[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17789-18110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06069]



[[Page 17789]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 61

March 30, 2016

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation and 
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe for 135 Species; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 17790]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ25


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation and 
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe for 135 Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate or revise 
critical habitat for 125 listed species on the islands of Maui, 
Molokai, and Kahoolawe in the State of Hawaii. We are designating 
critical habitat for 50 plant and animal species, and revising critical 
habitat for 85 plant species. In total, approximately 157,002 acres 
(ac) (63,537 hectares (ha)) on the islands of Molokai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Although we proposed critical habitat on 25,413 ac (10,284 
ha) on the island of Lanai, this area is excluded from final 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. In 
addition, under section 4(b)(2), approximately 59,479 ac (24,070 ha) on 
the islands of Maui and Molokai are excluded from critical habitat 
designation. These exclusions mean that we are not designating critical 
habitat for 10 of the species included in our proposed rule. We also 
removed 29,170 ac (11,805 ha) of areas we determined do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. In this final rule, we accept name 
changes or corrections for 10 endangered plants and 2 endangered birds. 
The effect of this rule is to conserve these 125 species and their 
habitats under the Endangered Species Act.

DATE: This rule is effective on April 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, final economic analysis, and the document 
``Supplementary Information for the Designation and Nondesignation of 
Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 
Species'' are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071. Comments and materials received, 
as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, 
are 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, 
Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 
808-792-9581.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-
ES-2015-0071, and at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone 
at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of the Final Rule

    This final rule describes the final critical habitat designation 
for 135 Maui Nui species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act or ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The pages that follow 
summarize the comments and information received during multiple open 
comment periods and a public hearing in response to the proposed rule 
published on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), and in response to the notice 
of availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed 
designation published on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), describe any 
changes from the proposed rule, and detail the final designation for 
the Maui Nui species. To assist the reader, the content of the document 
is organized as follows:

I. Executive Summary
II. Previous Federal Actions
III. Background
    Maui Nui Species Addressed in This Final Rule
    An Ecosystem-Based Approach To Determining Primary Constituent 
Elements of Critical Habitat
IV. Summary of Comments and Recommendations
    Peer Review
    Comments from Federal Agencies
    Comments from State of Hawaii Elected Officials
    Comments from State of Hawaii Agencies
    Comments from Maui County
    Public Comments
    Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
V. Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
VI. Critical Habitat
    Background
VII. Methods
    Occupied Areas
    Essential Physical or Biological Features
    Special Management Considerations or Protections
    Unoccupied Areas
    Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation
    Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units
IX. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
    Section 7 Consultation
    Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
X. Exemptions
    Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
XI. Exclusions
    Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors
    Summary of Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors
XII. Required Determinations
XIII. References Cited
Regulation Promulgation

I. Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to designate or 
revise critical habitat for 135 species from the island cluster of Maui 
Nui (Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Kahoolawe) in the State of Hawaii. Under 
the Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of 
critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), listed 96 of the 
135 species as endangered or threatened species at various times (see 
77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). On June 11, 2012, we published in the 
Federal Register a proposed rule to list 38 Maui Nui species as 
endangered, reaffirm the listing of 2 species as endangered, and 
designate or revise critical habitat for 135 Maui Nui species (77 FR 
34464). On May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014) we listed 38 Maui Nui species as 
endangered and reaffirmed the listing of 2 species as endangered. 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security 
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat.
    The critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule 
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for

[[Page 17791]]

125 of the 135 Maui Nui species. Here we are designating as critical 
habitat approximately 157,002 acres (ac) (63,537 hectares (ha)) in 165 
unique units for 125 Maui Nui species: 31,513 ac (12,753 ha) on 
Molokai; 119,349 ac (48,299 ha) on Maui; and 6,142 ac (2,486 ha) on 
Kahoolawe. No critical habitat is designated on the island of Lanai as 
a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; as a 
consequence, final critical habitat is not designated for 10 of the 
Maui Nui species.
    In this final rule, 29,170 ac (11,805 ha) have been removed from 
the area originally proposed as a result of refinement in unit areas 
made in response to public comments and additional field visits. We 
removed these areas based on our determination that they do not meet 
the definition of critical habitat. In addition, 84,891 ac (34,354 ha) 
of non-Federal lands on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai have been excluded 
from final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For these 
lands, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation and that these 
exclusions will not result in the extinction of the species.
    In this final rule, we also recognize taxonomic changes and 
spelling corrections of the scientific names for 10 plant species and 2 
bird species, and revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
and the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife accordingly.
    We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of 
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have 
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation and related factors. We announced the availability of the 
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on January 31, 
2013 (78 FR 6785), allowing the public to provide comment on our 
analysis. We also held a public information meeting and public hearing 
on our proposed rulemaking and associated DEA in Kihei, Maui, on 
February 21, 2013. We have considered the comments and have completed 
the final economic analysis (FEA) concurrently with this final 
determination.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from four knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions and analysis, and to determine whether or not we had used 
the best available scientific information. These peer reviewers 
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this 
final rule. Information we received from peer review is incorporated 
into this final designation. We also considered all comments and 
information we received from the public during multiple comment 
periods, which totaled 135 days in length.

II. Previous Federal Actions

    Federal actions for these species are outlined in our May 28, 2013 
(78 FR 32014), final rule to list 38 Maui Nui species and reaffirm the 
listing of 2 endangered plants and in our June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), 
proposed rule to list 38 species as endangered and designate critical 
habitat for 135 Maui Nui species. (Please note that because the 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat was originally published in 
conjunction with the proposed listing rule, which has already been 
finalized, the proposed rule critical habitat rule and associated 
documents, such as the draft economic analysis, are posted at http://www.regulations.gov under the original Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0098). 
Publication of the June 11, 2012, proposed rule opened a 60-day comment 
period, which was extended on August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47587) for an 
additional 30 days and closed on September 10, 2012. In addition, we 
published a public notice of the proposed rule on June 20, 2012, in the 
local Honolulu Star Advertiser, Maui Times, and Molokai Dispatch 
newspapers. On January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), we reopened the comment 
period for an additional 30 days on the entire June 11, 2012, proposed 
rule (77 FR 34464), as well as on the draft economic analysis on the 
proposed critical habitat designation, and announced both a public 
information meeting and a hearing to be held in Kihei, Maui, on 
February 21, 2013. This second comment period closed on March 4, 2013. 
We opened a final comment period on the proposed critical habitat 
designation for an additional 15 days on June 10, 2015 (80 FR 32922).

III. Background

Maui Nui Species Addressed in This Final Rule

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

                           Table 1--The Maui Nui Species Addressed in This Final Rule
   [Note that many of the species share the same common name. ``NCN'' indicates no common name. ``E'' denotes
                 endangered status under the act; ``T'' denotes threatened status under the act]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Scientific name                  Common name(s)           Listing status       Critical habitat \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants:
    Abutilon eremitopetalum..........  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Acaena exigua....................  liliwai.................  E                      Final.
    Adenophorus periens..............  pendent kihi fern.......  E                      Revised--2003.
    Alectryon macrococcus............  mahoe...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.     ahinahina (= Haleakala    T                      Revised--2003.
     macrocephalum.                     silversword).
    Asplenium dielerectum............  asplenium-leaved diellia  E                      Revised--2003.
    Asplenium peruvianum var.          [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
     insulare.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp.           kookoolau...............  E                      Final.
     pentamera.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp.           kookoolau...............  E                      Final.
     waihoiensis.
    Bidens conjuncta.................  kookoolau...............  E                      Final.
    Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha..  kookoolau...............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Bidens wiebkei...................  kookoolau...............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Bonamia menziesii................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Brighamia rockii.................  pua ala.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Calamagrostis hillebrandii.......  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Canavalia molokaiensis...........  awikiwiki...............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Canavalia pubescens..............  awikiwiki...............  E                      Final.

