550; 452799,
2419624; 452707, 2419428; 452638, 2419449; 452691, 2419590; 452540,
2419649; 452416, 2419487; 452294, 2419410; 452057, 2419393; 451918,
2419437; 451814, 2419420; 451685, 2419686; 451812, 2419796; 451712,
2419918; 451815, 2420032; 451796, 2420129; 451672, 2420235; 451733,
2420399; 451601, 2420492; 451558, 2420333; 451561, 2420058; 451614,
2420037; 451587, 2419912; 451516, 2419770; 451449, 2419696; 451188,
2419748; 451212, 2419865; 450884, 2419942; 450661, 2419968; 450603,
2419919; 450443, 2419921; 450202, 2419919; 449823, 2420156; 449805,
2420288; 449905, 2420389; 450560, 2420577; 451016, 2420683; 450974,
2420585; 451194, 2420502; 451201, 2420756; 451193, 2420887; 451377,
2420941.
(B) Excluding seven areas:
(1) Bounded by the following fifteen points (31 ha, 77 ac): 456695,
2420426; 456573, 2420330; 456388, 2420278; 456081, 2420300; 456051,
2420586; 456163, 2420674; 456259, 2420772; 456357, 2420895; 456412,
2420942; 456538, 2420879; 456570, 2420792; 456741, 2420763; 456682,
2420622; 456714, 2420574; 456695, 2420426.
(2) Bounded by the following fourteen points (1 ha, 3 ac): 454229,
2420036; 454177, 2420082; 454147, 2420126; 454158, 2420147; 454202,
2420185; 454250, 2420172; 454242, 2420136; 454231, 2420112; 454264,
2420082; 454294, 2420066; 454326, 2420085; 454332, 2420050; 454286,
2420025; 454229, 2420036.
(3) Bounded by the following seven points (2 ha, 5 ac): 452714,
2419850; 452561, 2419837; 452519, 2419846; 452504, 2419912; 452533,
2419989; 452613, 2419958; 452714, 2419850.
(4) Bounded by the following thirty-one points (16 ha, 38 ac):
452185, 2420755; 452280, 2420765; 452349, 2420719; 452402, 2420614;
452434, 2420595; 452451, 2420559; 452438, 2420516; 452462, 2420442;
452486, 2420421; 452498, 2420398; 452480, 2420334; 452412, 2420247;
452399, 2420223; 452435, 2420209; 452444, 2420139; 452467, 2420112;
452467, 2420069; 452443, 2420047; 452391, 2420052; 452288, 2420126;
452239, 2420219; 452191, 2420271; 452190, 2420397; 452177, 2420428;
452190, 2420478; 452215, 2420500; 452173, 2420538; 452193, 2420597;
452190, 2420654; 452158, 2420722; 452185, 2420755.
(5) Bounded by the following eleven points (17 ha, 14 ac): 454202;
2421942, 454138; 2421880, 454209; 2421804, 454226; 2421640, 454083;
2421628, 453679; 2421700, 453652; 2421875, 453771; 2421965, 453915;
2421937, 454078; 2422088, 454202; 2421942.
(6) Bounded by the following seven points (1 ha, 4 ac): 454850,
2419801; 454897, 2419736; 454922, 2419684; 454860, 2419633; 454825,
2419667; 454740, 2419694; 454850, 2419801.
(7) Bounded by the following five points (1 ha, 2 ac): 452149,
2419675; 452231, 2419635; 452180, 2419556; 452101, 2419583; 452149,
2419675.
(ii) Unit 1B (ha; 17 ac). Unit consists of twenty-one boundary
points with the following coordinates in UTM Zone 4 with the units in
meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83): 454027, 2418515;
454106, 2418549; 454143, 2418484; 454378, 2418600; 454341, 2418842;
454405, 2418865; 454385, 2418971; 454483, 2418981; 454531, 2418957;
454517, 2418910; 454398, 2418787; 454409, 2418590; 454378, 2418573;
454341, 2418505; 454303, 2418512; 454262, 2418484; 454272, 2418426;
454170, 2418362; 454109, 2418338; 454055, 2418369; 454027, 2418515.
(5) Unit 2--Haula Unit, Island of Kauai (68 ha (168 ac)):
(i) Unit consists of 45 boundary points with the following
coordinates in UTM Zone 4, with the units in meters, using North
American Datum of 1983 (Nad83):
(ii) Starting on the coastline at approximately coordinates of:
458997, 2422152; follow: 458345, 2422341; 458686, 2422405; 458786,
2422373;
[[Page 14689]]
458934, 2422253; 459001, 2422151; 458997, 2422152; 457589, 2420990;
457575, 2420975; 457511, 2420984; 457631, 2421127; 457738, 2421168;
457900, 2421206; 458023, 2421343; 458023, 2421417; 457895, 2421435;
457803, 2421394; 457686, 2421405; 457637, 2421453; 457631, 2421540;
457678, 2421675; 457766, 2421821; 457908, 2421944; 458069, 2421867;
458216, 2421849; 458244, 2421886; 458253, 2421996; 458235, 2422079;
458299, 2422272; 458345, 2422341; 457589, 2420990; to approximately:
457590, 2420991 (coastline); follow coastline to the approximate
coordinates of: 458494, 2421794; then follow: 458494, 2421795; 458495,
2421795; 458502, 2421802, 458492, 2421904; 458483, 2421987; 458566,
2422060; 458559, 2422190; 458630, 2422263; 458718, 2422262; 458805,
2422159; 458777, 2422115; 458686, 2422119; 458658, 2422060; 458667,
2421987; 458702, 2421920; to the coastline, approximately at: 458702,
2421919; follow coastline to beginning point: 458997, 2422152.
(6) Unit 3--Puu Keke Unit, Island of Kauai (14 ha (35 ac)):
(i) Unit consists of 14 boundary points with the following
coordinates in UTM Zone 4, with the units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (Nad83):
(ii) Follow the approximate coordinates: 457583, 2422071; 457631,
2422040; 457702, 2421952; 457543, 2421778; 457490, 2421812; 457400,
2421778; 457352, 2421693; 457380, 2421601; 457297, 2421518; 457115,
2421532; 457162, 2421817; 457279, 2421895; 457536, 2422014; 457583,
2422071.
(7) Note: Map 1--Units 1, 2, and 3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR02.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 14690]]
* * * * *
(h) Crustaceans.
Kauai Cave Amphipod (Spelaeorchestia koloana)
The critical habitat designation and the primary constituent
elements for the Kauai cave amphipod are exactly the same as those of
the Kauai cave wolf spider. See the entry in paragraph (g) of this
section for the Kauai cave wolf spider. All critical habitat areas
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for the Kauai
cave amphipod.
* * * * *
Dated: March 12, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-6801 Filed 3-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P