[Federal Register: December 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 234)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73795-73895]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de08-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2007-0006; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AU93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian
Islands
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies (Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 8,788 acres (ac) (3,556 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the final critical habitat designation. The critical
habitat is located in four counties (City and County of Honolulu,
Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai) in Hawaii.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective on January 5, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone
808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For additional
information on the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR
26835), the revised proposed critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428), and the recovery
outline for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies available on the
Internet at http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/
documents/Drosophilarecoveryoutline-final.pdf.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 2007, we published a revised proposed rule in the
Federal Register to designate critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies (72 FR 67428). The publication of the revised
proposal opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on January
28, 2008. On March 6, 2008, we published a document in the Federal
Register announcing the reopening of the public comment period until
April 25, 2008, and a notice of two public hearings (73 FR 12065). On
April 4, 2008, we held a public hearing in Hilo, Hawaii, and on April
10, 2008, we held a public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii. On August 12,
2008, we published a document in the Federal Register (73 FR 46860)
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and reopening the public comment
period until September 11, 2008. For more information on previous
Federal actions concerning the 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published
in the Federal Register on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994), and the final
rule to list 11 picture-wing flies as endangered and one picture-wing
fly as threatened published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71
FR 26835).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
During the comment period that opened on November 28, 2007, and
closed on January 28, 2008 (72 FR 67428), we received 10 comments,
including 2 requests for public hearings. Three comments were from peer
reviewers, three were from State of Hawaii agencies, and four were from
nongovernmental organizations or individuals. During the comment period
that opened on March 6, 2008, and closed on April 25, 2008 (73 FR
12065), we received nine comments from organizations or individuals. We
also conducted public hearings in Hilo on the Island of Hawaii and in
Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. During the comment period that
opened on August 12, 2008, and closed on September 11, 2008 (73 FR
46860), we received seven comments. Three comments were from
individuals (which includes two individuals that presented testimony at
the public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii on April 10, 2008), one comment
was from the U.S. Navy, and three comments were received from the State
of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Twelve comments supported the designation of critical habitat for
the Hawaiian picture-wing flies and four opposed the designation. Two
comments were received from individuals expressing general views on the
Endangered Species Act, but were unrelated to the proposed designation
of
[[Page 73795]]
critical habitat. We received two comments objecting to the exemption
of military lands under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and one comment
requesting that we exclude a portion of one critical habitat unit based
on ongoing private conservation activities. All comments that we
received were reviewed for substantive issues and new information
regarding the proposed critical habitat designation for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing fly species. All comments that we received have been fully
considered in the final rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 15 knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation
biology principles. We received responses from four of the peer
reviewers, as are discussed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Three peer reviewers recommended that the critical
habitat designation include additional areas for 7 of the 12 picture-
wing fly species (Drosophila hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia).
The additional areas that they recommended are either within historical
habitat, or within potentially suitable habitat that has not been
surveyed that is located adjacent to occupied habitat. These peer
reviewers stated that the amount of habitat or the number of units we
proposed is insufficient to provide for conservation of the species,
and that the inclusion of additional lands adjacent to the areas
proposed would improve the likelihood of conserving the species. The
peer reviewers stated that for some species, the lands adjacent to the
proposed units contain habitat that is known or likely to contain
relatively intact native forest. Some peer reviewers stated that the
designation of additional lands adjacent to the proposed critical
habitat units may help preserve the species' historical distribution or
facilitate dispersal between localized subpopulations. Some peer
reviewers also recommended that we include unsurveyed areas believed to
support undocumented populations of picture-wing species, and that we
include areas that are likely to support host plant populations.
Our Response: The Act defines critical habitat as:
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed on which are found those
physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and
Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The Act also states that ``Except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the
entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or
endangered species.''
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. Although the peer reviewers recommended areas to add to the
critical habitat designation, they did not provide information on
habitat suitability or why they believed that the recommended areas
contained the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species.
The areas recommended by the peer reviewers are either unoccupied
or they have not been surveyed. We did not include areas that were not
occupied at the time of listing because: (1) It is unclear why the
species were extirpated from previously occupied areas; and (2) we
could not conclude from the available data whether or not the
previously occupied areas currently support, or even could support in
the future, the physical and biological features (including their host
plants) essential for the conservation of the species. Furthermore,
some of the areas recommended for inclusion have never been surveyed
for the flies, nor surveyed for the presence of host plants. Therefore
based on the available information, we are unable to conclude that
these areas were occupied at the time of listing, or that they contain
the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of
the species.
We used the best available, most recent survey data for adult flies
to determine which sites we would identify as occupied and which sites
we would identify as unoccupied. The primary dataset we used to
document observations of these 12 picture-wing flies spans the years
1965-1999 (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-16). We also reviewed a
variety of peer-reviewed and other articles for this final rule, which
included background information on the biology of each of the 12
species. Additional data were obtained from personal communications
with landowners, scientists, and land managers familiar with particular
species and locations. Specific information from all of these sources
included estimates of historic and current distribution, abundance, and
territory sizes for the 12 species, as well as information on habitat
requirements. The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation, or primary constituent elements (PCEs), of the 12
picture-wing flies include both the host plants used by the larvae, as
well as the native forest components used by foraging adults. We used
known adult location data to identify each critical habitat unit, and
included the surrounding area encompassing the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. We did not
include within this critical habitat designation sites in which a
species had been observed according to the most recent survey data but
that did not include the PCEs.
Based on the best available information, we believe that our final
designation accurately encompasses sufficient areas for the
conservation of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species. Therefore, we
have not included the additional areas proposed by the peer reviewers.
However, surveying historical habitat sites and adjacent potentially
suitable habitat for extant populations of picture-wing flies and host
plants will be a high priority during the recovery planning process,
and we may consider amending the critical habitat designation at that
time if new information indicates that these areas are essential to the
recovery of these species.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the Waiea Tract,
which is adjacent to the proposed Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona
Refuge on the Island of Hawaii, contains higher densities of Clermontia
sp. (the species' primary host plant) than the area that we proposed as
critical habitat. The peer reviewer stated that the Waiea Tract should
therefore be a high priority for conservation.
Our Response: The peer reviewer did not present scientific data
with which we could evaluate whether the Waiea Tract includes areas
that contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of D. heteroneura, or whether the areas currently proposed
for designation for this species are inadequate. The Act defines
critical habitat in part as areas containing the physical or biological
features (PCEs) essential to the conservation of the species. To
determine what is essential, we
[[Page 73796]]
determine the amount and spatial arrangement of PCEs necessary to
recover the species. We believe that the areas designated in this rule
will adequately provide for the conservation and recovery of the
species; that is, the currently designated areas provide the PCEs in
the quantity and configuration sufficient to meet the conservation and
recovery needs of the species. Although the Waiea Tract is known to be
occupied and contains high densities of Clermontia species, we do not
believe this additional area is essential to the conservation of D.
heteroneura. We proposed a total of 4,628 ac (1,855 ha) of critical
habitat for Drosophila heteroneura, which includes 3,604 ac (1,459 ha)
of lands adjacent to the Waiea Tract (Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--
Kona Refuge). Based on the best scientific data available, we believe
these areas accurately encompass the areas necessary for the
conservation of D. heteroneura as required by the Act.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the absence of nonnative
wasps (Vespula sp.) within suitable habitat should be included as a
primary constituent element for Drosophila heteroneura. This peer
reviewer stated that based on field surveys, nonnative wasps are
capable of entirely excluding D. heteroneura from habitat that is
otherwise suitable.
Our Response: Primary constituent elements are those physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a species
and that may require special management considerations or protection
(50 CFR 424.12(b)). Predation by nonnative wasps has been identified as
a significant threat to the 12 picture-wing fly species, and we intend
to pursue recovery actions to minimize the impacts of nonnative wasps
in currently occupied habitat and in areas within the flies' historical
range. However, we disagree that the absence of predatory wasps should
be included as a primary constituent element, since management
strategies to address this specific threat remain to be developed.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that since each of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies feed within decomposing portions of their
host plants, critical habitat should encompass all host plant life
stages (e.g., from seedlings to senescent individuals), and be large
enough to support healthy, reproducing host plant populations. One peer
reviewer also recommended that reproducing host plant populations be
included as a primary constituent element.
Our Response: Based on the best scientific data available, we
believe that the areas designated as critical habitat in this final
rule are large enough to provide for all host plant life stages (see
our response to Comment (1), above, for a discussion about the
information we used to designate critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies). We agree with the peer reviewer that including
reproducing host plant populations as an additional primary constituent
element for each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species would
improve precision in identifying the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of a species in the field. Accordingly,
we have incorporated this recommendation into this final rule, although
the addition of this new primary constituent element did not result in
any boundary changes to any of the designated critical habitat units.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer emphasized that additional in-field
management activities are necessary on the Island of Oahu to protect
Urera glabra and U. kaalae, which are host plants for Drosophila
aglaia, D. hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi.
Our Response: We agree that management of the remaining Urera spp.
populations on the Island of Oahu is necessary to prevent their
continued decline and to support the long-term conservation of
Drosophila aglaia, D. hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi. On a broader scale,
specific management actions that relate to the conservation of host
plants for each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species will likely
be an important recovery task as recovery plans and other conservation
programs are developed. However, identifying specific management is
beyond the scope of this final critical habitat designation.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule lacks a
formal analysis of how the critical habitat proposed for the 12
picture-wing flies will function under different scenarios of climate
change. The reviewer suggested that the designation should take into
account the potential for shifting distributions of both the picture-
wing flies and their host plants along natural temperature and moisture
gradients in response to climate change.
Our Response: Although we agree that the impact of climate change
to the distribution of picture-wing flies and their host plant
populations is a potential concern, the effects of climate change are
difficult to predict at the local or regional level. In addition,
future changes in precipitation are uncertain because they depend in
part on how El Nino (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system in
the Tropical Pacific having important global consequences for weather
and climate) might change, and reliable projections of changes in El
Nino have yet to be made (Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan 1998, pp.
2-10). As such, we do not have sufficient scientific information with
which to formally analyze the potential effects of climate change on
the Hawaiian picture-wing flies and their habitat at this time. To the
extent that climate change leads to a future shift in the location of
the PCEs for these species, we would need to address that in future
critical habitat revisions.
Federal Agency Comments
(7) Comment: The U.S. Navy, on behalf of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration requested that we exclude parts of Kokee Sites
B and D that intersect the proposed critical habitat. They
characterized the areas as being fenced and developed, stating that
these areas would be unlikely to support Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
They also advised that they planned to survey for the endangered fly,
Drosophila musaphila, at the Kokee Sites to determine its presence or
absence, and that measures to benefit the fly will be included in the
Pacific Missile Range Facility Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan if the fly is discovered.
Our Response: We have attempted to exclude manmade structures using
aerial photos and other available imagery. However, we were not always
able to successfully exclude these structures from critical habitat
maps because the resolution of our imagery does not allow us to locate
small structures. Existing manmade features and structures within the
boundaries of the areas mapped as critical habitat, such as buildings,
roads, existing fences, telecommunications equipment towers and
associated structures and equipment, communication facilities and
regularly maintained associated rights-of-way, radars, telemetry
antennas, paved areas, and other landscaped areas, do not contain one
or more of the primary constituent elements described for D.
musaphilia. Accordingly, the text of the rule makes clear that these
types of areas are not included in the critical habitat designation,
even if they occur within the boundary of the mapped critical habitat
unit Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee.
Comments From the State of Hawaii
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his
[[Page 73797]]
failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or
petition.'' Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to
designate critical habitat for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D.
neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia are addressed below.
(8) Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) supported the
critical habitat designations on private lands, provided the
designations have landowner support. The DOFAW commented that it
supports the targeted site-specific approach to designate critical
habitat within larger areas being managed for watershed and native
species protection and restoration of native ecosystems, and agrees
with the proposals for the islands of Kauai, Oahu, and Molokai where
designations are proposed on DOFAW lands. It requested additional
review and coordination on sites proposed on DOFAW forest reserves on
the Island of Hawaii that are included in the Tri-Mountain Watershed
Partnership and Kohala Mountain Watershed Partnership for possible
exclusion based on their protected status and adequacy of their
management programs. It also requested that site visits be conducted
for all areas proposed as critical habitat to confirm the adequacy of
the site, to confirm appropriateness for exclusion, and to locate
boundaries. Finally, it suggested that the critical habitat designation
process could be improved if done concurrently with recovery planning.
In addition, DOFAW stated that critical habitat designations for host
plants may be adequate to meet the needs of the picture-wing flies.
Our Response: We appreciate and commend the State's implementation
of management plans that benefit the Hawaiian picture-wing flies'
critical habitat areas that we are designating in this final rule. The
Secretary has discretion to exclude lands that have been proposed under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, upon a determination that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as
part of the critical habitat (unless the failure to designate such an
area would result in the extinction of the species). We have fully
considered the State's request that we exclude certain parts of its
lands from critical habitat designation. However, the units we are
designating in this final rule meet the definition of critical habitat,
contain the PCEs that are essential to the conservation of these
species, and require special management. In addition, based on our
economic analysis and the best available information, we are unaware of
any substantive economic or other relevant impacts that would result
from such designation on State lands. Accordingly, we have not excluded
the State lands from the designation of critical habitat. On May 12,
2008, and September 17, 2008, we met with DOFAW personnel regarding
their comments on the proposed critical habitat units on the Island of
Hawaii. The State provided us with a copy of the 2008 Waiakea Timber
Management Map, which was developed based on their 1997 timber
inventory. This map indicated that portions of two units, (Drosophila
mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest [373 acres/151 ha], and Drosophila
mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest [76 acres/31 ha]), were planted in the
1960s with several timber crop species including Eucalyptus sp.,
Flindersia brayleyana (Queensland maple), and Toona ciliata (Australia
red cedar). The DOFAW staff advised us that Drosophila mulli's host
plant (Pritchardia beccariana) is scattered within the timber-planted
areas and within the above critical habitat units. Although the two
critical habitat units encompass areas planted with Eucalyptus sp. and
other nonnative timber species, they contain the primary constituent
elements, are occupied by D. mulli, and incorporate the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of this species.
We agree that the process of designating critical habitat may be
improved if it were completed concurrently with the development of a
recovery plan. However, the Act and its implementing regulations
require that we specify critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time a species is proposed for listing (50 CFR
424.12(a)). In the case of the 12 picture-wing flies, we are also under
a court-ordered deadline to complete the critical habitat designations
by November 15, 2008 (Center for Biological Diversity v. Allen, CV-05-
274-HA).
During the development of the revised proposed rule, we aligned the
proposed critical habitat areas with areas that were already designated
as critical habitat for other species to the maximum extent practicable
on State and private lands. On the Island of Oahu, critical habitat has
only been designated for one plant (Urera kaalae), which is a host
plant for Drosophila hemipeza and D. montgomeryi. There is no
designated critical habitat for the host plants of D. heteroneura, D.
mulli, and D. ochrobasis on the Island of Hawaii. Therefore, we were
not able to align existing host plant critical habitat with proposed
critical habitat for the picture-wing flies on the Island of Hawaii. We
believe that the lands designated as critical habitat in this final
rule accurately represent areas that will provide for the conservation
of the 12 picture-wing flies.
(9) Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of State Parks commented that four areas within the
proposed unit Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee, appeared to include
roads, lawns, and buildings, and other structures. The State presented
maps depicting the areas in question, and requested that we remove them
from the designation if the primary constituent elements were not
present.
Our Response: Our analysis of satellite imagery determined that the
developed areas in question are not within the Drosophila musaphilia--
Unit 1--Kokee critical habitat unit. Accordingly, the area in question
is not included in the area that we originally proposed and are herein
designating as critical habitat.
(10) Comment: The State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs
commented that they support the reconsideration of the Hawaiian
picture-wing fly critical habitat, and that the revised designation
more accurately reflects the best scientific data available as required
by the Act. The State Historic Preservation Office commented that the
designation of critical habitat does not affect historic properties.
Our Response: Based on the best scientific data available, we agree
that this final rule more accurately reflects the physical and
biological requirements of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies. We also
agree that the designation of critical habitat does not affect historic
properties.