[[Page 17792]]

 
    Cenchrus agrimonioides...........  kamanomano (= sandbur,    E                      Revised--2003.
                                        agrimony).
    Clermontia lindseyana............  oha wai.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.       oha wai.................  E                      Revised--2003.
     brevipes.
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.       oha wai.................  E                      Revised--2003.
     mauiensis.
    Clermontia peleana...............  oha wai.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Clermontia samuelii..............  oha wai.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Colubrina oppositifolia..........  kauila..................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Ctenitis squamigera..............  pauoa...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea asplenifolia..............  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea copelandii ssp.             haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
     haleakalaensis.
    Cyanea dunbariae.................  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea duvalliorum...............  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea gibsonii..................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea glabra....................  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.            haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
     hamatiflora.
    Cyanea horrida...................  haha nui................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea kunthiana.................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea lobata....................  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea magnicalyx................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea mannii....................  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea maritae...................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea mauiensis.................  haha....................  E                      Not Determinable
    Cyanea mceldowneyi...............  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea munroi....................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea obtusa....................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea procera...................  haha....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyanea profuga...................  haha....................  E                      Final.
    Cyanea solanacea.................  popolo..................  E                      Final.
    Cyperus fauriei..................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyperus pennatiformis............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyperus trachysanthos............  puukaa..................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyrtandra ferripilosa............  haiwale.................  E                      Final.
    Cyrtandra filipes................  haiwale.................  E                      Final.
    Cyrtandra munroi.................  haiwale.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Cyrtandra oxybapha...............  haiwale.................  E                      Final.
    Diplazium molokaiense............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis  naenae..................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Eugenia koolauensis..............  nioi....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Festuca molokaiensis.............  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Flueggea neowawraea..............  mehamehame..............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Geranium arboreum................  Hawaiian red-flowered     E                      Revised--2003.
                                        geranium.
    Geranium hanaense................  nohoanu.................  E                      Final.
    Geranium hillebrandii............  nohoanu.................  E                      Final.
    Geranium multiflorum.............  nohoanu.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Gouania hillebrandii.............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--1984
    Gouania vitifolia................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Hesperomannia arborescens........  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Hesperomannia arbuscula..........  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.          kokio keokeo............  E                      Revised--2003.
     immaculatus.
    Hibiscus brackenridgei...........  mao hau hele............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Huperzia mannii..................  wawaeiole...............  E                      Final.
    Ischaemum byrone.................  Hilo ischaemum..........  E                      Revised--2003.
    Isodendrion pyrifolium...........  wahine noho kula........  E                      Revised--2003.
    Kadua cordata ssp. remyi.........  kopa....................  E                      Final.
    Kadua coriacea...................  kioele..................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Kadua laxiflora..................  pilo....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Kanaloa kahoolawensis............  kohe malama malama o      E                      Revised--2003.
                                        kanaloa.
    Kokia cookei.....................  Cooke's kokio...........  E                      Final.
    Labordia tinifolia var.            kamakahala..............  E                      Final.
     lanaiensis.
    Labordia triflora................  kamakahala..............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Lysimachia lydgatei..............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Lysimachia maxima................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Marsilea villosa.................  ihi ihi.................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melanthera kamolensis............  nehe....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melicope adscendens..............  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melicope balloui.................  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melicope knudsenii...............  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melicope mucronulata.............  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.

[[Page 17793]]

 
    Melicope munroi..................  alani...................  E                      Final.
    Melicope ovalis..................  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Melicope reflexa.................  alani...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Mucuna sloanei var. persericea...  sea bean................  E                      Final.
    Myrsine vaccinioides.............  kolea...................  E                      Final.
    Neraudia sericea.................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Nototrichium humile..............  kului...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Peperomia subpetiolata...........  alaala wai nui..........  E                      Final.
    Peucedanum sandwicense...........  makou...................  T                      Revised--2003.
    Phyllostegia bracteata...........  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Phyllostegia haliakalae..........  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Phyllostegia hispida.............  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Phyllostegia mannii..............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Phyllostegia pilosa..............  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Pittosporum halophilum...........  hoawa...................  E                      Final.
    Plantago princeps................  laukahi kuahiwi.........  E                      Revised--2003.
    Platanthera holochila............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Pleomele fernaldii...............  hala pepe...............  E                      Final.
    Portulaca sclerocarpa............  poe.....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Pteris lidgatei..................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Remya mauiensis..................  Maui remya..............  E                      Revised--2003.
    Sanicula purpurea................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Santalum haleakalae var.           iliahi..................  E                      Final.
     lanaiense.
    Schenkia sebaeoides..............  awiwi...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Schiedea haleakalensis...........  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Schiedea jacobii.................  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Schiedea laui....................  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Schiedea lydgatei................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Schiedea salicaria...............  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Schiedea sarmentosa..............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Sesbania tomentosa...............  ohai....................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Silene alexandri.................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Silene lanceolata................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Solanum incompletum..............  popolo ku mai...........  E                      Final.
    Spermolepis hawaiiensis..........  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Stenogyne bifida.................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Stenogyne kauaulaensis...........  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Tetramolopium capillare..........  pamakani................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.       [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
     lepidotum.
    Tetramolopium remyi..............  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Tetramolopium rockii.............  [NCN]...................  T                      Revised--2003.
    Vigna o-wahuensis................  [NCN]...................  E                      Revised--2003.
    Viola lanaiensis.................  [NCN]...................  E                      Final.
    Wikstroemia villosa..............  akia....................  E                      Final.
    Zanthoxylum hawaiiense...........  ae......................  E                      Revised--2003.
Animals:
Birds:
    Palmeria dolei...................  Akohekohe, crested        E                      Final.
                                        honeycreeper.
    Pseudonestor xanthophrys.........  Kiwikiu, Maui parrotbill  E                      Final.
Snails:                                ........................  .....................  ........................
    Newcombia cumingi................  Newcomb's tree snail....  E                      Final.
    Partulina semicarinata...........  Lanai tree snail........  E                      Final.
    Partulina variabilis.............  Lanai tree snail........  E                      Final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Listed species for which critical habitat is designated for the first time are classified here as ``Final.''
  If this is a revision of previously designated critical habitat, the species is classified as `Revised''
  followed by the year of the original designation.

Taxonomic Changes and Spelling Corrections Since Listing for 2 Bird 
Species and 10 Plant Species From Maui Nui
    As described in detail in our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 
34464), in this final rule we are accepting name or spelling changes 
for 2 bird species and 10 plant species. In brief, we accept the 
recently adopted Hawaiian common name, kiwikiu, for the Maui parrotbill 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys). We also add the Hawaiian common name, 
akohekohe, to the listing for the crested honeycreeper (Palmeria 
dolei). Additionally, based on recent botanical work, we accept various 
name changes and spelling corrections for 10 endangered plant species 
listed between 1991 and 1999 (Table 2).

[[Page 17794]]



 Table 2--Name Changes and Spelling Corrections for 2 Listed Endangered Hawaiian Birds and 10 Listed Endangered
                                                 Hawaiian Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Change in  range
            Listing                       Family               Name as         Newly accepted       of listed
                                                          previously listed         name             entity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds:
    32 FR 4001.................  Fringillidae...........  Maui parrotbill    Kiwikiu, Maui      No.
                                                           (Pseudonestor      parrotbill.
                                                           xanthophrys).     (Pseudonestor
                                                                              xanthophrys).
    32 FR 4001.................  Fringillidae...........  Crested            Akohekohe,         No.
                                                           honeycreeper       crested
                                                           (Palmeria dolei).  honeycreeper
                                                                              (Palmeria dolei).
Plants:
    59 FR 49025................  Aspleniaceae...........  Asplenium fragile  Asplenium          No.
                                                           var. insulare.     peruvianum var.
                                                                              insulare.
    56 FR 55770................  Gentianaceae...........  Centaurium         Schenkia           No.
                                                           sebaeoides.        sebaeoides.
    61 FR 53130................  Campanulaceae..........  Cyanea dunbarii..  Cyanea dunbariae.  No.
    56 FR 47686................  Campanulaceae..........  Cyanea             Cyanea gibsonii..  No.
                                                           macrostegia ssp.
                                                           gibsonii.
    59 FR 56333................  Aspleniaceae...........  Diellia erecta...  Asplenium          No.
                                                                              dielerectum.
    64 FR 48307................  Rubiaceae..............  Hedyotis           Kadua cordata      No.
                                                           schlechtendahlia   ssp. remyi.
                                                           na var. remyi.
    57 FR 46325................  Rubiaceae..............  Hedyotis mannii..  Kadua laxiflora..  No.
    57 FR 20772................  Asteraceae.............  Lipochaeta         Melanthera         No.
                                                           kamolensis.        kamolensis.
    59 FR 10305................  Cyperaceae.............  Mariscus fauriei.  Cyperus fauriei..  No.
    57 FR 20772................  Lycopodiaceae..........  Phlegmariurus      Huperzia mannii..  No.
                                                           mannii.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the aforementioned taxonomic changes and spelling 
corrections are currently accepted by the scientific community; 
detailed background information on each of the changes is provided in 
our supporting document ``Supplementary Information for the Designation 
and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe for 135 Species,'' available at http://www.regulations.gov 
and at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands (see ADDRESSES). In accordance 
with the references cited in our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 
34464) and our supporting documentation, we are revising the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12 and the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11. In addition, we 
made editorial revisions to a limited number of units and species 
descriptions in 50 CFR 17.99(a)(1) and (b) (Kauai), 50 CFR 17.99(i) and 
(j) (Oahu), 50 CFR 17.99(k) and (l) (Hawaii Island) to adopt the 
taxonomic changes.
Current Status of 135 Listed Maui Nui Species
Plants
    In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of locations of 
each species, we use the word ``occurrence'' instead of ``population.'' 
It is important to note that a ``location'' or ``occurrence'' as used 
here is not the same as a ``population,'' as in many cases a location 
or occurrence may represent only one or very few representative 
individuals of the species present. A population, on the other hand, 
represents a group of interbreeding organisms sufficiently represented 
in numbers of individuals, age class, and genetic diversity to remain 
viable over the long term in the face of demographic, environmental, 
and genetic stochasticity, and natural catastrophes. This distinction 
is particularly important in evaluating the current status of each 
species relative to the determination of what is essential for the 
conservation of the species, as guided, for example, by the recovery 
plan for the plant or animal species, if available (e.g., as defined 
for several of the plant species in this final rule in the Recovery 
Plan for the Maui Plant Cluster; Service 1997, pp. iv-v), or by the 
general guidelines of the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery 
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC, 1998, 32 pp. + appendices). In general, 
populations are considered as meeting the objectives for conservation 
if they are secure, stable, and naturally reproducing over some minimum 
period of time, depending upon their life history. As reported here, 
each occurrence is composed only of wild (i.e., not propagated and 
outplanted) individuals, unless otherwise specified. In this rule, 
outplanted occurrences are generally not considered as meeting 
specified recovery objectives because currently these outplants have 
not been observed to be naturally reproducing and stable (over at least 
two generations), and as such have not demonstrated the capacity for 
reproduction and recruitment necessary to maintain or increase the 
population over time.
    Abutilon eremitopetalum (no common name (NCN)), a short-lived 
perennial shrub in the mallow family (Malvaceae), is endemic to Lanai 
(Bates 1999, pp. 871-872). At the time we designated critical habitat 
in 2003, A. eremitopetalum was known from a single occurrence of seven 
individuals on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Currently, there 
are nine individuals at Puu Mahanalua in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010; PEPP 2008, p. 45: PEPP 2011, p. 49).
    Acaena exigua (liliwai), a short-lived perennial herb in the rose 
family (Rosaceae), is known from west Maui and Kauai (Wagner et al. 
1999p, pp. 1,102-1,103). Acaena exigua was rediscovered in 1997 at Puu 
Kukui on west Maui, when one individual was found growing in a bog in 
the montane wet ecosystem, but this individual died in 2000 (TNC 2007; 
Oppenheimer et al. 2002, p. 1). This area on west Maui was searched as 
recently as 2008 by botanists; however, no plants were found (Aruch 
2010, in litt.). Botanists continue to survey the potentially suitable 
habitat in the area where this species was last observed.
    Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi fern), a short-lived perennial 
fern in the grammitis family (Grammitidaceae), is epiphytic on the 
native tree Acacia koa (koa). Adenophorus periens is known from Kauai, 
Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, p. 39). At 
the time we designated critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, A. periens 
was known from Kauai, Molokai, the island of Hawaii, and Oahu (68 FR 
9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 
2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Adenophorus periens was last 
seen on Molokai in 1995, in the montane wet ecosystem, at the edge of 
Pepeopae bog (Perlman 2008b, in litt.). It was last collected in the 
late 1800s to early 1900s

[[Page 17795]]