Public Comments Related to the Military and Exemption of Military Lands
From the Designation
(11) Comment: Four individuals or non-governmental organizations
submitted written comments or testimony at the public hearings stating
opposition to the exemption of Oahu military lands from the
designation. They also requested that we provide information on our
finding that the Oahu Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan will
protect the two picture-wing fly species involved (Drosophila
substenoptera and D. aglaia), and that we justify the exemption of
military lands from the critical habitat designation.
[[Page 73798]]
Our Response: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for
designation as critical habitat. Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) states that ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.'' Accordingly, those portions of the Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP) applicable to areas we were
considering for critical habitat designation for Drosophila aglaia and
D. substenoptera were evaluated according to the requirements of
section 4(B)(i) of the Act.
The U.S. Army Oahu INRMP for the West Range of the Schofield
Barracks Military Reservation was completed in 2000. This INRMP
includes several conservation measures that benefit Drosophila aglaia
and D. substenoptera. The measures include: (1) Outplanting of native
plants, which provides for the natural forest conditions necessary for
adult fly foraging by both species; (2) feral ungulate control, which
prevents both direct loss of the larval stage host plants and adult
foraging substrate of both species and prevents habitat alteration by
feral ungulates; (3) wildland wildfire control, which prevents both
loss and alteration of habitat for D. aglaia; and (4) nonnative plant
control, which prevents habitat alteration for both species.
Accordingly, we determined that the plan provides a benefit to D.
aglaia and D. subsenoptera, and we therefore did not designate
approximately 78 acres (31 ha) as critical habitat for D. aglaia and D.
substenoptera under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. However, since
these areas are important for the recovery of these species, we intend
to work closely with the U.S. Army to identify recovery tasks and
implement recovery efforts for these two species as recovery plans are
developed. The other 10 species of picture-wing flies do not occur on
Army land.
(12) Comment: One individual provided testimony at a public hearing
stating that the military is continually expanding their presence in
the Hawaiian Islands at the expense of environmental protection. This
commenter cited the recent expansion of training activities by the U.S.
Navy and introduction of the U.S. Army's Stryker Brigade as examples.
Our Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal
Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. In this regard, it is paramount that we
work cooperatively with all partners (including the military) to
promote environmental stewardship. Although the U.S. Navy training
activities and the presence of the U.S. Army Stryker Brigade are beyond
the scope of this final critical habitat designation, we look forward
to working with them to improve the status of imperiled species on
their lands.
Public Comments Related to the Effects of the Designation on Private
Landownership
(13) Comment: Two individuals provided written comments stating
opposition to the designation because they believe it will negatively
impact the rights of private landowners. One commenter did not want tax
money to contribute to fruit flies stripping fellow citizens of their
property rights.
Our Response: The effect of a critical habitat designation is that
activities authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency
require consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act to
ensure they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. For example, 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 under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344
et seq.) or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us, or activities on
private or State lands funded by a Federal agency, such as the Federal
Highway Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding,
would be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Activities on
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency are not subject to any
regulatory requirements as a result of critical habitat designation.
The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area, and the designation of critical habitat does not
allow government or public access to private lands. Most activities
that require a Federal agency to consult with us generally can proceed
without modification.
(14) Comment: One land manager expressed opposition to the
designation of critical habitat on private lands within the proposed
Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui. This commenter questioned
whether the current conservation program in place for the Puu Kukui
Watershed Preserve by the Maui Land and Pineapple Company might
preclude the need for designation in light of the perceived loss of
real property rights within the area.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that developing and
maintaining public and private partnerships for species conservation
are important. After fully evaluating the Puu Kukui conservation
program, we are excluding a portion of the proposed Drosophila
neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui from the final designation, since the
private landowner is proactively managing the area for the conservation
benefit of the D. neoclavisetae and numerous other listed species. We
believe that there is a higher likelihood that beneficial conservation
activities will continue if we do not include this area in this
critical habitat designation. We have determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including this area as critical
habitat, as is discussed in detail in the ``Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below.
Other Public Comments
(15) Comment: One individual expressed opposition to the listing
process that determined Federal status for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing
flies, and criticized the fact that comprehensive surveys were not
conducted during the listing process.
Our Response: Our November 28, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 67428)
specifically solicited comments on the proposed critical habitat
revision. Comments relating to the May 9, 2006, final listing rule (71
FR 26835) are hereby acknowledged, but are beyond the scope of this
final critical habitat designation.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies, we reviewed and considered comments from
the public and peer reviewers on the November 28, 2007, proposed
designation of critical habitat (72 FR 67428), the March 6, 2008,
document announcing the public hearings and the reopening of the
comment period (73 FR 12065), and the August 12, 2008, document
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and an
amended required determinations section of the proposed rule and the
reopening of the comment period (73 FR 46860). As a result of
[[Page 73799]]
comments received, we made the following changes to our proposed
designation:
(1) The final designation includes the following revision of the
primary constituent elements used to identify critical habitat for each
of the 12 picture-wing fly species: Populations of the larval stage
host plant(s) that exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals). This change does not affect the boundaries of
the proposed designation.
(2) We have excluded 450 ac (182 ha) of lands owned by the Maui
Land and Pineapple Company (MLP) that we proposed as critical habitat
for Drosophila neoclavisetae, within the Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit
1--Puu Kukui, from the final designation (see the ``Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final rule for further
details on this exclusion).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) that may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public
access to private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
private landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding
or authorization for an activity that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may
require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species). Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed only when we determine that those areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. For the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, we
have determined that it is not necessary to designate critical habitat
in unoccupied areas, as there are adequate occupied areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When determining which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions. They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the time of the Federal agency
action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species
outside their designated critical habitat areas may require
consultation under section 7 of the Act and may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied by the species at
the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species that may require special management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical and biological features to be the
primary
[[Page 73800]]
constituent elements laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for the conservation of the species. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring;
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific primary constituent elements required for
the 12 species of picture-wing flies from their biological needs, as
described in the revised proposed critical habitat rule published in
the Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428), and below.
As required by 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are to list the known PCEs with
our description of critical habitat. The PCEs provided by the physical
and biological features upon which the designation is based may
include, but are not limited to, the following: Roost sites, nesting
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,
water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinators,
geological formations, vegetation types, tides, and specific soil
types.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Drosophila aglaia, D.
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D.
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia
We identified the PCEs for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies based
on our knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the
species, and the physical and biological features of the habitat
necessary to sustain their essential life history functions. To
determine what is essential for these species, we determined the amount
and spatial arrangement of PCEs necessary to provide for their
conservation. Not all areas that contain one or more of the PCEs would
necessarily be included in the designation if those PCEs were not in
the quantity and configuration requisite to meeting the conservation
needs of the species. For example, areas may not be included in the
designation if they are in excess of the habitat that has been
determined to be sufficient to meet the conservation and recovery needs
of the species. Additional information about how we identified the PCEs
can also be found in the revised proposed critical habitat rule
published on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428). All areas designated as
critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies are currently occupied,
within the species' historical geographic range, contain all relevant
PCEs, and support both the larval and adult foraging stages of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The general life cycle of Hawaiian Drosophilidae is typical of that
of most flies. After mating, females lay eggs from which larvae (the
immature stage) hatch. As larvae grow, they molt (shed their skin)
through three successive stages (instars). When they are fully grown,
the larvae change into pupae (a transitional form) in which they
metamorphose and emerge as adults. Breeding for each of the 12 species
of Hawaiian picture-wing flies included in this final rule generally
occurs year-round, but egg laying and larval development increase
following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter, upon
which the flies feed, increases in response to the heavy rains (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2). In general, Drosophila lay between
50 and 200 eggs at a single time. Eggs develop into adults in about a
month, and adults generally become sexually mature 1 month later.
Adults generally live for 1 to 2 months (Science Panel 2005).
It is unknown how much space is needed for these flies to engage in
courtship and territorial displays, and mating activities. Adult
behavior may be disrupted or modified by less than ideal conditions,
such as decreased forest cover or loss of suitable food material (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2). Additionally, adult behavior may
be disrupted, and the flies themselves may be susceptible to the
hunting activities of nonnative Hymenoptera, including yellow jacket
wasps and ants (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 41-42). The larvae
generally pupate within the soil located below their host plant
material, and it is presumed that they require relatively undisturbed
and unmodified soil conditions to complete this stage before reaching
adulthood (Science Panel 2005, p. 5). Lastly, it is well-known that
these 12 species and most other picture-wing flies are susceptible to
even slight temperature increases, an issue that may be exacerbated by
loss of suitable forest cover or the impacts from drought (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2).
Food
Each of the 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies described in
this document is found on a single island, and the larvae of each are
dependent upon only a single or a few related species of plants. The
adult flies feed on a variety of decomposing plant matter. The water or
moisture requirements for all 12 of these species is unknown; however,
during drier seasons or during times of drought, it is expected that
available adult and larval stage food material in the form of decaying
plant matter may decrease (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2).
Because the larval stage of each of the 12 species feeds only on the
decomposing portions of their specific host plants, designated lands
must encompass an area sufficient to support healthy, reproducing host
plant populations exhibiting one or more life stages (e.g., from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of each species, and the habitat requirements to sustain the
essential life history functions of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
we provide the PCEs for the larval and adult life stages of Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia below:
Oahu Species
The PCEs for Drosophila aglaia are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland,
ohia, koa, and Diospyros sp., forest between the elevations of 1,865-
2,985 feet (ft) (568-910 meters (m)); and (2) the larval stage host
plant Urera glabra, which exhibits one or more life stages (from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila hemipeza are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland,
ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-3,005 ft (524-916
m); and (2) the larval stage host plants Cyanea angustifolia, C.
calycina, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (Endangered (E)), C. grimesiana
ssp. obatae (E), C. membranacea, C. pinnatifida (E), C. superba ssp.
superba (E), Lobelia hypoleuca, L. niihauensis (E), L. yuccoides, and
Urera kaalae (E), which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila montgomeryi are: (1) Mesic, lowland,
diverse ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft
(524-910 m); and (2) the larval stage host plant Urera kaalae (E),
which exhibits one or more life stages
[[Page 73801]]
(from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila obatai are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia
and koa forest between the elevations of 1,475-2,535 ft (450-773 m);
and (2) the larval stage host plant Pleomele forbesii, which exhibits
one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila substenoptera are: (1) Mesic to wet,
lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of
1,920-4,030 ft (585-1,228 m); and (2) the larval stage host plants
Cheirodendron platyphyllum ssp. platyphyllum, C. trigynum ssp.
trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis, and T. oahuensis, which exhibit
one or more of the life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila tarphytrichia are: (1) Dry to mesic,
lowland, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft
(524-910 m); and (2) the larval stage host plant Charpentiera obovata,
which exhibits one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
Hawaii (Big Island) Species
The PCEs for Drosophila heteroneura are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane,
ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 2,980-5,755 ft (908-1,754
m); and (2) the larval stage host plants Cheirodendron trigynum ssp.
trigynum, Clermontia clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana,
C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana (E), C. montis-loa, C.
parviflora, C. peleana (E), C. pyrularia (E), and Delissea parviflora,
which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila mulli are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia forest
between the elevations of 1,955-3,585 ft (596-1,093 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plant Pritchardia beccariana, which exhibits one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila ochrobasis are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane,
ohia, koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest between the elevations of
3,850-5,390 ft (1,173-1,643 m); and (2) the larval stage host plants
Clermontia calophylla, C. clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp.
rockiana, C. drepanomorpha (E), C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C.
lindseyana (E), C. montis-loa, C. parviflora, C. peleana (E), C.
pyrularia (E), C. waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine lanaiensis, M.
lessertiana, and M. sandwicensis, which exhibit one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent individuals).
Kauai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila musaphilia are: (1) Mesic, montane, ohia
and koa forest between the elevations of 3,310-3,740 ft (1,009-1128 m);
and (2) the larval stage host plant Acacia koa, which exhibits one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
Maui Species
The PCEs for Drosophila neoclavisetae are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia
forest between the elevations of 3,405-4,590 ft (1,036-1,399 m), and
(2) the larval stage host plants Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia
ssp. macrostegia, which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
Molokai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila differens are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia
forest between the elevations of 3,645-4,495 ft (1,111-1,370 m); and
(2) the larval stage host plants Clermontia arborescens ssp. waihiae,
C. granidiflora ssp. munroi, C. kakeana, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes
(E), and C. pallida, which exhibit one or more life stages (from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
This final critical habitat designation identifies the known
physical or biological features in the quantity and spatial arrangement
on the landscape essential to support the life history functions of the
species. Each of the areas designated in this rule contains the PCEs to
provide for one or more of the life history functions of Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
occupied at the time of listing contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, and whether
these features may require special management considerations or
protections.
Nonnative plants and animals pose the greatest threats to these 12
picture-wing flies. In order to counter the ongoing degradation and
loss of habitat caused by feral ungulates and invasive nonnative
plants, active management or control of nonnative species is necessary
for the conservation of all populations of the 12 picture-wing flies
(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 37-38). Without active management or
control, native habitat containing the features that are essential for
the conservation of the 12 picture-wing flies will continue to be
degraded or destroyed. In addition, habitat degradation and destruction
as a result of wildfire, competition with nonnative insects, and
predation by nonnative insects, such as the western yellow-jacket wasp
(Vespula pensylvanica), may significantly threaten many of the
populations of the 12 picture-wing flies. Active management is
necessary to control these threats, as well.
The threats to the physical and biological features in the areas we
are designating as critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies that
may require special management considerations or protection include
feral ungulates, rats, invasive nonnative plants, and yellow-jacket
wasps. In addition, the units in dry or mesic habitats may also require
special management to address wildfire and ants. Each of these threats
is summarized below. For a more detailed discussion of each threat
refer to the proposed revised critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67434).
Feral Ungulates
Feral ungulates have devastated native vegetation in many areas of
the Hawaiian Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-66). Because the
endemic Hawaiian flora evolved without the presence of browsing and
grazing ungulates, many plant groups have lost their adaptive defenses
such as spines, thorns, stinging hairs, and defensive chemicals
(University of Hawaii Department of Geography 1998, p. 138). Pigs (Sus
scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos taurus) disturb the
soil, and readily eat native plants (including the native host plants
for 1 or more of the 12 picture-wing flies), and distribute nonnative
plant seeds that can alter the ecosystem. In addition, browsing and
grazing by feral ungulates in steep and remote terrain causes severe
erosion of entire watersheds due to foraging and trampling behaviors
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-64 and 66).
Rats (Rattus spp.)
Several species of nonnative rats, including the Polynesian rat
(Rattus exulans), the roof rat (Rattus rattus), and the Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), are present on the Hawaiian Islands and cause
considerable environmental degradation (Staples and Cowie 2001). The
seeds, bark, and flowers of several of the picture-wing flies' host
plants, including Clermontia sp., Pleomele sp., and Pritchardia
beccariana, are susceptible to herbivory by all the rat species
(Science Panel 2005; K.
[[Page 73802]]
Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S. Montgomery, pers. comm. 2005b). The
herbivory by rats causes host plant mortality, diminished vigor, and
seed predation, resulting in reduced host plant fecundity and viability
(Science Panel 2005; K. Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S. Montgomery, pers.
comm. 2005b).
Nonnative Plants
The invasion of nonnative plants contributes to the degradation of
native forests and the host plants of picture-wing flies (Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 38-39; Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 52-53 and 971;
Science Panel 2005, p. 28), and threatens all populations of the 12
picture-wing flies. Some nonnative plants form dense stands, thickets,
or mats that shade or out-compete native plants. Nonnative vines cause
damage or death to native trees by overloading branches, causing
breakage, or forming a dense canopy cover that intercepts sunlight and
shades out native plants below. Nonnative grasses readily burn. They
often grow at the border of forests, and carry wildfire into areas with
woody native plants (Smith 1985, pp. 228-229; Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
pp. 88-94). The nonnative grasses are more wildfire-adapted and can
spread prolifically after a wildfire, ultimately creating a stand of
nonnative grasses where native forest once existed. These nonnative
plants cannot be used as host plants by the flies. Some nonnative plant
species produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plant
species (Smith 1985, p. 228; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 971).