from the montane wet ecosystem on east Maui and Lanai (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010).
    Alectryon macrococcus (mahoe), a long-lived perennial tree in the 
soapberry family (Sapindaceae), is known from two varieties: Alectryon 
macrococcus var. auwahiensis (east Maui) and A. macrococcus var. 
macrococcus (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and Maui) (Wagner et al. 1999x, p. 
1,225). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, A. 
macrococcus var. auwahiensis was known from three occurrences on east 
Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, A. macrococcus var. 
auwahiensis is found in one occurrence of seven individuals in Auwahi, 
in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; NTBG Provenance 
Report 1993; PEPP 2009, p. 33). This variety was historically found in 
the lowland dry, montane dry, and montane mesic ecosystems, not lower 
than 1,200 feet (ft) (360 meters (m)) in elevation (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 1,225). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003 and 2012, A. macrococcus var. macrococcus was found on 
Kauai, Molokai, west Maui, and Oahu (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, 
September 18, 2012). Currently, on Molokai, this variety is found in 
three known occurrences: One individual at Kahawai, eight individuals 
from Kaunakakai to Kawela, and one individual in Makolelau, in the 
lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems. On west Maui, A. 
macrococcus var. macrococcus is found in 6 occurrences totaling 11 
individuals (1 individual each at Honokowai Stream, Wahikuli, Kahoma 
Ditch Trail, Olowalu, and Iao Valley, and 6 individuals at Honokowai) 
in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems. On east Maui, there are an 
unknown number of individuals at Kahakapao in the montane mesic 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010p, in litt.).
    Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum (ahinahina, Haleakala 
silversword) is a short-lived perennial rosette shrub in the sunflower 
family (Asteraceae) and is known from within a 2,500-ac (1,000-ha) 
area, between 6,900 to 9,800 ft (2,100 to 3,000 m) in elevation, at the 
summit and crater of Haleakala on east Maui (Carr 1999a, p. 261; 
Service 2010, in litt.; Haleakala National Park (HNP) 2012, in litt.; 
Service 2015, in litt.). In 2006, seven occurrences totaled 
approximately 50,000 individuals (a decline from 75,000 known 
individuals in 1990), and span across adjoining dry cliff, subalpine, 
and alpine ecosystems (TNC 2007; Perlman 2008c, in litt., p. 1; Service 
2010, in litt.; HNP 2012, in litt.; Service 2015, in litt.). These 
seven occurrences are generally considered to represent one single 
population, which is greatly reduced in its distribution from its 
historical range on Haleakala. One individual is found in Hanawi 
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) in the montane mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; 
Perlman 2008c, p. 1; HBMP 2010). This species is monocarpic (dies after 
flowering) and reaches full maturity after 15 to 50 years. The triggers 
for blooming are unknown, and plants flower sporadically, or sometimes 
all at once, from June through October (Starr et al. 2007, in litt.; 
Starr et al. 2009, p. 1). This species experiences reduced reproductive 
success in low-flowering years (Forsyth 2003; Krushelnycky et al. 2012, 
p. 8). As populations and numbers of individuals decrease in numbers, 
they are less likely to be visited by pollinators, and fitness is 
reduced as population size decreases, with extinction of these groups 
of plants becoming more likely as the population declines (Forsyth 
2002, pp. 26-27; Krushelnycky et al. 2012, p. 9; Krushelnycky 2014, p. 
12). In addition, this species is an obligate out-crosser, meaning it 
cannot fertilize itself, but must have pollen from other non-related 
individuals to set fertile seed (Krushelnycky 2014, p. 5). Lower 
numbers of populations and individuals increases the distances 
pollinators are required to travel, also contributing to lack of 
pollination from other non-related individuals (Forsyth 2002, p. 40). 
Research also indicated that, even with greater than 2,700 individuals 
blooming simultaneously, there would be very little, if any, seed set 
(Forsyth 2002, p. 40). Furthermore, because all of the plants that 
flower die afterward, large numbers of individuals are lost following 
such an event, and without subsequent seed set and recruitment, this 
represents a significant loss to the total population. Given that there 
are very low-flowering years in the current population of approximately 
50,000 individuals, it is likely that, if the population continues to 
decline, even fewer plants would have reproductive success (Forsyth 
2002, p. 42). Altogether, this combination of life history 
characteristics results in a population that may appear to be 
relatively large, but is actually highly vulnerable to large losses of 
individuals very quickly under certain circumstances (such as when 
environmental conditions trigger large numbers of adults to flower and 
die all at once). Yearly measurements in census plots indicate a 
population decline of 73 percent since 1982, likely associated with 
changing climatic conditions (Starr et al. 2009; in litt.; Krushelnycky 
et al. 2012, p. 8). Threats, including competition with nonnative 
plants, loss of native pollinators (affecting seed set), drought, 
predation by rats (Rattus spp.), slugs, and nonnative insects, and 
predation and competition with native pollinators by nonnative ants, 
continue to affect this species (Cole et al. 1992, pp. 1320-1321; Starr 
and Starr 2002, pp. 3-4; Forsyth 2002, p. 81; Krusheknycky 2014, pp. 8-
10). Weather and rainfall changes resulting from climate change are 
potential threats, as suitable habitat to the summit of Haleakala will 
continue to diminish over time (Starr et al. 2009, in litt.). To attain 
delisting goals, the threats to its pollinators must be controlled, and 
the widespread occurrences must exceed and be maintained at over 50,000 
individuals to ensure genetic variability and long-term persistence 
(Forsyth 2002, p. 42; Krushelnycky et al. 2012, p. 12). Because of its 
unique reproductive features, the ongoing and potential threats to this 
species, and the small range of its current occurrences at higher 
elevations on east Maui, and to accommodate loss of habitat with 
expected climate change, we consider the single remaining population of 
A. sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum to be vulnerable to extinction. The 
establishment of additional populations in currently unoccupied habitat 
(in addition to occupied habitat) is essential to this species' 
conservation, to achieve redundancy in populations and provide the 
species with the resiliency to withstand threats and respond to climate 
change over time. For this species in particular, with all remaining 
individuals highly concentrated in one small area, it is essential to 
achieve a widespread distribution of multiple populations across areas 
that are presently unoccupied to reduce risk from stochastic events, as 
well as to allow for blooming at different times so not all 
reproductive individuals in a population die simultaneously.
    Asplenium dielerectum (asplenium-leaved diellia) (formerly Diellia 
erecta), a short-lived perennial fern in the spleenwort family 
(Aspleniaceae), is historically known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, 
Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, pp. 117-119). At the time 
we designated critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, this species was known 
from Kauai, Molokai, Maui, the island of Hawaii, and Oahu (68 FR 9116, 
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March

[[Page 17796]]

18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, 77 FR 57648). Currently, A. dielerectum is known from two 
occurrences on Molokai, where an unknown number of plants were last 
seen in Onini and Makolelau gulches in the 1990s, in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (Lau 2010, in litt.). Historically, this species was also 
found in the montane mesic and lowland wet ecosystems (HBMP 2010). 
Botanists believe that additional individuals of this species may be 
found during further searches of potentially suitable habitat on 
Molokai (Lau 2010, in litt.). In addition, there are two occurrences 
totaling five individuals on Maui. Four individuals occur on west Maui 
at Hanaulaiki in the lowland dry ecosystem, and on east Maui, one 
individual occurs at Polipoli in the montane mesic ecosystem 
(Oppenheimer 2010q, in litt.). Historically, A. dielerectum was also 
found in the lowland mesic and lowland wet ecosystems on west Maui, and 
in the lowland dry and dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai (HBMP 2010).
    Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare (NCN) (formerly Asplenium 
fragile var. insulare) is a short-lived perennial terrestrial fern in 
the spleenwort (Aspleniaceae) family, from Maui and the island of 
Hawaii (Palmer 2003, pp. 70-71). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, this variety was found on east Maui in 2 occurrences 
and on the island of Hawaii in 36 occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, on east Maui, A. 
peruvianum var. insulare is known from five occurrences at Waikamoi 
Stream, at Puu Luau, east of Hosmer Grove, north of Kalapawili Ridge, 
and in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve. These occurrences total as many as 
100 individuals, in the montane wet, montane mesic, and subalpine 
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010r, in litt.).
    Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera (kookoolau), a short-lived 
perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the 
island of Maui (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, 
B. campylotheca spp. pentamera was found on Maui's eastern volcano 
(Haleakala). Currently, this subspecies is found on east Maui in the 
montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems of 
Waikamoi Preserve and Kipahulu Valley (in Haleakala National Park) (TNC 
2007; Welton 2008, in litt.; National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBGa) 
2009, pp. 1-2; Fay 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010). It is uncertain if 
plants observed in the Hana FR at Waihoi Valley are B. campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera (Osterneck 2010, in litt.; Haleakala National Park (HNP) 
2012, in litt.). On west Maui, B. campylotheca ssp. pentamera is found 
on and near cliff walls in the lowland dry and lowland mesic ecosystems 
of Papalaua Gulch (West Maui FR) and Kauaula Valley (NTBG 2009a, pp. 1-
2; Perlman 2009a, in litt.). The 6 occurrences on east and west Maui 
total approximately 200 individuals.
    Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis (kookoolau), a short-lived 
perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the 
island of Maui (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, 
B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis was found on Maui's eastern volcano in 
Waihoi Valley and Kaumakani ridge (HBMP 2010). Currently, this 
subspecies is found in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff 
ecosystems in Kipahulu Valley (Haleakala National Park) and possibly in 
Waihoi Valley (Hana Forest Reserve) on east Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Welton 2008, in litt.). Approximately 200 plants are scattered over an 
area of about 2.5 miles (mi) (4 kilometers (km)) in Kipahulu Valley 
(Welton 2010a, in litt.). In 1974, hundreds of individuals were 
observed in Waihoi Valley along Waiohonu stream (NTBG 2009b, p. 4).
    Bidens conjuncta (kookoolau), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on west Maui (Ganders and 
Nagata 1999, pp. 273-274). Historically, this species was known from 
the mountains of the Honokohau drainage basin, from the west Maui 
summit to as low as 2,500 ft (760 m) elevation (Sherff 1923, p. 162; 
HBMP 2010). In the 1990s, this species occurred in two areas 
encompassing over 800 ac (330 ha). Currently, B. conjuncta is found 
scattered in nine locations at elevations above 3,000 ft (914 m) in the 
lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems. The largest numbers 
of individuals are found in two upper elevation areas encompassing only 
135 ac (55 ha). A rough estimate is that all known occurrences may 
total from 3,000 to as many as 7,000 individuals (Oppenheimer 2005-GIS 
data; TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2008a, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Perlman 2010, 
in litt.). However, it is not known whether any of these occurrences 
may meet the criteria for qualifying as a self-sustaining population. 
Currently, the greatest threat to B.conjuncta is competition with 
nonnative plants. Other threats include habitat modification by pigs, 
goats, and nonnative plants, herbivory by pigs, goats, slugs, and rats, 
seed predation by rats, hurricanes, and effects of climate change. To 
be considered for delisting, these threats must be managed or 
controlled, with a minimum of 8 to 10 self-sustaining populations 
consisting of all size classes sustained over a period of 5 years. 
These goals have not yet been met; in addition, all threats are not 
being sufficiently managed throughout all of the occurrences. 
Designation of unoccupied habitat (in addition to occupied habitat) is 
essential to the conservation of B. conjuncta as it remains in danger 
of extinction throughout its range, therefore it requires sufficient 
habitat to allow the species to persist in the face of ongoing threats 
and to provide for the expansion and reestablishment of populations in 
areas presently unoccupied by the species to meet recovery goals.
    Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau), a short-lived 
perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from 
Lanai and Maui (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 278-279). At the time we 
designated critical habitat in 2003, this subspecies was known from one 
occurrence on Lanai and four occurrences on east Maui (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, B. micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha is known from 4 occurrences totaling over 200 
individuals on Lanai and Maui. On Lanai, this subspecies is known from 
1 occurrence of 12 to 14 individuals north of Waiapaa Gulch in the 
lowland mesic ecosystem (Puttock 2003, p. 1; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). On 
east Maui, there are 4 occurrences: approximately 200 individuals south 
of Puu Keokea, a few individuals above Polipoli State Park, and 2 wild 
occurrences in Haleakala National Park (with an unreported number of 
individuals) (National Park Service (NPS) 2012, in litt.). The Park has 
outplanted 585 individuals at 18 locations (NPS 2012, in litt.). Two 
occurrences are in the subalpine ecosystem, and two are in the dry 
cliff ecosystem (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010s, in litt.; NPS 2012, in 
litt.; HNP 2012, in litt.). On west Maui, there are four to six 
individuals at Honokowai in the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010). This subspecies was historically known from the lowland dry and 
dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai, and from the montane mesic and lowland 
dry ecosystems on east Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Bidens wiebkei (kookoolau), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is endemic to Molokai (Ganders and 
Nagata 1999, pp. 282-283). At the time we designated critical habitat 
in 2003, this species was known from five occurrences on

[[Page 17797]]

Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, B. wiebkei is known 
from 6 occurrences totaling as many as 500 individuals. In the coastal 
ecosystem, several hundred plants occur on the windward sea cliffs from 
Papalaua Valley to Puahaunui Point, and 200 or more individuals are 
found on rolling hills and sea cliffs at Lamaloa Gulch. Approximately 
40 individuals occur west of Waialua near Kahawaiiki Gulch in the 
lowland wet ecosystem, and about 10 individuals occur at Kumueli in the 
montane wet ecosystem. In the montane mesic ecosystem, there are 2 
occurrences: 10 to 20 individuals below Puu Kolekole, and 1 individual 
at Kawela Gulch (Wood and Perlman 2002, pp. 1-2; Perlman 2006a, pp. 1-
2; TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2009a, in litt.; Wood 2009b, pp. 1-2; HBMP 
2010).
    Bonamia menziesii (NCN) is a short-lived perennial liana (vine) in 
the morning glory family (Convolvulaceae). Bonamia menziesii is known 
from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (Austin 1999, 
p. 550; HBMP 2010). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003 
and 2012, B. menziesii was known from 3 occurrences on Lanai, 9 
occurrences on Kauai, 6 occurrences on Maui, 2 occurrences on Hawaii 
Island, and 12 to 13 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 
68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, 
July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). However, no critical 
habitat was designated for this species on Lanai or Molokai in 2003 (68 
FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, B. 
menziesii is known from 6 occurrences on Lanai and Maui, totaling over 
10 individuals. On Lanai, B. menziesii is found at Kanepuu (one 
individual observed dead in 2008, two other individuals not observed 
since 2001) and at Puhielelu Ridge (two individuals were observed in 
1996) in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010t, in litt.). This species is found on west Maui at Honokowai (two 
individuals) in the wet cliff ecosystem, and on east Maui at Puu o Kali 
(one individual), Kaloi (one individual), and Kanaio NAR (four 
individuals), in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; Bily 2010, in 
litt.; HBMP 2010). This species was last seen in the dry cliff 
ecosystem on west Maui in 1920 (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). Bonamia menziesii 
has not been observed on Molokai (in the lowland dry and lowland mesic 
ecosystems) since the early 1900s (HBMP 2010).
    Brighamia rockii (pua ala), a short-lived perennial stem succulent 
in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from east Molokai 
and Lanai, and may have occurred on Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 423). At the 
time we designated critical habitat on Maui and Molokai in 2003, this 
species was known from five occurrences on Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 
18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, B. rockii is found on 
Molokai at Lepau Point (one individual); at Waiehu, (four individuals), 
and on Huelo islet (one individual), in the coastal and wet cliff 
ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; NTBG 2009i; Oppenheimer 2010u, in 
litt.). This species was last observed on Lanai in 1911, in the dry 
cliff ecosystem (HBMP 2010). According to Lammers (1999, p. 423), B. 
rockii was likely found in the coastal ecosystem on Maui.
    Calamagrostis hillebrandii (NCN), a short-lived perennial in the 
grass family (Poaceae), occurs only on the island of Maui (O'Connor 
1999, p. 1,509). Historically, this species was known from Puu Kukui in 
the west Maui mountains (Wagner et al. 2005a--Flora of the Hawaiian 
Islands database). Currently, this species is found in bogs in the 
montane wet ecosystem in the west Maui mountains, from Honokohau to 
Kahoolewa ridge, including East Bog and Eke Crater, in three 
occurrences totaling a few hundred individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Canavalia molokaiensis (awikiwiki), a short-lived perennial 
climbing herb in the pea family (Fabaceae), is endemic to east Molokai 
(Wagner and Herbst 1999, p. 653). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, this species was known from seven occurrences on 
Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, C. molokaiensis is 
found in 9 occurrences totaling approximately 170 individuals in the 
following locations: Kawailena drainage in Pelekunu Valley (1 
individual); Kua Gulch (approximately 100 individuals); near the 
junction at Kupiaia Gulch (10 to 20 individuals); Waiehu (5 to 10 
individuals); west Kawela Gulch (6 individuals); Kukaiwaa 
(approximately 15 individuals); Mokomoko Gulch (a few individuals); 
Wailua (10 individuals); and Waialeia Stream (a few individuals) 
(Perlman 2008d, pp. 1-2; HBMP 2010; Tangalin 2010, in litt.). These 
plants are found in the coastal, lowland mesic, lowland wet, and wet 
cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007).
    Canavalia pubescens (awikiwiki), a short-lived perennial climber in 
the pea family (Fabaceae), is currently found only on the island of 
Maui, although it was also historically known from Niihau, Kauai, and 
Lanai (Wagner and Herbst 1999, p. 654). On Niihau, this species was 
known from one population in Haao Valley that was last observed in 1949 
(HBMP 2010). On Kauai, this species was known from six populations 
ranging from Awaawapuhi to Wainiha, where it was last observed in 1977 
(HBMP 2010). On Lanai, this species was known from Kaena Point to 
Huawai Bay. Eight individuals were reported in the coastal ecosystem 
west of Hulupoe, but they have not been seen since 1998 (Oppenheimer 
2007a, in litt.; HBMP 2010). At present, the only known occurrence is 
on east Maui, from Puu o Kali south to Pohakea, in the lowland dry 
ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2006a, in litt.; Starr 2006, in litt.; Altenburg 
2007, pp. 12-13; Oppenheimer 2007, in litt.; Greenlee 2013, in litt.). 
All plants of this species that formerly were found in the Ahihi-Kinau 
NAR on Maui were destroyed by feral goats (Capra hircus) by the end of 
2010 (Fell-McDonald 2010, in litt.). In addition, although 
approximately 20 individuals of Canavalia pubescens were reported from 
the Palauea-Keahou area as recently as 2010 (Altenberg 2010, in litt.), 
no individuals have been found in site visits to this area over the 
last 2 years (Greenlee 2013, in litt.). Greenlee (2013, in litt.) 
reports that these plants may have succumbed to prolonged drought. In 
April of 2010, C. pubescens totaled as many as 500 individuals; 
however, with the loss of the plants at Ahihi-Kinau NAR and the loss of 
plants at Palauea-Keahou, C. pubescens may currently total fewer than 
200 individuals at a single location.
    Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano (also known as sandbur or 
agrimony)), a short-lived perennial in the grass family (Poaceae), is 
known from two varieties: C. agrimonioides var. agrimonioides (Lanai, 
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii) and C. agrimonioides var. laysanensis (Kure 
Atoll, Midway Atoll, and Laysan) (O'Connor 1999, pp. 1,511-1,512). At 
the time we designated critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, C. 
agrimonioides was known from one occurrence on east Maui, one 
occurrence on west Maui, and three to six occurrences on Oahu (HBMP 
2010; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). 
Currently, on Maui, C. agrimonioides is known from four occurrences 
totaling five individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem. On west Maui, 
this variety occurs in Hanaulaiki and Papalaua gulches (one individual 
at each location). On east Maui, C. agrimonioides occurs in Kanaio (2 
individuals), and within the Kanio NAR (one individual) (TNC 2007; PEPP 
2008, pp. 47-48; PEPP 2009, p. 39; HBMP 2010). This plant was last 
observed on