Wildfire
Wildfire threatens habitat of the Hawaiian picture-wing flies in
dry to mesic grassland, shrubland, and forests on the islands of Kauai
(Drosophila musaphilia), Oahu (D. aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. mongomeryi,
D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia), and Hawaii (D. heteroneura). Dry and
mesic regions in Hawaii have been altered in the past 200 years by an
increase in wildfire frequency, a condition to which the native flora
is not adapted. The invasion of wildfire-adapted alien plants,
facilitated by ungulate disturbance, has contributed to wildfire
frequency. This change in wildfire regime has reduced the amount of
forest cover for native species (Hughes et al. 1991, p. 743; Blackmore
and Vitousek 2000, p. 625) and resulted in an intensification of fire
threat and feral ungulate disturbance in the remaining native forest
areas. Habitat damaged or destroyed by wildfire is more likely to be
revegetated by nonnative plants that cannot be used as host plants by
these picture-wing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 47).
Nonnative Insect Competitors
The Hawaiian Islands now support several established species of
nonnative insects which compete with some of the 12 picture-wing flies
within their larval stage host plants. The most important group of
nonnative insect competitors includes tipulid flies (crane flies,
family Tipulidae). The larvae of some species within this group feed
within the decomposing bark of some of the host plants utilized by
picture-wing flies, including Charpentiera, Cheirodendron, Clermontia,
and Pleomele spp. (Science Panel 2005, p. 11; K. Magnacca, U.S.
Geological Survey, in litt. 2005, p. 1; S. Montgomery, in litt. 2005a,
p. 1). Each of the picture-wing flies addressed in this rule, except
for Drosophila mulli, D. musaphilia, and D. neoclavisetae, face larval-
stage resource competition from nonnative tipulid flies. The Hawaiian
Islands also support several species of nonnative beetles (family
Scolytidae, genus Coccotrypes), a few of which bore into and feed on
the nuts produced by certain native plant species including Pritchardia
beccariana, the host plant of Drosophila mulli. Affected Pritchardia
spp., including P. beccariana, drop their fruit before the nuts reach
maturity due to the boring action of the scolytid beetles. Little
natural regeneration of this host plant species has been observed in
the wild since the arrival of this scolytid beetle (K. Magnacca, in
litt. 2005, p. 1; Science Panel 2005, p. 11). Compared to the host
plants of the other picture-wing flies, P. beccariana is long lived (up
to 100 years), but over time scolytid beetles may have a significant
impact on the availability of habitat for D. mulli.
Nonnative Insect Predators
Nonnative arthropods pose a serious threat to Hawaii's native
Drosophila, both through direct predation or parasitism as well as
competition for food or space (Howarth and Medeiros 1989, pp. 82-83;
Howarth and Ramsay 1991, pp. 80-83; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp.
40-45 and 47; Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 41, 54-57). Due to their
large colony sizes and systematic foraging habits, species of social
Hymenoptera (ants and some wasps) and parasitic wasps pose the greatest
predation threat to the Hawaiian picture-wing flies (Carson 1982, p. 1,
1986, p. 7; Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 40-45 and 47).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial information available in determining the
specific areas within the geographical occupied by each of the picture-
wing flies, Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D.
heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae,
D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia at the
time of listing that (1) contain PCEs in the quantity and spatial
arrangement to support life history functions essential for the
conservation of each of these species; and (2) may require special
management considerations or protection. We relied on information in
our prior rulemaking and new information gained through the peer review
and public comment process. Each area that we are designating as
critical habitat is occupied, contains the PCEs, and supports both the
larval and adult foraging stages of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly
species. The discussion below summarizes the criteria used to identify
critical habitat. For additional information, refer to the proposed
critical habitat rule that was published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67435).
The following geospatial, tabular data sets were used in preparing
this final critical habitat designation: (1) Occurrence data for all 12
species (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-16); (2) vegetation
mapping data for the Hawaiian Islands (Gap Analysis Program (GAP)
Data--Hawaiian Islands 2005); (3) color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital
aerial photographs for the Hawaiian Islands dated April to May 2005;
and (4) 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles. Land ownership was determined
from geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from Oahu County
(2006); Hawaii County (2005); Kauai County (2005); and Maui County
(2004).
We also reviewed a variety of peer-reviewed and other articles in
preparing this final rule, including: (1) Background information on the
biology of each of the 12 species (e.g., Montgomery 1975, pp. 83, 94,
96-98, and 100; Foote and Carson 1995, pp. 1-4; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 1-47); (2) plant ecology and biology (Wagner et al. 1999, pp.
45, 52-53, 971, 1,314-1,315, and 1,351-1,352); and (3) the ecology of
the Hawaiian Islands and the areas we are designating in this final
rule (e.g., Smith 1985, pp. 227-233;
[[Page 73803]]
Stone 1985, pp. 251-253, 256, and 260-263; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
59-66, 73-76, and 88-94). Additional information reviewed included: (1)
The October 29, 1991, final rule listing the plant species Urera kaalae
(a host plant for two of the fly species) as endangered (56 FR 55770);
(2) the June 17, 2003, final critical habitat designation for U. kaalae
(68 FR 35950); (3) the May 9, 2006, final listing rule for the 12
species of picture-wing flies (71 FR 26835); (4) the August 15, 2006,
proposed critical habitat designation for 11 species of picture-wing
flies (71 FR 46994); (5) unpublished reports by The Nature Conservancy
of Hawaii (TNCH); and (6) aerial photographs and satellite imagery of
the Hawaiian Islands.
We obtained additional information through personal communications
with landowners, scientists, and land managers familiar with the 12
species and their habitats, including individuals affiliated with the
University of Hawaii, University of California at Berkeley, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Bishop Museum, Hawaii State Department of Land
and Natural Resources, TNCH, and the U.S. Army. Specific information
from these sources included estimates of historic and current
distribution, abundance, and territory sizes for the 12 species, as
well as data on resources and habitat requirements.
The primary constituent elements of this final critical habitat
designation include both the host plants used by the larvae, as well as
the native forest components used by foraging adults. We used known
adult location data to identify each critical habitat unit, and
included the surrounding area encompassing the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. While there has
been considerable survey work conducted for Hawaiian picture-wing flies
in an overall sense, some areas where these 12 species are found have
not been surveyed in many years. We used the best available, most
recent survey data for adult flies to determine which sites we would
identify as occupied and which sites we would identify as unoccupied.
We did not designate critical habitat in areas where a species had been
observed, but where the areas had either become degraded (e.g., due to
loss or degradation of native vegetation, increase in nonnative
vegetation, or documented presence of yellow-jacket wasps) and lacked
PCEs, or if multiple surveys over the course of several years failed to
detect the species. The final critical habitat unit boundaries included
in this rule reflect the results of this analysis, after taking into
account the presence of known developed areas, as described below.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and
other structures that lack PCEs within the 32 critical habitat units
designated by this final rule for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D.
neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia. However, because of the scale of the maps, the maps may
not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Accordingly, any
developed areas that fall within the critical habitat boundaries
reflected on the maps in this final rule have been excluded by text in
this rule, and are not included within the critical habitat
designation. Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species or primary
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 32 units as critical habitat for Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia.
In total, approximately 8,788 ac (3,556 ha) occur within the
boundaries of this critical habitat designation. The critical habitat
areas described below constitute our current best assessment of areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing, contain the primary
constituent elements essential for the conservation of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, and may require special management. The 32 areas
designated as critical habitat are:
Table 1--Critical Habitat Units and Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Island Unit name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oahu............................... Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1--Palikea.
Oahu............................... Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu Kaua.
Oahu............................... Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch.
Oahu............................... Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2--Makaha Valley.
Oahu............................... Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3--Palikea.
Oahu............................... Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4--Puu Kaua.
Oahu............................... Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch.
Oahu............................... Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2--Palikea.
Oahu............................... Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3--Puu Kaua.
Oahu............................... Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu Pane.
Oahu............................... Drosophila obatai--Unit 2--Wailupe.
Oahu............................... Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 1--Mt. Kaala.
Oahu............................... Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 2--Palikea.
Oahu............................... Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch.
Oahu............................... Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 2--Palikea.
Oahu............................... Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 3--Puu Kaua.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1--Kau Forest.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona Refuge.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3--Lower Kahuku.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4--Pit Crater.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5--Waihaka Gulch.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosphila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa Forest.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosphila mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosphila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1--Kipuka 9.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2--Kipuka 14.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3--Kohala Mountains East.
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4--Kohala Mountains West.
[[Page 73804]]
Hawaii (Big Island)................ Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5--Upper Kahuku.
Kauai.............................. Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee.
Maui............................... Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui.
Molakai............................ Drosophila differens--Unit 1--Puu Kolekole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The areas identified as containing the features essential to the
conservation of each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies for which we
are designating critical habitat include a variety of undeveloped,
forested areas that are used for larval stage development and adult fly
stage foraging. Designated critical habitat includes land under
Federal, State, City and County, and private ownership. The approximate
area, land ownership, and area excluded from each designated critical
habitat unit are shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Designated Critical Habitat Units for Drosophila Aglaia, D. Differens, D. Hemipeza, D. Heteroneura, D.
Montgomeryi, D. Mulli, D. Musaphilia, D. Neoclavisetae, D. Obatai, D. Ochrobasis, D. Substenoptera, and D.
Tarphytrichia.
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries and are given in acres (ac) (hectares
(ha)). Areas in parentheses overlap with other units; therefore, the total area designated as critical habitat
for each species will not equal the total area designated for the 12 species combined]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership [ac/ha] Lands
-------------------------------------------- meeting
the
definition Lands Critical
Species--unit City and of excluded habitat
Federal State Co. of Private critical [ac/ha] [ac/ha]
Honolulu habitat
[ac/ha]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oahu Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1--Palikea 0 4 0 204 208 0 208
2 83 84 0 84
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu 0 0 0 87 87 0 87
Kaua............................. 35 35 0 35
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1-- 0 0 0 527 527 0 527
Kaluaa Gulch..................... 213 213 0 213
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2-- 0 40 71 0 111 0 111
Makaha Valley.................... 16 29 45 0 45
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3-- 0 (4) 0 (204) (208) 0 (208)
Palikea.......................... (2) (83) (84) 0 (84)
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4--Puu 0 0 0 (87) (87) 0 (87)
Kaua............................. (35) (35) 0 (35)
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 1-- 0 0 0 (527) (527) 0 (527)
Kaluaa Gulch..................... (213) (213) 0 (213)
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2-- 0 (4) 0 (204) (208) 0 (208)
Palikea.......................... (2) (84) (84) 0 (84)
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3-- 0 0 0 (87) (87) 0 (87)
Puu Kaua......................... (35) (35) 0 (35)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu 0 33 0 0 33 0 33
Pane............................. 13 13 0 13
Drosophila obatai--Unit 2--Wailupe 0 45 0 32 77 0 77
18 13 31 0 31
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 1-- 0 59 57 0 116 0 116
Mt. Kaala........................ 24 23 47 0 47
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 2-- 0 (4) 0 (204) (208) 0 (208)
Palikea.......................... (2) (83) (84) 0 (84)
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 1-- 0 0 0 (527) (527) 0 (527)
Kaluaa Gulch..................... (213) (213) 0 (213)
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 2-- 0 (4) 0 (204) (208) 0 (208)
Palikea.......................... (2) (83) (84) 0 (84)
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 3-- 0 0 0 (87) (87) 0 (87)
Puu Kaua......................... (35) (35) 0 (35)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Island Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1-- 0 125 0 0 125 0 125
Kau Forest....................... 51 51 0 51
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2 3,604 0 0 0 3,604 0 3,604
Kona Refuge...................... 1,459 1,459 0 1,459
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3-- 687 0 0 0 687 0 687
Lower Kahuku..................... 278 278 0 278
[[Page 73805]]
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4-- 0 0 0 46 46 0 46
Pit Crater....................... 18 18 0 18
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5-- 0 120 0 0 120 0 120
Waihaka Gulch.................... 49 49 0 49
Drosophila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa 0 244 0 0 244 0 244
Forest........................... 99 99 0 99
Drosophila mulli--Unit 2-- 0 76 0 0 76 0 76
Stainback Forest................. 31 31 0 31
Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea 0 373 0 0 373 0 373
Forest........................... 151 151 0 151
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1-- 0 9 0 0 9 0 9
Kipuka 9......................... 4 4 0 4
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2-- 0 15 0 0 15 0 15
Kipuka 14........................ 6 6 0 6
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3-- 0 193 0 0 193 0 193
Kohala Mountains East............ 78 78 0 78
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4-- 0 41 0 91 132 0 132
Kohala Mountains West............ 17 54 0 54
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5-- 64 24 0 0 88 0 88
Upper Kahuku..................... 26 10 36 0 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1-- 0 794 0 0 794 0 794
Kokee............................ 321 321 0 321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maui Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1-- 0 134 0 450 584 450 134
Puu Kukui........................ 54 182 237 182 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molokai Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila differens--Unit 1--Puu 0 0 0 988 988 0 988
Kolekole......................... 400 400 0 400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (32 units).............. 4,356 2,331 128 2,424 9,238 450 8,788
1,763 943 52 981 3,738 182 3,556
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of the physical and biological features essential for the
recovery and conservation of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies. Brief
descriptions of all units and the rationale for why each unit meets the
definition of critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies are
presented below. Each of the designated critical habitat units for the
12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies was occupied by the species at the time
of listing, contains PCEs that provide for both the larval and adult
life stage of one or more of the 12 species of picture-wing flies, and
may require special management considerations or protection (see Table
3).
[[Page 73806]]
Table 3--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Physical and Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of Drosophila Aglaia, D. Differens, D. Hemipeza, D. Heteroneura, D. Montgomeryi, D. Mulli, D.
Musaphilia, D. Neoclavisetae, D. Obatai, D. Ochrobasis, D. Substenoptera, and D. Tarphytrichia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats requiring special management or Occupied at the Currently
Species--unit protections time of listing occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oahu Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Palikea. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kaua. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kaluaa Gulch. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Makaha Valley. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Palikea. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Puu Kaua. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kaluaa Gulch. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Palikea. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Puu Kaua. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Pane. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila obatai--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Wailupe. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, and Yes............. Yes.
1--Mt. Kaala. nonnative competitors.
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, and Yes............. Yes.
2--Palikea. nonnative competitors.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
1--Kaluaa Gulch. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
2--Palikea. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
3--Puu Kaua. ants, nonnative competitors, and wildfire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Island Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kau Forest. yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kona Refuge. yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Lower Kahuku. yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Pit Crater. yellow-jacket wasps, ants, nonnative
competitors, and wildfire.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Waihaka Gulch. yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Forest. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Stainback Forest. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 3-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Waiakea Forest. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kipuka 9. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kipuka 14. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kohala Mountains East. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Kohala Mountains West. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Upper Kahuku. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73807]]
Kauai Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, yellow- Yes............. Yes.
Kokee. jacket wasps, ants, and wildfire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maui Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, and Yes............. Yes.
1--Puu Kukui. yellow-jacket wasps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molokai Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila differens--Unit 1-- Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, Yes............. Yes.
Puu Kolekole. yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oahu Units
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1--Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,920-2,985 ft (585-910
m), this unit is privately and State-owned, and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. aglaia at the time of listing.
This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and the
native forest components used by foraging adults and identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of Urera
glabra, the larval stage host plant associated with this species.
Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of
lowland, diverse mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,865-2,855 ft (570-870
m), this unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area called
the Honouliuli Preserve, which is administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. aglaia at the time of listing.
It includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging adults that have been identified as
the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of Urera
glabra, the larval stage host plant associated with this species.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac (213
ha) of diverse, mesic forest within the southern Waianae Mountains of
Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,720-2,785 ft (525-850 m), this
unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-10), this
unit was occupied by D. hemipeza at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of Urera
kaalae, Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2--Makaha Valley consists of 111 ac (45
ha) of lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,995-3,005 ft (610-915
m), this unit is owned by the City and County of Honolulu and the State
of Hawaii, and is largely managed as a State forest reserve. According
to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 4-5),
this unit was occupied by D. hemipeza at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of Urera
kaalae, Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3--Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,920-2,985 ft (585-910
m), this unit is privately and State-owned, and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. hemipeza at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Urera kaalae, Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4--Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of
lowland, diverse, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern
Waianae Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,865-2,855 ft
(570-870 m), this unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area
called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. hemipeza at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Urera kaalae, Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac
(213 ha) of diverse, mesic forest within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,720-2,785 ft (525-850 m), this
unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
[[Page 73808]]
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. montgomeryi at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Urera kaalae, the larval stage host plant associated
with this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2--Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha)
of lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,920-2,985 ft (585-910
m), this unit is both privately and State-owned, and is part of a
larger area called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt.