[[Page 17798]]

Lanai in 1915, in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Clermontia lindseyana (oha wai), a short-lived perennial shrub or 
tree in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from Maui and 
Hawaii Island (Lammers 1999, p. 431). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, C. lindseyana was known from 2 occurrences on 
Maui and from 15 occurrences on Hawaii Island (68 FR 25934, May 14, 
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, there is 1 known 
occurrence totaling approximately 30 individuals on east Maui at 
Wailaulau in the montane mesic ecosystem (Perlman 2007a, in litt.; TNC 
2007; PEPP 2009, pp. 40-41; Wood 2009c, in litt.; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; Oppenheimer 
2010v, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010w, in litt.).
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes (oha wai), a short-lived 
perennial shrub or tree in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is 
endemic to east Molokai (Lammers 1999, pp. 432-433). At the time we 
designated critical habitat in 2003, this species was known from one 
occurrence in Kamakou Preserve (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; Perlman 
2009d, in litt.). Currently, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes is found in 
1 known occurrence totaling 11 individuals on Uapa Ridge in the montane 
wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Bakutis 2009a, in litt.; Perlman 
2009d, in litt.). Historically, this subspecies also occurred in the 
lowland mesic, lowland wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010).
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (oha wai), a short-lived 
perennial shrub or tree in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is 
known from Lanai and Maui (Lammers 1999, pp. 432-433). At the time we 
designated critical habitat in 2003, this species was known from one 
occurrence of two individuals on west Maui, and from historical 
occurrences on Lanai and east Maui (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003; Perlman 2009e, in litt.; HBMP 2010). However, no 
critical habitat was designated for this species on Maui in 2003 (68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, C. oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is 
found in one known occurrence totaling four individuals in Haipuena 
Gulch in the montane wet ecosystem on east Maui (TNC 2007; Perlman 
2009e, in litt.; HBMP 2010). Historically, this species was also found 
in the lowland mesic and lowland wet ecosystem on Lanai, and the 
lowland wet ecosystem on Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). An examination of 
the type specimen and other collections indicates that C. oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis may be a hybrid; however, further examination of 
specimens from Lanai and Maui are necessary (Albert 2001, in litt.; 
Oppenheimer 2010s, in litt.).
    Clermontia peleana (oha wai) is a short-lived perennial shrub or 
tree in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae). There are two 
subspecies: C. peleana ssp. peleana (Hawaii Island) and C. peleana ssp. 
singuliflora (east Maui and Hawaii Island) (Lammers 1999, p. 435). This 
species is observed to be epiphytic on Metrosideros spp. (ohia), Acacia 
koa (koa), and Cheirodendron (olapa) (Lammers 1999, p. 435). At the 
time we designated critical habitat on Maui in 2003, C. peleana had not 
been observed on either island since the early 1900s (68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Critical habitat was designated 
on the island of Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, 
there are no known individuals of C. peleana spp. singuliflora on Maui; 
however, this subspecies was recently rediscovered on Hawaii Island 
(TNC 2010). Clermontia peleana ssp. singuliflora was last seen in 1920, 
on east Maui in the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Clermontia samuelii (oha wai), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 
436). There are two subspecies: C. samuelii ssp. hanaensis, which 
generally is found at lower elevations, and C. samuelii ssp. samuelii 
(Lammers 1995, p. 344). At the time we designated critical habitat in 
2003, C. samuelii was known from seven occurrences on east Maui (68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, C. samuelii ssp. hanaensis is found in 
bog margins in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems at Kopiliula, 
and at Kawaipapa, with historical occurrences at Kuhiwa Valley, Palikea 
Stream, and Waihoi Valley (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in 
litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Clermontia samuelii ssp. samuelii is 
found in 2 known occurrences, in East Maui's montane wet ecosystem (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Five individuals have been 
outplanted in two locations within Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, 
in litt.) There is a report of one individual (subspecies unknown) at 
Papanalahou Point on west Maui (HBMP 2010).
    Colubrina oppositifolia (kauila), a long-lived perennial tree in 
the buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae), is known from Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii 
(Wagner et al. 1999y, p. 1,094). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003 and 2012, this species was known from two occurrences 
on west Maui, five occurrences on Hawaii Island, and four occurrences 
on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, on west Maui, there are two 
individuals in the lowland mesic ecosystem. Historically, this species 
was also reported from the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (TNC 
2007; Perlman 2008e, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2009b, in litt.; HBMP 2010).
    Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa), a short-lived perennial terrestrial 
fern in the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is known from Kauai, 
Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, pp. 
100-102). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003 on Kauai, 
Molokai, and Maui, and in 2012 on Oahu, C. squamigera was known from 2 
occurrences on Lanai, 1 occurrence on Molokai, 12 occurrences on Maui, 
and 4 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, 
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 
2012). No critical habitat was designated for this species on Lanai or 
Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003). Currently, C. squamigera is found in 12 known occurrences 
totaling over 120 individuals on Lanai, Molokai, and west Maui 
(Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). On Lanai, an unknown number of 
individuals occur on the leeward (south) side of the island at Waiapaa 
in the wet cliff ecosystem. There are historical records from the dry 
cliff and wet cliff ecosystems at upper Kehewai Gulch, Haalelepaakai, 
and Kaiholena (HBMP 2010). On Molokai, 20 individuals occur at Wawaia 
in the lowland mesic ecosystem. On west Maui, there are 9 occurrences 
totaling 80 to 84 individuals in the lowland dry, lowland mesic, 
lowland wet, montane mesic, and wet cliff ecosystems. Ctenitis 
squamigera is found in Honokowai Valley (20 individuals), Puu Kaeo (2 
to 4 individuals), Kahana Iki (1 individual), Kahana (14 individuals), 
Kanaha Valley (10 individuals), Kahoma (1 individual), Puehuehunui (1 
to 2 individuals), Ukumehame Valley (1 to 2 individuals), and Iao 
Valley (approximately 30 individuals). On east Maui, there are 28 
individuals at Pohakea in the lowland dry ecosystem and a historical 
record from the lowland mesic ecosystem. This species was apparently 
found in the Kipahulu FR (Kaapahu) area on east Maui, but no further 
details have been provided (Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 7; East Maui 
Watershed Partnership 2006, p.