2005a, pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. montgomeryi at the time
of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Urera kaalae, the larval stage host plant associated
with this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3--Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha)
of lowland, diverse, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern
Waianae Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,865-2,855 ft
(570-870 m), this unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area
called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. montgomeryi at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Urera kaalae, the larval stage host plant associated
with this species.
Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu Pane consists of 33 ac (13 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the northeastern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,760-2,535 ft (535-770
m), this unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely managed as
part of a State forest reserve. According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 6), this unit was occupied by D.
obatai at the time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this species. This
unit also includes populations of Pleomele forbesii, the larval stage
host plant associated with this species.
Drosophila obatai--Unit 2--Wailupe consists of 77 ac (31 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southeastern Koolau
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,475-2,155 ft (445-655
m), this unit is privately and State-owned, and is largely managed as
part of a State forest reserve. According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 6), this unit was occupied by D.
obatai at the time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this species. This
unit also includes populations of Pleomele forbesii, the larval stage
host plant associated with this species.
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 1--Mt. Kaala consists of 116 ac (47
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest within the northern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 2,750-4,030 ft (840-1,230 m),
this unit is owned by the City and County of Honolulu and the State of
Hawaii, and is largely managed as part of a State forest reserve and
natural area reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 7), this unit was occupied by D.
substenoptera at the time of listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of Cheirodendron sp. and
Tetraplasandra sp., the larval stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 2--Palikea consists of 208 ac (84
ha) of lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,920-2,985 ft (585-910
m), this unit is privately and State-owned, and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. substenoptera at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Cheirodendron sp. and Tetraplasandra sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac
(213 ha) of diverse, mesic forest within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,720-2,785 ft (525-850 m), this
unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-10), this
unit was occupied by D. tarphytrichia at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of
Charpenteira obovata, the larval stage host plant associated with this
species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 2--Palikea consists of 208 ac (84
ha) of lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,920-2,985 ft (585-910
m), this unit is privately and State-owned, and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. tarphytrichia at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Charpenteira obovata, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 3--Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35
ha) of lowland, diverse mesic, koa and ohia forest within the southern
Waianae Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between 1,865-2,855 ft
(570-870 m), this unit is privately owned and is part of a larger area
called the Honouliuli Preserve, administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1-10), this unit was occupied by D. tarphytrichia at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Charpenteira obovata, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Hawaii (Big Island) Units
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1--Kau Forest consists of 125 ac (51
ha) of
[[Page 73809]]
montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located on the southern flank of
Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 5,215-
5,510 ft (1,590-1,680 m), this unit is owned by the State of Hawaii,
and is largely managed as part of a State forest reserve. According to
the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 8), this
unit was occupied by D. heteroneura at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of
Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea parviflora, the
larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona Refuge consists of 3,604 ac
(1,459 ha) of montane, mesic, closed koa and ohia forest, and is
located on the western flank of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 2,980-5,755 (910-1,755 m), this unit is
owned by the Service, and is managed as part of the Kona Unit of the
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 8), this unit was
occupied by D. heteroneura at the time of listing. This unit includes
the known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also includes populations of
Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea parviflora, the
larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3--Lower Kahuku consists of 687 ac
(278 ha) of montane, mesic to wet, ohia forest, and is located on the
southern flank of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 3,705-4,685 ft (1,130-1,430 m), this unit is owned
and managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, p. 8), this unit was occupied by D. heteroneura at the
time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4--Pit Crater consists of 46 ac (18
ha) of montane, mesic, open ohia forest with mixed grass species, and
is located on the western flank of Hualalai and south of the Kaupulehu
lava flow on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 3,835-
4,525 ft (1,170-1,380 m), this unit is privately owned and managed.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 8), this unit was occupied by D. heteroneura at the time of listing.
This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5--Waihaka Gulch consists of 120 ac
(49 ha) of montane, wet, koa and ohia forest, and is located on the
southern flank of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 4,065-4,390 ft (1,240-1,340 m), this unit is owned by
the State of Hawaii, and is largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in
litt. 2005a, p. 8), this unit was occupied by D. heteroneura at the
time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa Forest consists of 244 ac (99 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest and is located to the northeast of Kilauea
Caldera on the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 3,120-3,300 ft (950-1,005 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely managed as part of a State
forest reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit was occupied by D. mulli at the time
of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Pritchardia beccariana, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest consists of 76 ac (31
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located to the northeast of
Kilauea Caldera on the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on the island of
Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 1,955-2,165 ft (595-660 m), this
unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely managed as part of
a State forest reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit was occupied by D. mulli
at the time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults
that have been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Pritchardia beccariana, the larval stage host
plant associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest consists of 373 ac (151
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located to the northeast of
Kilauea Caldera on the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on the island of
Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 3,130-3,585 ft (955-1,095 m), this
unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely managed as part of
a State forest reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit was occupied by D. mulli
at the time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults
that have been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Pritchardia beccariana, the larval stage host
plant associated with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1--Kipuka 9 consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest with native shrubs, and is located within the
Saddle Road area on the northeastern flank of Mauna Loa on the island
of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 5,075-5,125 ft (1,545-1,560 m),
this unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely managed as
part of a State forest reserve. According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit was occupied by
D. ochrobasis at the time of listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of Clermontia sp., Marattia
douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the larval stage host plants associated
with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2--Kipuka 14 consists of 15 ac (6 ha)
of montane, wet, ohia forest with native shrubs, and is located within
the Saddle Road area on the northeastern flank of Mauna Loa on the
island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between 5,105-5,145 ft (1,555-
1,570 m), this unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and is largely
managed as part of a State forest reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
[[Page 73810]]
pp. 12-13), this unit was occupied by D. ochrobasis at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Clermontia sp., Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3--Kohala Mountains East consists of
193 ac (78 ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest with native shrubs and
mixed grass species, and is located on the southeastern flank of the
Kohala Mountains on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between
3,850-4,140 ft (1,175-1,260 m), this unit is owned by the State of
Hawaii and is largely managed as part of a State forest reserve.
According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 12-13), this unit was occupied by D. ochrobasis at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture regime,
and native forest components used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Clermontia sp., Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4--Kohala Mountains West consists of
132 ac (54 ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest with native shrubs and
mixed grass species, and is located on the southwestern flank of the
Kohala Mountains on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between
4,945-5,325 ft (1,510-1,625 m), this unit is privately and State-owned,
and is largely managed as part of a State forest reserve. Drosophila
ochrobasis was not historically known from this area, but was first
observed here during field surveys conducted in October of 2006 (K.
Magnacca, in litt. 2006, p. 1), only four months from the date of
listing of the species (June 2006). Given the fact that this area was
surveyed so soon after the listing of the species, and contains
relatively intact, closed-canopy, native forest, including the fly's
host plant species, we have determined that it was occupied by D.
ochrobasis at the time of the listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of Clermontia sp., Marattia
douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the larval stage host plants associated
with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5--Upper Kahuku consists of 88 ac (36
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located on the southern flank
of Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between
5,235-5,390 ft (1,595-1,645 m), this unit is owned by the State of
Hawaii and the NPS Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The area within this
unit is largely managed as part of a State forest reserve and as a
national park. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, pp. 12-13), this unit was occupied by D. ochrobasis at
the time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults
that have been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Clermontia sp., Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine
sp., the larval stage host plants associated with this species.
Kauai Unit
Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee consists of 794 ac (321 ha) of
montane, mesic, koa and ohia forest, and is located in the Kokee region
of northwestern Kauai. Ranging in elevation between 3,310-3,740 ft
(1,010-1,140 m), this unit is owned by the State of Hawaii and occurs
on lands managed as part of a State park, forest reserve, and natural
area reserve. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, p. 11), this unit was occupied by D. musaphilia at the
time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Acacia koa, the larval stage host plant associated with
this species.
Maui Unit
Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui consists of 584 ac (237
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest within the west Maui mountains on the
island of Maui. Ranging in elevation between 3,405-4,590 ft (1,040-
1,400 m), this unit is both privately and State-owned. All of the area
within this unit occurs within the boundary of the Puu Kukui Watershed
Preserve, lands jointly managed by TNCH, the State of Hawaii, and the
MLP Company. According to the most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in
litt. 2005a, p. 11), this unit was occupied by D. neoclavisetae at the
time of listing. This unit includes the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components used by foraging adults that have
been identified as the PCEs for this species. This unit also includes
populations of Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia ssp. macrostegia,
the larval stage host plant associated with this species. As described
below, we are excluding 450 ac (182 ha) of this unit from the critical
habitat designation for D. neoclavisetae (see ``Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section).
Molokai Unit
Drosophila differens--Unit 1--Puu Kolekole consists of 988 ac (400
ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest within the eastern Molokai mountains
on the island of Molokai. Ranging in elevation between 3,645-4,495 ft
(1,110-1,370 m), this unit is privately owned and is managed by TNCH as
part of the Kamakou and Pelekunu preserves. According to the most
recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 11), this unit was
occupied by D. differens at the time of listing. This unit includes the
known elevation range, moisture regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been identified as the PCEs for this
species. This unit also includes populations of Clermontia sp., the
larval stage host plant associated with this species.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by
the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the
statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse modification is
determined on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to
be functionally established) to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry
[[Page 73811]]
out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species
or to 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. As a result of this consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion (BO) for Federal actions that may affect,
but are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a BO concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' 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;
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
Are economically and technologically feasible; and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected 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 need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on
actions for which consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat in a
manner not previously analyzed.
Federal activities that may affect Drosophila aglaia, D. differens,
D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia or their designated critical habitat will require
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Activities on State,
local, or private lands requiring a Federal permit, such as a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or involving some other Federal action
such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency are
examples of agency actions that may be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7(a)(2) consultations.
Application of the Adverse Modification Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would remain functional to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy
or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, should
result in consultation for the 12 picture-wing flies include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Actions that may degrade or remove host plant habitat or result
in the loss and degradation of the 12 picture-wing flies' habitat. For
example, this could occur through activities such as controlled burns,
clearing or cutting of native live trees and shrubs, introducing or
encouraging the spread of nonnative plants, recreational use, or the
use of off-road vehicles in a manner that degrades native vegetation.
(2) Actions that may result in the removal, thinning, or other
modification of the 12 picture-wing flies' host plants. For example,
this may occur through plowing, grading, development, road or fence
building, burning or taking other actions that pose a risk of fire,
mechanical weed control, herbicide application, recreational use, and
activities associated with wildfire fighting (e.g., staging areas,
surface disturbance).
(3) Actions that may affect habitat value or quality through
indirect effects (e.g., outplanting efforts that enable the spread of
nonnative species or fragmentation).
All of the units designated as critical habitat, including the Maui
Land and Pineapple Co. portion of the Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit
1--Puu Kukui, which was excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the 12 picture-wing flies. Each of the 32 units that
have been designated as critical habitat are within the geographic
ranges of these species, were known to be occupied by the species at
the time of listing, and are currently occupied. Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in areas that are currently
occupied by these species in cases where they may be affected, to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
the 12 picture-wing flies.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now states that: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
[[Page 73812]]
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
We coordinate with the military on the development and
implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
critical habitat designation for Drosophila aglaia and D. substenoptera
were analyzed for purposes of section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
West Range of Schofield Barracks Military Reservation
The U.S. Army completed its Oahu INRMP in 2000. Conservation
measures included in the INRMP that benefit Drosophila aglaia and D.
substenoptera include (1) Outplanting of native plants, which provides
for the natural forest conditions necessary for adult fly foraging by
both species; (2) feral ungulate control, which prevents both direct
loss of the larval stage host plants and adult foraging substrate of
both species and prevents habitat alteration by feral ungulates; (3)
wildland wildfire control, which prevents both loss and alteration of
habitat for D. aglaia; and (4) nonnative plant control, which prevents
habitat alteration for both species.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts
identified in the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Oahu Training Areas Natural
Resource Management Final Report (U.S. Army, 2000(b)) and the 2002-2006
Oahu Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Army, 2000(a))
provide benefits to Drosophila aglaia and D. substenoptera where they
occur within or adjacent to the West Range of Schofield Barracks
Military Reservation. Therefore, this installation is exempt from
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are
not including approximately 78 ac (31 ha) of habitat on Oahu in this
final critical habitat designation because of this exemption. The other
10 species of picture-wing flies do not occur on U.S. Army land, and
are not subject to consideration under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act.
Recently, the Army informed us that they are updating their 2000
INRMP and incorporating the conservation measures found in the 2002-
2006 Oahu Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Revisions to
the INRMP are expected to be completed in 2009 (M. Mansker, in litt.
2008).
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If based on
this analysis we make this determination, then we can exclude the area
only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the
species.
In the following sections, we address a number of general issues
that are relevant to the exclusion considered in this final critical
habitat rule.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act
requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species that may require special management considerations or
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing that are essential to the
conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service
must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that, on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
of designation, the habitat that is identified, if managed, could
provide for the survival and recovery of the species.
The consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed
above, Federal agencies must consult with us on actions that may affect
critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions
that may affect a listed species and refrain from undertaking actions
that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such species.
The analysis of effects to critical habitat is a separate and different
analysis from that of the effects to the species. Therefore, the
difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory
benefit of critical habitat. For some species, and in some locations,
the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects on
habitat will often result in effects on the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different: The jeopardy analysis looks at the
action's impact on survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis looks at the action's effects on the
designated habitat's contribution to the species' conservation. This
will, in many instances, lead to different results and different
regulatory requirements.
For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Gifford
Pinchot, consistent with the 1986 regulations, we essentially combined
the jeopardy standard with the standard for destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat when evaluating Federal actions that
affected currently occupied critical habitat. However, the court of
appeals ruled that the two standards are distinct and that adverse
modification evaluations require consideration of impacts on species
recovery. Thus, a critical habitat designation may provide greater
regulatory benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing
alone.
There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical
habitat. First, a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required only where
there is a Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out
by any Federal agency)--if there is no Federal nexus, the critical
habitat designation of private lands itself does not restrict any
actions that destroy or
[[Page 73813]]
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, the designation only limits
destruction or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on
adverse modification is designed to ensure that the conservation role
and function of those areas that contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species or of unoccupied
areas that are essential to the conservation of the species is not
appreciably reduced as a result of a Federal action. Critical habitat
designation alone, however, does not require property owners to
undertake specific steps toward recovery of the species.
Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when we
concur in writing that the proposed Federal action is not likely to
adversely affect critical habitat. However, if we determine through
informal consultation that adverse impacts are likely to occur, then we
would initiate formal consultation, which would conclude when we issue
a biological opinion on whether the proposed Federal action is likely
to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not suggest the
implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative. We suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action only
when our biological opinion results in an adverse modification
conclusion.
As stated above, the designation of critical habitat does not
require that any management or recovery actions take place on the lands
included in the designation. Even in cases where consultation has been
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of
consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse
modification of its critical habitat or both, but not specifically to
manage remaining lands or institute recovery actions on remaining
lands. Conversely, voluntary conservation efforts implemented through
management plans institute proactive actions over the lands they
encompass and are put in place to remove or reduce known threats to a
species or its habitat. We believe that in many instances the benefit
to a species or its habitat or both realized through the designation of
critical habitat is low when compared to the conservation benefit that
can be achieved through voluntary conservation efforts or management
plans. The conservation achieved through implementing HCPs or other
habitat management plans can be greater than what we achieve through
multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7(a)(2)
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. Management
plans may commit resources to implement long-term management and
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly
additional listed or sensitive species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations
commit Federal agencies to preventing adverse modification of critical
habitat caused by the particular project only, and not to providing
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed project. Thus, implementation of any HCP or management plan
that considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard may
often provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical
habitat designation.
Another benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the 12 picture-wing flies. In general, critical habitat designation
always has educational benefits, and may inform State agencies and
local governments about areas that could be conserved under State laws
or local ordinances.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent
of the United States is privately owned (US Department of Agriculture
2002), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species
occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002,
p. 720). Eighty-eight percent of the State of Hawaii is made up of non-
Federal lands. Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12
percent of listed species in the United States were found almost
exclusively on Federal lands (90-100 percent of their known occurrences
restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 percent of listed species are
not known to occur on Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of
species on non-Federal lands and is necessary to implement recovery
actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and
habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery, and the Service promotes these private-
sector efforts. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners
(e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, State and
local regulations, and other conservation agreements or easements)
enhance species conservation by extending species protections beyond
those available through section 7 consultations. We encourage non-
Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a
view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal
land through such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods
(61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible
consequences of promoting endangered species conservation on their
property, and there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions
by the Federal government, while well-intentioned and required by law,
can under certain circumstances have unintended negative consequences
for the conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996,
pp. 5-6; Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James
2002, pp. 270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-
1643). Many landowners fear a decline in the value of their property,
based on real or perceived restrictions on land-use options where
threatened or endangered species occur. Consequently, harboring
endangered species is viewed by many landowners as a liability,
resulting in anti-conservation incentives because of a perceived risk
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265;
Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648).
Some researchers believe that the designation of critical habitat
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p.
1263; Bean 2002,
[[Page 73814]]
p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude of this negative
outcome is amplified in situations where active species conservation
management measures (e.g., reintroduction, wildfire management, control
of invasive species) are necessary (Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe
that, in some instances, the judicious exclusion of specific areas of
non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can
contribute to species recovery and provide a greater level of species
conservation than critical habitat designation alone.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by effective
partnerships or other conservation commitments can often be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With Approved Management Plans
The benefits of excluding lands within approved long-term
management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional regulatory
burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many conservation
plans provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species.
Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation
of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and partnerships
in many areas. Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of
management plans that provide conservation measures for a species could
be viewed as a disincentive to entities currently developing these
plans or contemplating them in the future, because one of the
incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of permitting
where listed species will be affected. Addition of a new regulatory
requirement would remove a significant incentive for undertaking the
time and expense of management planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability it
gives us to seek new partnerships with future plan participants,
including States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners, which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise.
Designating lands within approved management plan areas as critical
habitat would likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish
new partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that
address landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By
preemptively excluding these lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions in the
future.
Furthermore, both HCP and Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP)-HCP applications require consultation, which would review the
effects of all HCP-covered activities that might adversely impact the
species under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant
habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even
without the critical habitat designation. In addition, Federal actions
not covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still
require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would
review these actions for possibly significant habitat modification, in
accordance with the definition of harm referenced above.
The information provided in the previous section applies to all the
following discussions of benefits of inclusion or exclusion of critical
habitat.
Areas Considered for Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we evaluate the effectiveness of
management plans that address the enhancement or recovery of listed
species when we weigh and balance the benefits of inclusion or
exclusion of a particular area from critical habitat designation. We
consider the following guidelines in evaluating the management and
protection provided by such plans:
(1) The plan is complete and provides for the conservation and
protection of the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
Maui Land and Pineapple (MLP) Company's Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve,
Located in the West Maui Mountains
Significant progress has been made in habitat restoration on MLP
lands within the Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve (PKWP), located in the
West Maui Mountains. We proposed to designate approximately 450 ac (182
ha) within MLP's PKWP as critical habitat on Maui for Drosophila
neoclavisetae within Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui (72 FR
67428). Since 1988, MLP has proactively managed their 450 ac (182 ha)
within the PKWP and is currently in its 15th year of contract with the
State of Hawaii's Natural Area Partnership (NAP) Program to preserve
the native biodiversity of the company's conservation lands. At
slightly over 8,600 ac (3,483 ha), the PKWP is the largest privately
owned preserve in the State.
In 1993, MLP became the first private landowner participant in the
NAP program. They are pursuing four management programs stipulated in
their PKWP Management Plan (2005) that emphasize reducing nonnative
species that immediately threaten the management area (MLP 1999). The
primary management goals within PKWP are to: (1) Eliminate ungulate
activity in all Puu Kukui management units; (2) reduce the range of
habitat-modifying weeds and prevent introduction of nonnative plants;
(3) reduce the negative impacts of nonnative invertebrates and small
animals; (4) monitor and track biological and physical resources in the
watershed in order to improve management understanding of the
watershed's resources; and (5) prevent the extinction of rare species
within the watershed. Specific management actions that address feral
ungulates include the construction of fences surrounding 10 management
units and removal of ungulates within the PKWP.
The nonnative plant control program within PKWP focuses on weeds
that modify habitat, prioritizing weeds according to the degree of
threat to native ecosystems, and preventing the introduction of new
weeds. The weed control program includes mapping and monitoring along
established transects and controlling weeds through manual or
mechanical means. Monitoring and research activities conducted under
the plan track biological and physical resources, and detect and
evaluate changes to these resources to guide management programs.
Vegetation is monitored using permanent photographic points. Nonnative
species,
[[Page 73815]]
as well as rare, endemic, and indigenous species, are monitored along
permanent transects. MLP also provides logistical and other support for
approved research projects, interagency cooperative agreements, and
remote survey trips within the watershed.
Benefits of Inclusion
The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be
regulatory or educational, which can aid in promoting the recovery of
species. The principal regulatory benefit of designating critical
habitat in this area would be that Federal actions affecting D.
neoclavisetae would require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Consultation would ensure that a proposed action does not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The most
likely Federal nexus would be associated with Service funding for
management activities that target invasive species removal, and a
potential outcome of a section 7 consultation would be conservation
recommendations to avoid stands of Cyanea kunthiana and Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. macrostegia when, for example, constructing a new
fence or applying herbicides. However, these conservation
recommendations would still be included within the PKWP invasive
species control program even in the absence of critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we believe that few additional regulatory
benefits would be derived from including the MLP lands within the area
designated as critical habitat for Drosophila neoclavisetae beyond
those conservation benefits already being achieved through the
implementation of the PKWP Management Plan (2005).
In addition, we conclude that few regulatory benefits would be
gained from a designation of critical habitat on these lands because
the consultations conducted under both the jeopardy and adverse
modification standards for this species would not be likely to result
in materially different outcomes. The area is occupied by the species,
and the most likely Federal nexus would be management activities funded
in part through the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife and
Private Stewardship Grants programs. These programs have historically
contributed funds toward the construction of fences to exclude feral
ungulates from the Preserve. Service funds may also be provided for new
surveys of invasive, nonnative weeds within the Puu Kukui Watershed
Preserve. While we acknowledge that the legal standards for jeopardy
and adverse modification differ, with the latter focused on effects to
recovery, in view of the nature of the actions likely to be consulted
on--programs to enhance species habitat--the outcome of consultation is
likely to be the same.
There have been no section 7 consultations involving Drosophila
neoclavisetae or its host plants with the PKWP to date. The economic
analysis anticipates that there will be two informal consultations
associated with projects in the PKWP to remove nonnative species over
the next 13 years, although no formal consultations would be likely to
occur over the 20-year timeframe of the analysis. The two informal
section 7 consultations anticipated by the economic analysis would
occur based on the species' presence in the area even if critical
habitat is not designated. We do not foresee any additional
consultations beyond those anticipated by the economic analysis, and
predict that the section 7 consultation process for critical habitat
would be unlikely to result in any additional protections for the
species for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, there is little
regulatory benefit of designating critical habitat on the MLP lands
within Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui.
The final listing rule for the 12 picture-wing flies (71 FR 26835)
acknowledged the importance of this area to the overall conservation of
Drosophila neoclavisetae (Service 2006). Maui Land and Pineapple Co. is
aware of the areas where D. neoclavisetae occurs on their property, and
is implementing conservation actions to benefit the species (MLP 2008,
p. 2). Because of this proactive approach, we believe that any
additional educational benefits resulting from the designation of
critical habitat on these lands would be minimal. Although the
designation of critical habitat may provide benefits to the recovery of
a species, in this case the MLP is already committed to implementing
conservation actions on their lands under the existing PKWP Management
Plan (2005). Accordingly, any additional benefits to the recovery of
this species beyond those already being accrued would be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion
The continued implementation of the PKWP Management Plan will
provide conservation benefits to Drosophila neoclavisetae. Maui Land
and Pineapple Co. is currently managing D. neoclavisetae habitat
through the control of invasive species and the implementation of
native species restoration activities. Implementation of the PKWP
Management Plan also provides a significant conservation benefit to D.
neoclavisetae's host plant populations in the area.
Existing MLP conservation agreements with Federal and State
agencies and other private organizations advance their mission of
practicing prudent stewardship of their land and water resources to
ensure the protection of rare and endangered plant and animal species,
and water resources that are crucial to the community. Their continued
implementation of the PKWP Management Plan will specifically benefit
Drosophila neoclavisetae through actions that manage invasive species
and restore native species habitat. The PKWP Management Plan provides a
significant conservation benefit to D. neoclavisetae's host plant
populations in the area, and we have a reasonable expectation that the
strategies and measures will be effective. We have been informed by MLP
that the area proposed for designation of critical habitat is already
being preserved in perpetuity for the conservation and protection of
native habitat for picture-wing flies and other native Hawaiian biota,
and they believe that the designation of critical habitat is
unnecessary (MLP 2008, p. 2). In addition, during an April 21, 2008,
meeting between MLP and Service staff, MLP stated their objection to
the designation of critical habitat on their lands (Scott McCarthy,
Service, in litt. 2008).
Drosophila neoclavisetae is benefiting substantially from MLP's
voluntary management actions, which include reducing ungulate browsing
and habitat conversion, reducing competition with nonnative weeds, and
reducing the risk of wildfire. MLP's management actions also include
the reintroduction of currently extirpated native species into restored
habitats.
We believe that exclusion of approximately 450 ac (182 ha) within
MLP's portion of the proposed Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu
Kukui will acknowledge this conservation commitment and facilitate
their continued cooperation and partnership with the Service. Since
this area has been actively managed as a preserve since 1988, we have a
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and
actions will continue to be implemented for the benefit of D.
neoclavisetae and its habitat in the future. There is a risk that
designating critical habitat on these MLP lands could undermine our
existing conservation partnership, remove MLP's incentive to accept the
additional time and expense of management planning, strain the positive
working relationship we share,
[[Page 73816]]
and hinder future cooperative conservation projects with MLP and other
potential partners.
The economic analysis also identifies some incremental economic
impacts of designating critical habitat in the proposed Drosophila
neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui. These costs are attributed to habitat
preservation and watershed management activities. The expected post-
designation incremental cost of watershed management activities is
$18,150 using a 3 percent discount rate and $14,430 using a 7 percent
discount rate. According to the economic analysis, these costs would be
borne mostly by the MLP. While these amounts are small, excluding
critical habitat from the MLP lands would remove these costs, and thus
is a benefit of exclusion.
We believe that excluding this area from critical habitat will help
maintain and improve our partnership relationship with this landowner
by acknowledging their positive contribution to conservation on Maui.
This recognition may provide other landowners with a positive incentive
to undertake voluntary conservation activities on their lands,
particularly where there is no regulatory requirement to implement such
actions. We also note a small economic benefit to excluding this area
from critical habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We believe the proactive management of Drosophila neoclavisetae
habitat provided under MLP's PKWP Management Plan (2005) provides
significant benefits to this species. Also, excluding this area from
critical habitat will help maintain and improve our partnership
relationship with this landowner. Furthermore, excluding this area from
critical habitat will have a small economic benefit. In contrast, the
benefits of including MLP's land as critical habitat would likely be
minor. This determination is based on the fact that: (1) There have
been no section 7 consultations in the area since D. neoclavisetae was
listed in 2006; (2) we anticipate few future consultations in the PKWP
management area; (3) any future Federal actions would be subject to
section 7 consultation since the area is occupied; and (4) future
Federal actions in this area are expected to be beneficial to the
species.
In conclusion, although there may be some limited regulatory,
educational, or recovery benefits that would arise from the inclusion
of the MLP lands as critical habitat, they are outweighed by the
benefits of excluding these lands from the critical habitat
designation. The continued implementation of MLP's ongoing management
programs will provide comparable or greater net conservation benefits
than those that would result from critical habitat designation. The
significant conservation benefits that would result from the exclusion
of these lands relate to MLP's ongoing and continued actions to control
invasive species, protect and restore host plant habitat, and monitor
native species. We, therefore, are excluding 450 ac (182 ha) of Maui
Land and Pineapple Co.'s lands within the proposed Drosophila
neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui from the critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We have determined that the exclusion of MLP's portion of the
proposed Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui from the final
designation of critical habitat will not result in the extinction of D.
neoclavisetae. Maui Land and Pineapple Co.'s management programs
provide tangible conservation benefits that reduce the likelihood of
extinction for D. neoclavisetae and increase the species' recovery
potential. Further, we are unaware of any threats in the PKWP
associated with Federal actions that would require section 7
consultation. As such, extinction of the species as a consequence of
not designating critical habitat is unlikely. In addition, since this
area is occupied by D. neoclavisetae, consultations under section 7 of
the Act would be required, and any Federal actions that may affect the
species would be evaluated under the jeopardy standard of section 7 of
the Act. This evaluation provides assurances that the species would not
become extinct as a result of those actions.
With regard to other protections, section 195D-4 of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (endangered species and threatened species) stipulates that
species determined to be endangered or threatened under the Federal Act
shall be deemed endangered or threatened under the State law. It is
unlawful under the State law, with some exceptions, to ``take'' such
species, or to possess, sell, carry or transport them. The statutory
protections for this species under State law provide additional
assurances that exclusion of this area from critical habitat will not
result in extinction of Drosophila neoclavisetae.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows
the Secretary to exclude areas from critical habitat for economic
reasons if the Secretary determines that the benefits of such
exclusions exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat. However, this exclusion cannot occur if it will result in the
extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effects of the designation. The draft analysis
addressed the economic impacts of designating critical habitat for the
12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, and was made available for public
review on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46860). We accepted comments on the
draft analysis until September 11, 2008. Following the close of the
comment period, a final analysis of the potential economic effects of
the designation was developed taking into consideration the public
comments and any new information.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies (Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia). This information is intended to
assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of
excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits
of including those areas in the designation. This economic analysis
addressed the distribution of any potential impacts of the designation,
including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities.
This information can be used by the Secretary to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector.
This analysis focused on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans or best management practices applied by
State and other Federal agencies. Economic
[[Page 73817]]
impacts that result from these types of protections are considered to
be part of the regulatory and policy baseline. The economic impacts
that were evaluated were divided into two periods: (1) Pre-designation,
covering the time period from the date the picture-wing flies were
listed (May 9, 2006; 71 FR 26835) to the date the final critical
habitat designation was expected to occur (about year-end 2008), and
(2) post-designation, covering the 20-year period following the
designation (from about 2009 through 2028).
The economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of
all actions relating to the conservation of the 12 picture-wing flies,
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, as
well as those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further
considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result
of other Federal, State, and local laws that assist in habitat
conservation for the 12 picture-wing flies in those areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to their conservation.
In the case of habitat conservation, economic effects generally reflect
costs associated with committing resources to comply with habitat
protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated
with restrictions on land use).
The analysis quantifies the economic impacts of picture-wing fly
critical habitat designation associated primarily with the following
activities: (1) Preservation and watershed management in all but the
Pit Crater unit on the Big Island; (2) game management and public
recreational hunting in most of the units where land is owned by the
State; (3) potential future development of approximately 3 acres (1.2
hectares) within the Pit Crater unit on the Big Island; (4) harvesting
of commercial timber from portions of the Stainback Forest and Waiakea
Forest units; and (5) section 7 consultation administrative costs.
The total pre-designation baseline costs during the period from
2006 to 2008 in the area proposed for critical habitat designation are
estimated to range from $750,130 using a 3 percent discount rate to
$808,100 using a 7 percent discount rate. Because these costs are
projected to occur whether critical habitat is designated or not, they
are not considered in the Service's determination of whether the
benefits of including an area as critical habitat outweigh the benefits
of excluding the area. These costs are related to preservation and
watershed management activities, and all or nearly all of the pre-
designation baseline costs have been or will be borne by Federal and
State agencies. A portion of the preservation and watershed management
costs has been borne by a few private landowners.