[[Page 17799]]

17; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010r, in litt.).
    Cyanea asplenifolia (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on the island of Maui. 
This species was known historically from Waihee Valley and Kaanapali on 
west Maui, and Halehaku ridge on east Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 445; HBMP 
2010). On west Maui, in the lowland wet ecosystem, there are 3 
occurrences totaling 14 individuals in the Puu Kukui Preserve and two 
occurrences totaling 5 individuals in the West Maui NAR. On east Maui, 
C. asplenifolia is found in 1 occurrence each in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem in Haleakala National Park (53 individuals) and Kipahulu FR 
(140 individuals), and 1 occurrence in the lowland wet ecosystem in the 
Makawao FR (5 individuals) (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2008b, in litt, 
2010b, in litt.; PEPP 2008, p. 48; Welton and Haus 2008, p. 12; NTBG 
2009c, pp. 3-5; HBMP 2010; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Currently, C. 
asplenifolia is known from 8 occurrences totaling fewer than 200 
individuals. The occurrence at Haleakala National Park is protected by 
a temporary exclosure (Haleakala National Park (HNP) 2012, in litt.).
    Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis (haha), a short-lived 
perennial vine-like shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is 
known from Maui (Lammers 1999, pp. 445-446). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, this subspecies was known from five 
occurrences on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, C. 
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis is found in 7 widely distributed 
occurrences totaling over 600 individuals on east Maui. One occurrence 
of over 20 scattered individuals is found in east Makaiwa in the 
lowland wet ecosystem; 4 occurrences totaling approximately 100 
individuals are found along streams in Keanae in the lowland wet and 
montane wet ecosystems; 2 occurrences totaling approximately 500 
individuals are found in Kipahulu Valley, in the montane wet, wet 
cliff, and lowland wet ecosystems; and a few individuals are found at 
Kaapahu in the montane wet and lowland mesic ecosystems (HNP 2004, pp. 
5-6; HNP 2005, pp. 5-6; HNP 2007, pp. 2, 4; TNC 2007; Perlman 2007b, in 
litt.; Bily et al. 2008, p. 37; Welton and Haus 2008, pp. 12-13; Wood 
2009d, in litt; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; 2010x, in 
litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Forty-six individuals have been 
outplanted at 10 sites within Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in 
litt.).
    Cyanea dunbariae (haha) (formerly Cyanea dunbarii), is a short-
lived perennial shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), and is 
endemic to Molokai (Lammers 1999, p. 448). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, this species was known from one occurrence at 
Mokomoko Gulch (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there are 10 
individuals in Mokomoko Gulch in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; 
PEPP 2008, p. 48; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.; NTBG 2011a). 
Historically, this species was also found in Molokai's lowland wet and 
montane mesic ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Cyanea duvalliorum (haha), a short-lived perennial tree in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only in the east Maui 
mountains (Lammers 2004, p. 89). This species was described in 2004, 
after the discovery of individuals of a previously unknown species of 
Cyanea at Waiohiwi Gulch (Lammers 2004, p. 91). Studies of earlier 
collections of sterile material extend the historical range of this 
species on the windward slopes of Haleakala in the lowland wet and 
montane wet ecosystems, east of Waiohiwi Stream, from Honomanu Stream 
to Wailua Iki Streams, and to Kipahulu Valley (Lammers 2004, p. 89). In 
2007, one individual was observed in the lowland wet ecosystem of the 
Makawao FR (NTBG 2009d, p. 2). In 2008, 71 individuals were found in 2 
new locations in the Makawao FR, along with many juveniles and 
seedlings (NTBG 2009d, p. 2). Currently there are 2 occurrences with an 
approximate total of 71 individuals in the montane wet ecosystem near 
Makawao FR, with an additional 135 individuals outplanted in Waikamoi 
Preserve (TNC 2007; NTBG 2009d, p. 2; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Cyanea gibsonii (haha) (formerly Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii), 
is a short-lived perennial tree in the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), and is known from Lanai (Lammers 1999, p. 457). In 
2003, this species was known from two occurrences (68 FR 1220, January 
9, 2003). However, no critical habitat was designated for this species 
on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Currently, there are 
about 10 to 20 individuals in Hauola Gulch, in the montane wet 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 53; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010t, in 
litt.). Historically, this species was also found north of Lanaihale 
and at Puu Alii in the wet cliff and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP 2009, 
p. 53).
    Cyanea glabra (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is endemic to Maui (Lammers 1999, 
pp. 449, 451). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, this 
species was known from one occurrence on west Maui (68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003). However, on west Maui, individuals identified as C. glabra 
in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems may be an undescribed 
species related to C. acuminata (Lorence 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 
2010y, in litt.). On east Maui, wild individuals of C. glabra in the 
montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems may more closely resemble the 
endangered C. maritae (Oppenheimer 2010y, in litt.). Further taxonomic 
study of these occurrences is needed (TNC 2007; Perlman 2009f, in 
litt.; HBMP 2010). In the meantime, we will continue to identify these 
individuals as C. glabra.
    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha), a short-lived perennial 
shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known only from Oahu 
and Molokai (Lammers 2004 p. 84; Lammers 1999, pp. 449, 451; 68 FR 
35950, June 17, 2003). On Molokai, this species was last observed in 
1991 in the wet cliff ecosystem at Wailau Valley (PEPP 2010, p. 45). 
Currently, on Oahu there are five to six individuals in four 
occurrences in the Waianae and Koolau Mountains (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 
2010).
    Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora (haha), a short-lived perennial 
palm-like tree in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from 
east Maui (Lammers 1999, p. 452). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, there were nine occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 
2003). Currently, there are at least 9 occurrences totaling between 458 
and 558 individuals in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems, at 
Haipuaena Stream, Wailuaiki Stream, above Kuhiwa Valley, in Kipahulu 
Valley, and at Kaapahu (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 50-51; Welton and Haus 
2008, p. 26; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; Welton 2010a, in 
litt.). Historically, this subspecies also occurred in the montane 
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). Seventeen individuals have been 
outplanted at three sites in Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in 
litt.).
    Cyanea horrida (haha nui), a member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is a short-lived perennial palm-like tree found only 
on the island of Maui. This species was known historically from the 
slopes of Haleakala (Lammers 1999, p. 453; HBMP 2010). Currently, C. 
horrida is known from 12 occurrences totaling 44 individuals in the 
montane mesic, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in Waikamoi 
Preserve, Hanawai Natural

[[Page 17800]]