The annualized post-designation baseline costs during the period
2009 to 2028 for preservation and water management activities are
estimated to range from $348,845 using a 3 percent discount rate to
$379,753 using a 7 percent discount rate. Because these costs are
projected to occur whether critical habitat is designated or not, they
are not considered in the Service's determination of whether the
benefits of including an area as critical habitat outweigh the benefits
of excluding the area. All or nearly all of the post-designation
baseline costs would be borne by Federal and State agencies, although a
portion of the preservation and watershed management costs would be
borne by a few private landowners. The combined post-designation
baseline cost for these conservation activities is estimated by the
final economic analysis (FEA) to be $5,345,730 at a 3 percent discount
rate, and $4,305,470 at a 7 percent discount rate.
The economic analysis estimates that the annualized post-
designation incremental costs for the activities described below during
the period 2009 to 2028 may range from $44,733 using a 3 percent
discount rate to $46,916 using a 7 percent discount rate. The activity
having the highest incremental cost ranking is preservation and
watershed management, with an annualized value of approximately $23,969
using a 3 percent discount rate to $25,568 using a 7 percent discount
rate. The second highest cost reflects a possible opportunity loss of
harvesting trees in Drosophila mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest and
Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest, resulting in an annualized
value of approximately $12,693 using a 3 percent discount rate to
$12,176 using a 7 percent discount rate.
There may also be post-designation incremental costs of $68,590
using a 3 percent discount rate to $56,000 using a 7 percent discount
rate from 2009-2028, related to future section 7 consultations for
preservation and watershed management activities. All or nearly all of
the post-designation incremental costs would be borne by Federal and
State agencies, although a portion of the preservation and watershed
management costs would be borne by a few private landowners. The
combined total present values of estimated post-designation incremental
impacts from 2009 through 2028 for all activities considered in the
analysis are about $682,000 and $529,000, respectively, for the 3 and 7
percent discount rates based on the FEA (USFWS 2008, ES-4).
Only the incremental costs of designating critical habitat, over
and above the costs associated with species protection under the Act
more generally, are considered in determining whether areas should be
excluded under section 4(b)(2). Therefore, the methodology for
distinguishing these two categories of costs is important. This is
particularly true in the current case, because approximately 90 percent
of the total costs of species conservation over the next 20 years are
projected to be baseline costs, and 10 percent are projected to be
incremental costs attributable to critical habitat designation.
In the absence of critical habitat, Federal agencies must ensure
that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species. Costs associated with such actions are considered
baseline costs. Once an area is designated as critical habitat,
proposed actions that have a Federal nexus also require consultation
and potential revision to ensure that the action does not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
Costs associated with these actions are considered incremental costs.
The economic analysis explains that incremental section 7 consultation
that takes place as a result of critical habitat designation may fall
into one of three categories: (1) Additional effort to address adverse
modification in a consultation that also involves jeopardy; (2) re-
initiation of a previously concluded consultation to address adverse
modification; and (3) new consultation resulting entirely from critical
habitat designation (i.e., where a proposed action may affect
unoccupied critical habitat). The economic analysis estimates that
there would be three project-level informal consultations related to
Federal grants that would need to be reinitiated in 2009 to address
picture-wing fly critical habitat. There would also be one programmatic
consultation that would need to be reinitiated in 2009 related to the
Hawai'i Volcano National Park management plan, and subsequent
programmatic consultations every 5 years. The economic analysis
indicates that since these consultations would be for preservation and
watershed management activities, no or only minimal project
modifications would be anticipated.
The final economic analysis is available on the Internet at http://
[[Page 73818]]
www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/ or upon request from the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Required Determinations
In our November 28, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 67428), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic
analysis. In this final rule, we affirm the information contained in
the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, E.O. 12988,
the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the President's memorandum of April
29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951).
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the
following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect 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
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also
amended the RFA to require a certification statement.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation, as well as 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 could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
residential and commercial development and agriculture). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may
affect the 12 picture-wing flies. Federal agencies also must consult
with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
In the final economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of the 12 picture-wing flies and proposed designation of their
critical habitat. This analysis estimated prospective economic impacts
due to the implementation of the 12 picture-wing flies' conservation
efforts for the following activities: (a) Preservation and watershed
management in all but the Pit Crater unit on the Big Island; (b) game
management and public recreational hunting in most of the units where
land is owned by the State; (c) potential for future development on
about 3 acres (1.2 hectares) of the Pit Crater unit on the Big Island;
(d) harvesting of commercial timber from portions of Drosophila mulli--
Unit 2--Stainback Forest and Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest;
and (e) section 7 consultation administrative costs.
Our economic analysis indicates that all or nearly all of the post-
designation incremental costs would be borne by Federal and State
agencies, which are not small entities. In addition, according to our
economic analysis, the following agencies, organizations, and private
companies that may be impacted by the designation of critical habitat
are not considered to be small entities: City and County of Honolulu,
Kamehameha Schools, The Nature Conservancy, Queen Emma Foundation,
James Campbell Co. LLC, MLP, and Molokai Ranch. Accordingly, we are
certifying that this final designation of critical habitat for the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing fly species will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
[[Page 73819]]
distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has
provided guidance for implementing this E.O. that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The
economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to
this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis,
energy-related impacts associated with the 12 picture-wing flies'
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
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. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required. Based on the consultation history and the economic
analysis on this critical habitat designation, we do not foresee any
significant impact to small governments.
Executive Order 12630--Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this final critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in Hawaii. The designation of
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the 12 picture-wing
flies is not likely to impose any additional restrictions to those
currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may
have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the PCEs of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the ESA. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 12
picture-wing flies.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the Jurisdiction of the Tenth
Federal Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as
defined by
[[Page 73820]]
NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld by the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997, ``American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act,'' we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to
make information available to tribes. We have determined that there are
no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing containing the features
essential for the conservation and no tribal lands that are unoccupied
areas that are essential for the conservation of the 12 picture-wing
flies. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the 12 picture-
wing flies has not been designated on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands.
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entries for ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-
wing'' (Drosophila aglaia), ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila
differens), ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila hemipeza),
``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila heteroneura), ``Fly,
Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila montgomeryi), ``Fly, Hawaiian
picture-wing'' (Drosophila mulli), ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing''
(Drosophila musaphilia), ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila
neoclavisetae), ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila obatai),
``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing'' (Drosophila ochrobasis), ``Fly, Hawaiian
picture-wing'' (Drosophila substenoptera), and ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-
wing'' (Drosophila tarphytrichia), under INSECTS in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------------- population
where Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila aglaia...... U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila differens... U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila hemipeza.... U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila heteroneura. U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila montgomeryi. U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila milli....... U.S.A. (HI)............ NA T 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila musaphilia.. U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
neoclavisetae.
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila obatai...... U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila ochrobasis.. U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
substenoptera.
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing........... Drosophila U.S.A. (HI)............ NA E 756 17.95(i) NA
tarphytrichia.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73821]]
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by adding entries for ``Hawaiian
picture-wing fly (Drosophila aglaia),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly
(Drosophila differens),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
hemipeza),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila heteroneura),''
``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila montgomeryi),'' ``Hawaiian
picture-wing fly (Drosophila mulli),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly
(Drosophila musaphilia),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
neoclavisetae),'' ``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila obatai),''
``Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila ochrobasis),'' ``Hawaiian
picture-wing fly (Drosophila substenoptera),'' and ``Hawaiian picture-
wing fly (Drosophila tarphytrichia),'' in the same alphabetical order
in which these species appear in that table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila aglaia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila aglaia are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, Diospyros sp., ohia and koa forest
between the elevations of 1,865-2,985 ft (568-910 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Urera glabra, which exhibits one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila aglaia
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 73822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.000
[[Page 73823]]
(6) Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1--Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593529, 2367854;
593448, 2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242, 2367927; 593193, 2367967;
593165, 2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314, 2368283; 593399, 2368425;
593448, 2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622, 2368833; 593703, 2368906;
593764, 2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901, 2369145; 594002, 2369262;
594079, 2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120, 2369485; 594124, 2369521;
594148, 2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310, 2369497; 594395, 2369473;
594399, 2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417, 2369313; 594461, 2369290;
594551, 2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559, 2369197; 594472, 2369183;
594391, 2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302, 2369072; 594257, 2369015;
594213, 2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083, 2368672; 594035, 2368550;
593966, 2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909, 2368259; 593792, 2368105;
593675, 2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila aglaia--Unit 1--Palikea follows:
[[Page 73824]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.001
[[Page 73825]]
(7) Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 594166, 2370854;
594166, 2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122, 2370843; 594090, 2370815;
594040, 2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930, 2370827; 593852, 2370875;
593778, 2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642, 2370999; 593602, 2371041;
593574, 2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539, 2371118; 593531, 2371121;
593534, 2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533, 2371375; 593552, 2371390;
593628, 2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794, 2371431; 593876, 2371437;
593974, 2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138, 2371415; 594190, 2371399;
594232, 2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239, 2371354; 594170, 2370879;
594172, 2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila aglaia--Unit 2--Puu Kaua follows:
[[Page 73826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.002
[[Page 73827]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila differens)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for County of Maui, island of
Molokai, Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila differens are:
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 3,645-4,495
ft (1,111-1,370 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Clermontia arborescens ssp. waihiae, C.
granidiflora ssp. munroi, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, C. kakeana,
and C. pallida, which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila differens--Unit 1--Puu Kolekole, Maui County, island
of Molokai, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 718527, 2337536;
718533, 2337451; 718538, 2337370; 718543, 2337298; 718547, 2337236;
718551, 2337182; 718555, 2337138; 718560, 2337098; 718571, 2337055;
718586, 2337010; 718607, 2336962; 718632, 2336912; 718662, 2336860;
718698, 2336807; 718739, 2336754; 718784, 2336700; 718835, 2336646;
718892, 2336593; 718958, 2336551; 719034, 2336520; 719119, 2336502;
719215, 2336497; 719320, 2336503; 719420, 2336509; 719506, 2336508;
719579, 2336500; 719639, 2336484; 719685, 2336462; 719675, 2336394;
719613, 2336327; 718980, 2335781; 718332, 2335236; 718002, 2334953;
717930, 2334932; 717877, 2334988; 717855, 2335060; 717846, 2335123;
717848, 2335175; 717862, 2335217; 717888, 2335249; 717921, 2335272;
717946, 2335291; 717961, 2335308; 717965, 2335322; 717958, 2335333;
717942, 2335342; 717928, 2335356; 717919, 2335377; 717915, 2335404;
717916, 2335438; 717923, 2335478; 717935, 2335515; 717952, 2335542;
717974, 2335558; 718001, 2335564; 718034, 2335559; 718070, 2335550;
718107, 2335553; 718144, 2335567; 718182, 2335593; 718221, 2335630;
718257, 2335675; 718280, 2335710; 718286, 2335733; 718277, 2335745;
718253, 2335744; 718213, 2335731; 718166, 2335721; 718115, 2335717;
718060, 2335719; 718001, 2335728; 717937, 2335742; 717873, 2335764;
717812, 2335793; 717753, 2335829; 717697, 2335873; 717643, 2335924;
717591, 2335977; 717543, 2336020; 717499, 2336052; 717458, 2336073;
717420, 2336083; 717385, 2336085; 717351, 2336089; 717319, 2336098;
717288, 2336110; 717258, 2336127; 717230, 2336148; 717204, 2336180;
717183, 2336223; 717165, 2336280; 717151, 2336348; 717140, 2336429;
717130, 2336510; 717118, 2336579; 717103, 2336636; 717085, 2336680;
717065, 2336713; 717041, 2336739; 717009, 2336769; 716968, 2336806;
716919, 2336847; 716862, 2336894; 716800, 2336946; 716745, 2337000;
716702, 2337055; 716669, 2337112; 716647, 2337171; 716635, 2337231;
716632, 2337289; 716634, 2337341; 716644, 2337388; 716660, 2337430;
716683, 2337468; 716713, 2337497; 716751, 2337516; 716797, 2337523;
716850, 2337520; 716912, 2337507; 716976, 2337488; 717031, 2337481;
717077, 2337486; 717126, 2337542; 717183, 2337585; 718403, 2337817;
718484, 2337833; 718487, 2337824; 718499, 2337760; 718510, 2337691;
718519, 2337616.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila differens--Unit 1--Puu Kolekole
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 73828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.003
[[Page 73829]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila hemipeza)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila hemipeza are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the
elevations of 1,720-3,005 ft (524-916 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Cyanea angustifolia, C. calycina, C.
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. grimesiana ssp. obatae, C. membranacea,
C. pinnatifida, C. superba ssp. superba, Lobelia hypoleuca, L.
niihauensis, L. yuccoides, and Urera kaalae, which exhibit one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
hemipeza follows:
[[Page 73830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.004
[[Page 73831]]
(6) Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593240, 2374436;
593231, 2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315, 2374385; 593612, 2374173;
593656, 2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641, 2374077; 593676, 2374072;
593703, 2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758, 2374058; 593793, 2374029;
593779, 2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660, 2373784; 593609, 2373702;
593592, 2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598, 2373553; 593657, 2373561;
593770, 2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797, 2373417; 593842, 2373411;
593842, 2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053, 2373383; 594103, 2373292;
594134, 2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194, 2373256; 594178, 2373323;
594196, 2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312, 2373340; 594341, 2373350;
594339, 2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381, 2373513; 594460, 2373552;
594496, 2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526, 2373509; 594572, 2373460;
594632, 2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699, 2373475; 594728, 2373476;
594762, 2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828, 2373501; 594852, 2373465;
594903, 2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952, 2373489; 594974, 2373334;
594800, 2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718, 2373102; 594744, 2373091;
594710, 2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716, 2372633; 594678, 2372623;
594566, 2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506, 2372663; 594467, 2372672;
594395, 2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546, 2372567; 594558, 2372553;
594551, 2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395, 2372434; 594415, 2372428;
594511, 2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614, 2372421; 594607, 2372385;
594593, 2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618, 2372322; 594661, 2372357;
594700, 2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697, 2372333; 594697, 2372283;
594652, 2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454, 2372294; 594400, 2372294;
594293, 2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168, 2372241; 594126, 2372258;
594075, 2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999, 2372354; 593948, 2372388;
593889, 2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781, 2372425; 593756, 2372442;
593742, 2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736, 2372521; 593736, 2372560;
593757, 2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663, 2372772; 593543, 2372859;
593558, 2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526, 2372928; 593476, 2372912;
593422, 2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403, 2372997; 593400, 2373025;
593373, 2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328, 2373025; 593215, 2373118;
593230, 2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163, 2373154; 593095, 2373213;
593091, 2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019, 2373295; 592937, 2373388;
592889, 2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908, 2373597; 592923, 2373668;
592914, 2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868, 2373941; 592867, 2373950;
592894, 2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894, 2374162; 592860, 2374213;
592854, 2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
[[Page 73832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.005
[[Page 73833]]
(7) Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2--Makaha Valley, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 586712, 2378108;
586877, 2378091; 587049, 2378091; 587173, 2378087; 587333, 2378079;
587506, 2378079; 587592, 2378075; 587641, 2378046; 587641, 2378038;
587666, 2377980; 587543, 2377935; 587399, 2377931; 587243, 2377919;
587090, 2377906; 586794, 2377943; 586696, 2377943; 586597, 2377869;
586507, 2377767; 586449, 2377684; 586449, 2377458; 586408, 2377397;
586305, 2377368; 586206, 2377405; 586054, 2377643; 585968, 2377726;
585869, 2377775; 585803, 2377849; 585803, 2377915; 585869, 2377952;
585894, 2377956; 585956, 2377952; 586050, 2377923; 586120, 2377869;
586194, 2377824; 586317, 2377828; 586383, 2377878; 586391, 2377956;
586420, 2378034; 586461, 2378116; 586482, 2378174; 586552, 2378190;
586630, 2378149; 586655, 2378128.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 2--Makaha Valley
follows:
[[Page 73834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.006
[[Page 73835]]
(8) Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3--Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593529, 2367854;
593448, 2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242, 2367927; 593193, 2367967;
593165, 2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314, 2368283; 593399, 2368425;
593448, 2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622, 2368833; 593703, 2368906;
593764, 2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901, 2369145; 594002, 2369262;
594079, 2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120, 2369485; 594124, 2369521;
594148, 2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310, 2369497; 594395, 2369473;
594399, 2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417, 2369313; 594461, 2369290;
594551, 2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559, 2369197; 594472, 2369183;
594391, 2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302, 2369072; 594257, 2369015;
594213, 2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083, 2368672; 594035, 2368550;
593966, 2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909, 2368259; 593792, 2368105;
593675, 2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 3--Palikea follows:
[[Page 73836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.007
[[Page 73837]]
(9) Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4--Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 594166, 2370854;
594166, 2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122, 2370843; 594090, 2370815;
594040, 2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930, 2370827; 593852, 2370875;
593778, 2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642, 2370999; 593602, 2371041;
593574, 2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539, 2371118; 593531, 2371121;
593534, 2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533, 2371375; 593552, 2371390;
593628, 2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794, 2371431; 593876, 2371437;
593974, 2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138, 2371415; 594190, 2371399;
594232, 2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239, 2371354; 594170, 2370879;
594172, 2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila hemipeza--Unit 4--Puu Kaua follows:
[[Page 73838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.008
[[Page 73839]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila heteroneura)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Hawaii,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila heteroneura are:
(i) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia and koa forest between the
elevations of 2,908-5,755 ft (908-1,754 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Cheirodendron trigynum ssp. trigynum,
Clermontia clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C.
hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montis-loa, C. parviflora,
C. peleana, C. pyrularia, and Delissea parviflora, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
heteroneura follows:
[[Page 73840]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.009
[[Page 73841]]
(6) Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1--Kau Forest, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 859357, 2130685;
859117, 2130401; 858810, 2130412; 858577, 2130667; 858596, 2130918;
858800, 2131167; 858976, 2131240; 859117, 2131196; 859416, 2130970.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 1--Kau Forest
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.010
[[Page 73842]]
(7) Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona Refuge, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 836880, 2145492;
836927, 2144316; 836473, 2144373; 835378, 2144516; 831663, 2144980;
31685, 2145029; 831718, 2145184; 831669, 2145289; 831669, 2145387;
831694, 2145557; 31685, 2145727; 831685, 2145882; 831677, 2146020;
831710, 2146149; 831767, 2146247; 31685, 2146482; 831572, 2146766;
831572, 2146953; 831515, 2147156; 831442, 2147391; 31438, 2147486;
837419, 2147183.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona Refuge
follows:
[[Continued on page 73844]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 73844-73893]] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian
Islands
[[Continued from page 73843]]
[[Page 73843]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.011
[[Page 73844]]
(8) Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3--Lower Kahuku, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 849578, 2119874;
849925, 2117860; 849842, 2117726; 849716, 2117636; 849492, 2117618;
49240, 2117726; 849114, 2118058; 848962, 2118723; 848953, 2119065;
848845, 2119720; 48728, 2120187; 848701, 2120646; 848638, 2120870;
848620, 2121095; 848692, 2121194; 48782, 2121292; 849007, 2121310;
849177, 2121319; 849350, 2121233; 849475, 2120505; 49474, 2120484;
849447, 2120250; 849528, 2120044.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 3--Lower Kahuku
follows:
[[Page 73845]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.012
[[Page 73846]]
(9) Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4--Pit Crater, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 821660, 2184453;
821670, 2184348; 821617, 2184279; 821490, 2184191; 821428, 2184164;
821304, 2184150; 821131, 2184187; 821052, 2184187; 821012, 2184150;
820889, 2184086; 820850, 2184076; 820824, 2184102; 820778, 2184164;
820705, 2184193; 820626, 2184233; 820610, 2184289; 820657, 2184318;
820673, 2184316; 820707, 2184310; 820723, 2184306; 820747, 2184293;
820790, 2184269; 820818, 2184247; 820832, 2184215; 820861, 2184180;
820905, 2184168; 820929, 2184191; 820939, 2184221; 820974, 2184255;
821024, 2184261; 821109, 2184261; 821206, 2184261; 821264, 2184269;
821282, 2184285; 821292, 2184322; 821254, 2184360; 821232, 2184396;
821276, 2184404; 821341, 2184400; 821369, 2184431; 821363, 2184463;
821333, 2184499; 821345, 2184528; 821426, 2184550; 821531, 2184554;
821619, 2184513.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 4--Pit Crater
follows:
[[Page 73847]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.013
[[Page 73848]]
(10) Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5--Waihaka Gulch, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 868924, 2138585;
868686, 2138463; 868564, 2138464; 868434, 2138482; 868325, 2138598;
868350, 2138841; 868378, 2138886; 868503, 2139088; 868720, 2139220;
868946, 2139193; 869076, 2139167; 869160, 2139055; 869238, 2139018;
869248, 2138892.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 5--Waihaka Gulch
follows:
[[Page 73849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.014
[[Page 73850]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila montgomeryi)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Honolulu,
Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila montgomeryi are:
(i) Mesic, lowland, diverse ohia and koa forest between the
elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft (524-910 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Urera kaalae, which exhibits one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
montgomeryi follows:
[[Page 73851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.015
[[Page 73852]]
(6) Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch, City and County
of Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593240, 2374436;
593231, 2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315, 2374385; 593612, 2374173;
593656, 2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641, 2374077; 593676, 2374072;
593703, 2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758, 2374058; 593793, 2374029;
593779, 2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660, 2373784; 593609, 2373702;
593592, 2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598, 2373553; 593657, 2373561;
593770, 2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797, 2373417; 593842, 2373411;
593842, 2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053, 2373383; 594103, 2373292;
594134, 2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194, 2373256; 594178, 2373323;
594196, 2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312, 2373340; 594341, 2373350;
594339, 2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381, 2373513; 594460, 2373552;
594496, 2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526, 2373509; 594572, 2373460;
594632, 2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699, 2373475; 594728, 2373476;
594762, 2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828, 2373501; 594852, 2373465;
594903, 2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952, 2373489; 594974, 2373334;
594800, 2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718, 2373102; 594744, 2373091;
594710, 2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716, 2372633; 594678, 2372623;
594566, 2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506, 2372663; 594467, 2372672;
594395, 2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546, 2372567; 594558, 2372553;
594551, 2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395, 2372434; 594415, 2372428;
594511, 2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614, 2372421; 594607, 2372385;
594593, 2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618, 2372322; 594661, 2372357;
594700, 2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697, 2372333; 594697, 2372283;
594652, 2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454, 2372294; 594400, 2372294;
594293, 2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168, 2372241; 594126, 2372258;
594075, 2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999, 2372354; 593948, 2372388;
593889, 2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781, 2372425; 593756, 2372442;
593742, 2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736, 2372521; 593736, 2372560;
593757, 2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663, 2372772; 593543, 2372859;
593558, 2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526, 2372928; 593476, 2372912;
593422, 2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403, 2372997; 593400, 2373025;
593373, 2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328, 2373025; 593215, 2373118;
593230, 2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163, 2373154; 593095, 2373213;
593091, 2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019, 2373295; 592937, 2373388;
592889, 2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908, 2373597; 592923, 2373668;
592914, 2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868, 2373941; 592867, 2373950;
592894, 2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894, 2374162; 592860, 2374213;
592854, 2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila montgomery--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
[[Page 73853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.016
[[Page 73854]]
(7) Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2--Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593529, 2367854;
593448, 2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242, 2367927; 593193, 2367967;
593165, 2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314, 2368283; 593399, 2368425;
593448, 2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622, 2368833; 593703, 2368906;
593764, 2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901, 2369145; 594002, 2369262;
594079, 2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120, 2369485; 594124, 2369521;
594148, 2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310, 2369497; 594395, 2369473;
594399, 2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417, 2369313; 594461, 2369290;
594551, 2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559, 2369197; 594472, 2369183;
594391, 2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302, 2369072; 594257, 2369015;
594213, 2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083, 2368672; 594035, 2368550;
593966, 2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909, 2368259; 593792, 2368105;
593675, 2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 2--Palikea follows:
[[Page 73855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.017
[[Page 73856]]
(8) Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3--Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 594166, 2370854;
594166, 2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122, 2370843; 594090, 2370815;
594040, 2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930, 2370827; 593852, 2370875;
593778, 2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642, 2370999; 593602, 2371041;
593574, 2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539, 2371118; 593531, 2371121;
593534, 2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533, 2371375; 593552, 2371390;
593628, 2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794, 2371431; 593876, 2371437;
593974, 2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138, 2371415; 594190, 2371399;
594232, 2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239, 2371354; 594170, 2370879;
594172, 2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila montgomeryi--Unit 3--Puu Kaua follows:
[[Page 73857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.018
[[Page 73858]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila mulli)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Hawaii,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila mulli are:
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 1,955-3,250
ft (596-1,093 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Pritchardia beccariana, which exhibits
one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila mulli
follows:
[[Page 73859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.019
[[Page 73860]]
(6) Drosophila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa Forest, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 898754, 2154890;
898225, 2154740; 898030, 2154878; 897846, 2155268; 897927, 2155578;
898328, 2155910; 898508, 2155922; 899064, 2155498; 899064, 2155268.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli--Unit 1--Olaa Forest follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.020
[[Page 73861]]
(7) Drosophila mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 903259, 2169945;
903159, 2169907; 903080, 2169965; 902974, 2170089; 902953, 2170247;
903012, 2170346; 903101, 2170415; 903166, 2170439; 903245, 2170490;
903324, 2170521; 903420, 2170603; 903509, 2170651; 903636, 2170699;
903732, 2170771; 903849, 2170799; 903914, 2170789; 903955, 2170730;
903869, 2170662; 903866, 2170658; 903718, 2170579; 903653, 2170521;
903622, 2170487; 903441, 2170394; 903386, 2170322; 903399, 2170250;
903451, 2170133; 903403, 2170058.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest
follows:
[[Page 73862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.021
[[Page 73863]]
(8) Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 897021, 2168026;
896225, 2167587; 895745, 2167704; 895687, 2167996; 895745, 2168207;
896014, 2168335; 896480, 2168668; 896841, 2169108; 897302, 2169068;
897522, 2168908; 897482, 2168607.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest follows:
[[Page 73864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.022
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 73865]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila musaphilia)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for County of Kauai, island of
Kauai, Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila musaphilia are:
(i) Mesic, montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of
3,310-3,740 ft (1,009-1,128 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Acacia koa, which exhibits one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee, Kauai County, island of
Kauai, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 432035, 2448683;
432126, 2448510; 432111, 2448312; 432111, 2448119; 432106, 2447977;
432010, 2447906; 432025, 2447779; 431992, 2447749; 431962, 2447768;
431938, 2447766; 431926, 2447752; 431895, 2447719; 431861, 2447686;
431825, 2447651; 431786, 2447616; 431745, 2447581; 431701, 2447544;
431658, 2447505; 431616, 2447462; 431575, 2447417; 431535, 2447368;
431496, 2447318; 431457, 2447271; 431418, 2447231; 431379, 2447198;
431339, 2447172; 431299, 2447153; 431267, 2447131; 431247, 2447103;
431239, 2447068; 431244, 2447027; 431260, 2446979; 431278, 2446930;
431292, 2446881; 431300, 2446834; 431303, 2446788; 431302, 2446743;
431300, 2446700; 431301, 2446659; 431306, 2446621; 431252, 2446466;
431186, 2446345; 431181, 2446332; 430955, 2445963; 430860, 2445709;
430831, 2445664; 430760, 2445497; 430648, 2445441; 430416, 2445421;
430405, 2445422; 430396, 2445420; 430159, 2445358; 430153, 2445371;
430148, 2445402; 430150, 2445437; 430157, 2445475; 430170, 2445517;
430188, 2445562; 430212, 2445610; 430240, 2445660; 430270, 2445707;
430302, 2445754; 430335, 2445799; 430371, 2445842; 430407, 2445883;
430441, 2445921; 430474, 2445956; 430506, 2445988; 430535, 2446017;
430559, 2446044; 430567, 2446070; 430558, 2446095; 430533, 2446120;
430492, 2446144; 430441, 2446167; 430398, 2446193; 430363, 2446221;
430337, 2446252; 430320, 2446284; 430311, 2446319; 430309, 2446353;
430315, 2446388; 430327, 2446423; 430347, 2446457; 430373, 2446492;
430401, 2446525; 430430, 2446558; 430459, 2446589; 430489, 2446619;
430518, 2446649; 430531, 2446681; 430524, 2446716; 430497, 2446755;
430451, 2446797; 430387, 2446842; 430330, 2446887; 430288, 2446930;
430262, 2446971; 430250, 2447010; 430253, 2447047; 430263, 2447083;
430274, 2447118; 430288, 2447153; 430304, 2447187; 430323, 2447220;
430339, 2447254; 430350, 2447291; 430356, 2447331; 430358, 2447373;
430354, 2447418; 430351, 2447461; 430354, 2447496; 430361, 2447524;
430374, 2447545; 430392, 2447558; 430416, 2447567; 430445, 2447573;
430479, 2447576; 430518, 2447577; 430563, 2447574; 430609, 2447572;
430649, 2447573; 430684, 2447578; 430714, 2447587; 430737, 2447599;
430755, 2447616; 430767, 2447639; 430772, 2447667; 430772, 2447701;
430766, 2447740; 430756, 2447783; 430755, 2447821; 430762, 2447853;
430778, 2447879; 430802, 2447900; 430834, 2447916; 430864, 2447928;
430893, 2447937; 430920, 2447943; 430945, 2447947; 430968, 2447947;
430989, 2447952; 431007, 2447961; 431022, 2447974; 431035, 2447992;
431045, 2448014; 431049, 2448036; 431046, 2448057; 431036, 2448077;
431019, 2448096; 430996, 2448113; 430971, 2448128; 430946, 2448140;
430921, 2448149; 430896, 2448155; 430871, 2448158; 430849, 2448165;
430830, 2448179; 430815, 2448200; 430804, 2448228; 430796, 2448263;
430799, 2448299; 430816, 2448330; 430848, 2448356; 430894, 2448377;
430956, 2448393; 431018, 2448407; 431064, 2448423; 431094, 2448440;
431109, 2448459; 431107, 2448479; 431094, 2448502; 431076, 2448530;
431054, 2448563; 431027, 2448601; 430996, 2448643; 430967, 2448687;
430957, 2448722; 430966, 2448749; 430994, 2448766; 431042, 2448775;
431103, 2448778; 431162, 2448779; 431218, 2448779; 431269, 2448779;
431317, 2448777; 431361, 2448775; 431403, 2448767; 431443, 2448754;
431480, 2448736; 431515, 2448712; 431548, 2448685; 431579, 2448661;
431607, 2448643; 431633, 2448630; 431657, 2448622; 431678, 2448620;
431692, 2448631; 431697, 2448656; 431694, 2448695; 431683, 2448749;
431665, 2448816; 431657, 2448878; 431666, 2448928; 431692, 2448967;
431735, 2448994; 431795, 2449009; 431857, 2449019; 431913, 2449024;
431963, 2449027; 432008, 2449026; 432046, 2449022; 432076, 2449012;
432094, 2448996; 432100, 2448974; 432095, 2448945; 432078, 2448910;
432060, 2448872; 432053, 2448837; 432063, 2448834; 432035, 2448784.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 73866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.023
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 73867]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila neoclavisetae)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for County of Maui, island of
Maui, Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila neoclavisetae are:
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 3,405-4,590
ft (1,036-1,399 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia
ssp. macrostegia, which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui, Maui County,
island of Maui, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 749957, 2315007;
750017, 2314927; 750054, 2314874; 750054, 2314874; 750070, 2314854;
750070, 2314854; 750070, 2314853; 750070, 2314853; 750095, 2314828;
750095, 2314828; 750095, 2314828; 750118, 2314807; 750118, 2314807;
750118, 2314806; 750119, 2314806; 750119, 2314806; 750137, 2314795;
750137, 2314795; 750137, 2314795; 750137, 2314795; 750138, 2314795;
750138, 2314795; 750172, 2314783; 750197, 2314770; 750214, 2314760;
750222, 2314756; 750222, 2314756; 750222, 2314756; 750231, 2314751;
750244, 2314735; 750244, 2314735; 750244, 2314735; 750245, 2314735;
750263, 2314718; 750263, 2314718; 750263, 2314718; 750283, 2314702;
750381, 2314361; 750381, 2314360; 750421, 2314232; 750421, 2314232;
750421, 2314232; 750421, 2314231; 750421, 2314231; 750421, 2314231;
750422, 2314231; 750422, 2314230; 750422, 2314230; 750402, 2314210;
750397, 2314126; 750357, 2314098; 750329, 2314098; 750312, 2314143;
750290, 2314227; 750239, 2314244; 750194, 2314227; 750133, 2314238;
750076, 2314255; 750009, 2314238; 749958, 2314259; 749885, 2314289;
749773, 2314435; 749721, 2314492; 749520, 2314710; 749515, 2314969;
749509, 2315036; 749509, 2315093; 749565, 2315087; 749649, 2315036;
749739, 2314991; 749756, 2315031; 749655, 2315132; 749599, 2315244;
749554, 2315340; 749458, 2315407; 749368, 2315480; 749254, 2315543;
749183, 2315602; 749145, 2315636; 749117, 2315676; 749125, 2315679;
749125, 2315679; 749125, 2315679; 749125, 2315679; 749125, 2315678;
749125, 2315678; 749126, 2315678; 749126, 2315678; 749126, 2315677;
749138, 2315668; 749138, 2315668; 749172, 2315644; 749172, 2315644;
749172, 2315644; 749172, 2315644; 749172, 2315644; 749186, 2315637;
749203, 2315624; 749221, 2315611; 749221, 2315611; 749221, 2315611;
749222, 2315611; 749222, 2315611; 749222, 2315611; 749243, 2315602;
749331, 2315566; 749351, 2315553; 749351, 2315553; 749383, 2315533;
749383, 2315533; 749383, 2315533; 749403, 2315522; 749419, 2315511;
749468, 2315475; 749476, 2315462; 749483, 2315449; 749483, 2315449;
749484, 2315449; 749484, 2315449; 749498, 2315429; 749498, 2315429;
749498, 2315428; 749522, 2315400; 749522, 2315400; 749522, 2315400;
749522, 2315400; 749523, 2315399; 749523, 2315399; 749523, 2315399;
749548, 2315382; 749548, 2315382; 749548, 2315382; 749570, 2315370;
749570, 2315370; 749570, 2315370; 749616, 2315349; 749626, 2315340;
749626, 2315340; 749627, 2315340; 749650, 2315324; 749664, 2315305;
749675, 2315287; 749679, 2315278; 749679, 2315278; 749679, 2315278;
749679, 2315278; 749680, 2315278; 749698, 2315255; 749698, 2315254;
749698, 2315254; 749718, 2315234; 749718, 2315234; 749718, 2315234;
749718, 2315233; 749718, 2315233; 749734, 2315222; 749779, 2315184;
749779, 2315184; 749780, 2315183; 749780, 2315183; 749780, 2315183;
749802, 2315170; 749831, 2315145; 749872, 2315096; 749872, 2315096;
749872, 2315096; 749872, 2315096; 749873, 2315095; 749873, 2315095;
749886, 2315085; 749931, 2315044; 749957, 2315008.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 73868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.024
[[Page 73869]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila obatai)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for County of Honolulu, island of
Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila obatai are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the
elevations of 1,475-2,535 ft (450-773 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Pleomele forbesii, which exhibits one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of the critical habitat units for Drosophila
obatai follows:
[[Page 73870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.025
[[Page 73871]]
(6) Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu Pane, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 591489, 2379704;
591662, 2379690; 591807, 2379704; 591822, 2379699; 591901, 2379571;
591871, 2379579; 591830, 2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591830, 2379596;
591830, 2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591830, 2379596;
591791, 2379600; 591791, 2379600; 591791, 2379601; 591791, 2379600;
591791, 2379600; 591791, 2379600; 591766, 2379597; 591766, 2379597;
591766, 2379597; 591766, 2379597; 591766, 2379597; 591766, 2379597;
591766, 2379597; 591741, 2379583; 591741, 2379583; 591710, 2379565;
591672, 2379554; 591672, 2379554; 591635, 2379542; 591614, 2379537;
591614, 2379537; 591614, 2379537; 591582, 2379526; 591582, 2379526;
591582, 2379526; 591582, 2379526; 591582, 2379526; 591545, 2379500;
591523, 2379495; 591496, 2379495; 591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505;
591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505;
591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591444, 2379502;
591444, 2379502; 591444, 2379502; 591444, 2379502; 591444, 2379502;
591432, 2379498; 591421, 2379497; 591421, 2379497; 591421, 2379497;
591421, 2379497; 591421, 2379497; 591420, 2379497; 591420, 2379497;
591420, 2379497; 591420, 2379497; 591420, 2379497; 591405, 2379487;
591405, 2379487; 591405, 2379487; 591405, 2379486; 591405, 2379486;
591405, 2379486; 591403, 2379483; 591354, 2379454; 591283, 2379460;
591240, 2379449; 591113, 2379474; 591116, 2379531; 591169, 2379618;
591284, 2379716; 591345, 2379723.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila obatai--Unit 1--Puu Pane follows:
[[Page 73872]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.026
[[Page 73873]]
(7) Drosophila obatai--Unit 2--Wailupe, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 629222, 2358352;
629208, 2358307; 629199, 2358225; 629147, 2358205; 629100, 2358307;
629048, 2358343; 629028, 2358316; 629023, 2358250; 629005, 2358174;
628908, 2358169; 628890, 2358110; 628922, 2358034; 628883, 2358011;
628795, 2358007; 628791, 2357939; 628753, 2357885; 628759, 2357799;
628705, 2357743; 628676, 2357619; 628606, 2357592; 628536, 2357607;
628552, 2357673; 628610, 2357731; 628574, 2357806; 628559, 2357874;
628619, 2357932; 628637, 2357973; 628635, 2358074; 628660, 2358185;
628735, 2358298; 628775, 2358411; 628936, 2358634; 629070, 2358711;
629243, 2358647; 629307, 2358506.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila obatai--Unit 2--Wailupe follows:
[[Page 73874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.027
[[Page 73875]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila ochrobasis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Hawaii,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila ochrobasis are:
(i) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia, koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest
between the elevations of 3,850-5,390 ft (1,173-1,643 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Clermontia calophylla, C.
clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C. drepanomorpha, C.
hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montis-loa, C. parviflora,
C. peleana, C. pyrularia, C. waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine
lanaiensis, M. lessertiana, and M. sandwicensis, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
ochrobasis follows:
[[Page 73876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.028
(6) Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1--Kipuka 9, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 884112, 2179392;
884090, 2179333; 884069, 2179303; 884023, 2179281; 883971, 2179292;
883936, 2179295; 883896, 2179273; 883855, 2179287; 883825, 2179319;
883828, 2179335; 883861, 2179349; 883869, 2179346; 883885, 2179346;
883888, 2179373; 883893, 2179409; 883896, 2179441; 883934, 2179473;
883985, 2179484; 884036, 2179444; 884112, 2179409.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 1--Kipuka 9 follows:
[[Page 73877]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.029
(7) Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2--Kipuka 14, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 884379, 2179103;
884375, 2179051; 884351, 2178992; 884320, 2178889; 884264, 2178832;
884236, 2178818; 884211, 2178834; 884141, 2178891; 884099, 2178924;
884064, 2178929; 884026, 2178959; 884026, 2178976; 884052, 2178983;
884071, 2179008; 884101, 2179013; 884137, 2179021; 884160, 2179035;
884148, 2179051; 884151, 2179065; 884210, 2179063; 884208, 2179084;
884242, 2179101; 884280, 2179131; 884323, 2179146; 884365, 2179146.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 2--Kipuka 14 follows:
[[Page 73878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.030
(8) Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3--Kohala Mountains East, Hawaii
County, island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 848091, 2222077;
847912, 2222077; 847578, 2222142; 847461, 2222323; 847396, 2222654;
847508, 2222900; 847620, 2223146; 847773, 2223179; 848104, 2223079;
848172, 2222934; 848235, 2222798; 848327, 2222764; 848361, 2222693;
848350, 2222595; 848317, 2222476; 848177, 2222184.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 3--Kohala Mountains
East follows:
[[Page 73879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.031
(9) Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4--Kohala Mountains West, Hawaii
County, island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 841990, 2224000;
842156, 2223966; 842268, 2223966; 842486, 2223897; 842666, 2223757;
842803, 2223586; 842840, 2223426; 842812, 2223314; 842758, 2223157;
842584, 2223047; 842430, 2223096; 842355, 2223157; 842260, 2223278;
842154, 2223345; 842020, 2223634; 841988, 2223746; 841967, 2223882.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 4--Kohala Mountains
West follows:
[[Page 73880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.032
(10) Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5--Upper Kahuku, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 850211, 2124185;
849989, 2124179; 849874, 2124347; 849874, 2124516; 849975, 2124603;
850177, 2124724; 850332, 2124866; 850474, 2124900; 850589, 2124832;
850669, 2124785; 850690, 2124684; 850669, 2124549; 850508, 2124448;
850339, 2124320.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila ochrobasis--Unit 5--Upper Kahuku
follows:
[[Page 73881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.033
[[Page 73882]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila substenoptera)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for County of Honolulu, island of
Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila substenoptera are:
(i) Mesic to wet, lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest between
the elevations of 1,920-4,030 ft (585-1,228 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Cheirodendron platyphyllum ssp.
platyphyllum, C. trigynum ssp. trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis, and
T. oahuensis, which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
substenoptera follows:
[[Page 73883]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.034
[[Page 73884]]
(6) Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 1--Mt. Kaala, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 588692, 2378661;
588740, 2378622; 588806, 2378595; 588799, 2378573; 588790, 2378564;
588785, 2378562; 588776, 2378565; 588776, 2378565; 588776, 2378565;
588776, 2378565; 588776, 2378565; 588776, 2378565; 588776, 2378566;
588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566;
588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566;
588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766, 2378566;
588766, 2378566; 588765, 2378566; 588765, 2378566; 588765, 2378566;
588753, 2378551; 588731, 2378529; 588722, 2378520; 588722, 2378520;
588722, 2378520; 588714, 2378509; 588660, 2378470; 588660, 2378470;
588660, 2378470; 588660, 2378470; 588617, 2378429; 588584, 2378412;
588563, 2378405; 588530, 2378398; 588530, 2378398; 588484, 2378387;
588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384;
588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466, 2378384;
588459, 2378380; 588459, 2378380; 588459, 2378380; 588459, 2378380;
588459, 2378379; 588459, 2378379; 588459, 2378379; 588459, 2378379;
588395, 2378293; 588361, 2378254; 588361, 2378254; 588361, 2378254;
588361, 2378254; 588361, 2378254; 588349, 2378234; 588349, 2378234;
588349, 2378234; 588349, 2378234; 588349, 2378234; 588349, 2378234;
588344, 2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344, 2378210;
588344, 2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344, 2378186; 588344, 2378186;
588344, 2378186; 588344, 2378186; 588349, 2378161; 588349, 2378161;
588349, 2378161; 588349, 2378161; 588373, 2378097; 588385, 2378041;
588384, 2378026; 588380, 2378003; 588364, 2377972; 588364, 2377972;
588364, 2377972; 588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941;
588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941;
588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588354, 2377924;
588354, 2377924; 588354, 2377923; 588354, 2377923; 588354, 2377923;
588362, 2377904; 588362, 2377904; 588362, 2377904; 588362, 2377904;
588362, 2377904; 588369, 2377893; 588369, 2377893; 588369, 2377893;
588369, 2377893; 588369, 2377893; 588369, 2377893; 588376, 2377888;
588308, 2377906; 588255, 2377885; 588156, 2377924; 588103, 2377905;
588064, 2377903; 587879, 2378062; 587792, 2378228; 587806, 2378342;
587939, 2378515; 588067, 2378659; 588232, 2378655; 588363, 2378748;
588503, 2378737; 588614, 2378668.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 1--Mt. Kaala
follows:
[[Page 73885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.035
[[Page 73886]]
(7) Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 2--Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593529, 2367854;
593448, 2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242, 2367927; 593193, 2367967;
593165, 2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314, 2368283; 593399, 2368425;
593448, 2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622, 2368833; 593703, 2368906;
593764, 2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901, 2369145; 594002, 2369262;
594079, 2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120, 2369485; 594124, 2369521;
594148, 2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310, 2369497; 594395, 2369473;
594399, 2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417, 2369313; 594461, 2369290;
594551, 2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559, 2369197; 594472, 2369183;
594391, 2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302, 2369072; 594257, 2369015;
594213, 2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083, 2368672; 594035, 2368550;
593966, 2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909, 2368259; 593792, 2368105;
593675, 2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila substenoptera--Unit 2--Palikea
follows:
[[Page 73887]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.036
[[Page 73888]]
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila tarphytrichia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Drosophila tarphytrichia are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the
elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft (524-910 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Charpentiera obovata, which exhibits one
or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Coordinates are in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Drosophila
tarphytrichia follows:
[[Page 73889]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.037
[[Page 73890]]
(6) Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch, City and County
of Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593240, 2374436;
593231, 2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315, 2374385; 593612, 2374173;
593656, 2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641, 2374077; 593676, 2374072;
593703, 2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758, 2374058; 593793, 2374029;
593779, 2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660, 2373784; 593609, 2373702;
593592, 2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598, 2373553; 593657, 2373561;
593770, 2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797, 2373417; 593842, 2373411;
593842, 2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053, 2373383; 594103, 2373292;
594134, 2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194, 2373256; 594178, 2373323;
594196, 2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312, 2373340; 594341, 2373350;
594339, 2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381, 2373513; 594460, 2373552;
594496, 2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526, 2373509; 594572, 2373460;
594632, 2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699, 2373475; 594728, 2373476;
594762, 2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828, 2373501; 594852, 2373465;
594903, 2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952, 2373489; 594974, 2373334;
594800, 2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718, 2373102; 594744, 2373091;
594710, 2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716, 2372633; 594678, 2372623;
594566, 2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506, 2372663; 594467, 2372672;
594395, 2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546, 2372567; 594558, 2372553;
594551, 2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395, 2372434; 594415, 2372428;
594511, 2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614, 2372421; 594607, 2372385;
594593, 2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618, 2372322; 594661, 2372357;
594700, 2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697, 2372333; 594697, 2372283;
594652, 2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454, 2372294; 594400, 2372294;
594293, 2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168, 2372241; 594126, 2372258;
594075, 2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999, 2372354; 593948, 2372388;
593889, 2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781, 2372425; 593756, 2372442;
593742, 2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736, 2372521; 593736, 2372560;
593757, 2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663, 2372772; 593543, 2372859;
593558, 2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526, 2372928; 593476, 2372912;
593422, 2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403, 2372997; 593400, 2373025;
593373, 2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328, 2373025; 593215, 2373118;
593230, 2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163, 2373154; 593095, 2373213;
593091, 2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019, 2373295; 592937, 2373388;
592889, 2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908, 2373597; 592923, 2373668;
592914, 2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868, 2373941; 592867, 2373950;
592894, 2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894, 2374162; 592860, 2374213;
592854, 2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 1--Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
[[Page 73891]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.038
[[Page 73892]]
(7) Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 2--Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 593529, 2367854;
593448, 2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242, 2367927; 593193, 2367967;
593165, 2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314, 2368283; 593399, 2368425;
593448, 2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622, 2368833; 593703, 2368906;
593764, 2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901, 2369145; 594002, 2369262;
594079, 2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120, 2369485; 594124, 2369521;
594148, 2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310, 2369497; 594395, 2369473;
594399, 2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417, 2369313; 594461, 2369290;
594551, 2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559, 2369197; 594472, 2369183;
594391, 2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302, 2369072; 594257, 2369015;
594213, 2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083, 2368672; 594035, 2368550;
593966, 2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909, 2368259; 593792, 2368105;
593675, 2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 2--Palikea
follows:
[[Continued on page 73894]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 73894-73895]] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian
Islands
[[Continued from page 73893]]
[[Page 73893]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.039
[[Page 73894]]
(8) Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 3--Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following coordinates: 594166, 2370854;
594166, 2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122, 2370843; 594090, 2370815;
594040, 2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930, 2370827; 593852, 2370875;
593778, 2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642, 2370999; 593602, 2371041;
593574, 2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539, 2371118; 593531, 2371121;
593534, 2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533, 2371375; 593552, 2371390;
593628, 2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794, 2371431; 593876, 2371437;
593974, 2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138, 2371415; 594190, 2371399;
594232, 2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239, 2371354; 594170, 2370879;
594172, 2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila tarphytrichia--Unit 3--Puu Kaua
follows:
[[Page 73895]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04DE08.040
* * * * *
Dated: November 14, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-27664 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C