Area Reserve, and Haleakala National Park on east Maui (TNC 2007; PEPP 
2009, p. 52; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010c, in litt.; PEPP 2010, pp. 46-
47; TNCH 2010a, p. 1).
    Cyanea kunthiana (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui, and was 
historically known from both the east and west Maui mountains (Lammers 
1999, p. 453; HBMP 2010). Cyanea kunthiana was known to occur in the 
montane mesic ecosystem in the east Maui mountains in upper Kipahulu 
Valley, in Haleakala National Park and Kipahulu FR (HBMP 2010). 
Currently, in the east Maui mountains, C. kunthiana occurs in the 
lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems in Waikamoi Preserve, Hanawi 
NAR, East Bog, Kaapahu, and Kipahulu Valley. In the west Maui 
mountains, C. kunthiana occurs in the lowland wet and montane wet 
ecosystems at Eke Crater, Kahoolewa ridge, and at the junction of the 
Honokowai, Hahakea, and Honokohau gulches (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; NTBG 
2009e, pp. 1-3; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Perlman 2010, 
in litt.). The 15 occurrences total 165 individuals, although botanists 
speculate that this species may total as many as 400 individuals with 
further surveys of potential habitat on east and west Maui (TNC 2007; 
HBMP 2010; Fay 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; Osternak 
2010, in litt.).
    Cyanea lobata (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from two subspecies, C. 
lobata ssp. baldwinii (Lanai) and C. lobata ssp. lobata (west Maui) 
(Lammers 1999, pp. 451, 454). At the time we designated critical 
habitat on Maui in 2003, there were no known occurrences of C. lobata 
ssp. baldwinii on Lanai and five occurrences of C. lobata ssp. lobata 
on west Maui (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). 
However, no critical habitat was designated for this species on Lanai 
in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). In 2006, C. lobata ssp. 
baldwinii was rediscovered around Hauola on Lanai, in the montane wet 
ecosystem (Wood 2006a, p. 15; TNC 2007; Wood 2009e, in litt.). 
Currently, there are three to four individuals at this location 
(Perlman 2007c, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2009c, in litt.; PEPP 2009, p. 
53). On west Maui, there are five occurrences of C. lobata ssp. lobata 
totaling eight individuals at Honokohau, Honokowai, and Mahinahina, in 
the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
    Cyanea magnicalyx (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from west Maui (Lammers 
1999, pp. 449, 451; Lammers 2004, p. 84). Currently, there are seven 
individuals in three occurrences on west Maui: Two individuals in 
Kaluanui, a subgulch of Honokohau Valley, in the lowland wet ecosystem; 
four individuals in Iao Valley in the wet cliff ecosystem; and one 
individual in a small drainage south of the Kauaula rim, in the montane 
mesic ecosystem (Lammers 2004, p. 87; Perlman 2009b in litt.; Wood 
2009d, in litt.).
    Cyanea mannii (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is endemic to east Molokai (Lammers 
1999, p. 456). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were eight occurrences at Puu Kolekole and Kawela Gulch (68 FR 
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there are fewer than 200 individuals 
in 11 occurrences extending across the summit area from Mokomoko Gulch 
to Kua Gulch, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet 
ecosystems (Perlman 2002a, in litt.; Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 2; TNC 
2007; Wood 2009f, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Cyanea maritae (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui (Lammers 2004, 
p. 92). Sterile specimens were collected from the northwestern slopes 
of Haleakala in the Waiohiwi watershed and east to Kipahulu in the 
early 1900s. Between 2000 and 2002, fewer than 20 individuals were 
found in the Waiohiwi area (Lammers 2004, pp. 92, 93). Currently, there 
are 4 occurrences, totaling between 23 and 50 individuals in Kipahulu, 
Kaapahu, west Kahakapao, and in the Koolau FR in the lowland wet and 
montane wet ecosystems on east Maui (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010b, in 
litt.; Welton 2010b, in litt.).
    Cyanea mauiensis (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), was last observed on Maui about 100 
years ago (Lammers 2004, pp. 84-85; TNC 2007). Although there are no 
documented occurrences of this species known today, botanists believe 
this species may still be extant as all potentially suitable lowland 
mesic and dry cliff habitat has not been surveyed.
    Cyanea mceldowneyi (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found on east Maui (Lammers 1999, 
p. 457). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, this 
species was known from 11 occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). 
Currently, C. mceldowneyi is known from at least 10 occurrences 
totaling over 100 individuals in the lowland wet, montane wet, and 
montane mesic ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 39; TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 
53-54; PEPP 2009, pp. 53, 57; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.).
    Cyanea munroi (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from Molokai and Lanai 
(Lammers 1999, pp. 449, 451; Lammers 2004, pp. 84-87). Currently, there 
are no known individuals on Molokai (last observed in 2001), and only 
two individuals on Lanai at a single location, in the wet cliff 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Perlman 2008a, in litt.; Wood 2009a, in litt.; 
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010d, in litt.).
    Cyanea obtusa (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on Maui (Lammers 1999, 
p. 458). Historically, this species was found in both the east and west 
Maui mountains (Hillebrand 1888, p. 254; HBMP 2010). Not reported since 
1919 (Lammers 1999, p. 458), C. obtusa was rediscovered in the early 
1980s at one site each on east and west Maui. However, by 1989, plants 
in both locations had disappeared (Hobdy et al. 1991, p. 3; Medeiros 
1996, in litt.). In 1997, 4 individuals were observed in Manawainui 
Gulch in Kahikinui, and another occurrence of 5 to 10 individuals was 
found in Kahakapao Gulch, both in the montane mesic ecosystem on east 
Maui (Wood and Perlman 1997, p. 11; Lau 2001, in litt.). However, the 
individuals found at Kahakapao Gulch are now considered to be Cyanea 
elliptica or hybrids between C. obtusa and C. elliptica (PEPP 2007, p. 
40). In 2001, several individuals were seen in Hanaula and Pohakea 
gulches on west Maui; however, only hybrids are currently known in this 
area (NTBG 2009f, p. 3). It is unknown if individuals of C. obtusa 
remain at Kahikinui, as access to the area to ascertain the status of 
these plants is difficult and has not been attempted since 2001 (PEPP 
2008, p. 55; PEPP 2009, p. 58). Two individuals were observed on a 
cliff along Wailaulau Stream in the montane mesic ecosystem on east 
Maui in 2009 (Duvall 2010, in litt.). Currently, this species is known 
from one occurrence of only a few individuals in the montane mesic 
ecosystem on east Maui. Historically, this species also occurred in the 
lowland dry ecosystem at Manawainui on west Maui and at Ulupalakua on 
east Maui (HBMP 2010).
    Cyanea procera (haha), a short-lived perennial tree in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known from

[[Page 17801]]

Molokai (Lammers 1999, p. 460). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, this species was known from five occurrences (68 FR 
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there are one to two individuals 
near Puuokaeha in Kawela Gulch in the montane mesic ecosystem (TNC 
2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 55-56; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.; NTBG 2011b). 
Historically, this species was also found in the lowland mesic and 
montane wet ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Cyanea profuga (haha), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), occurs only on Molokai (Lammers 
1999, pp. 461-462; Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 4). Historically, this 
species was found in Mapulehu Valley and along Pelekunu Trail, and has 
not been seen in those locations since the early 1900s (Wood and 
Perlman 2002, p. 4). In 2002, six individuals were discovered along a 
stream in Wawaia Gulch (Wood and Perlman 2002, p. 4). In 2007, seven 
individuals were known from Wawaia Gulch, and an additional six 
individuals were found in Kumueli (Wood 2005, p. 17; USFWS 2007a; PEPP 
2010, p. 55). In 2009, only four individuals remained at Wawaia Gulch; 
however, nine were found in Kumueli Gulch (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; 
Oppenheimer 2010e, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.; PEPP 2010, p. 55). 
Currently, there are 4 occurrences totaling up to 34 individuals in the 
lowland mesic and montane wet ecosystems on Molokai (TNC 2007; Bakutis 
2010, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.).
    Cyanea solanacea (popolo, haha nui), a short-lived perennial shrub 
in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on Molokai. 
According to Lammers (1999, p. 464) and Wagner (et al. 2005a--Flora of 
the Hawaiian Islands database) the range of C. solanacea includes 
Molokai and may also include west Maui. In his treatment of the species 
of the Hawaiian endemic genus Cyanea, Lammers (1999, p. 464) included a 
few sterile specimens of Cyanea from Puu Kukui, west Maui and the type 
specimen (now destroyed) for C. scabra var. sinuata from west Maui in 
C. solanacea. However, Oppenheimer recently reported (Oppenheimer 
2010a, in litt.) that the plants on west Maui were misidentified as C. 
solanacea and are actually C. macrostegia. Based on Oppenheimer's 
recent field observations, the range of C. solanacea is limited to 
Molokai. Historically, Cyanea solanacea ranged from central Molokai at 
Kalae, eastward to Pukoo in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, and montane 
mesic ecosystems (HBMP 2010). Currently, there are four small 
occurrences at Hanalilolilo, near Pepeopae Bog, Kaunakakai Gulch, and 
Kawela Gulch, in the montane wet ecosystem. These occurrences total 26 
individuals (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; TNCH 
2011, pp. 21, 57).
    Cyperus fauriei (formerly Mariscus fauriei) (NCN), is a short-lived 
perennial in the sedge family (Cyperaceae), and is known from Molokai, 
Lanai, and the island of Hawaii (Koyama 1999, p. 1,417). At the time we 
designated critical habitat in 2003, C. fauriei was known from 1 
occurrence of 20 to 30 individuals on Molokai and 2 occurrences on the 
island of Hawaii (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003). Currently, on Molokai, an unknown number of individuals are 
found in the area of Makolelau, at Kamakou Preserve at Makakupaia, at 
Waihanau drainage, and at Kamalo, in the lowland mesic and montane 
mesic ecosystems (TNC 20007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). 
Cyperus fauriei was last observed on Lanai in the early 1900s, in the 
lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Cyperus pennatiformis (NCN), a short-lived perennial in the sedge 
family (Cyperaceae), is known from Laysan Island, Kauai, Oahu, east 
Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Koyama 1999, pp. 1,421-1,423). There 
are two varieties: C. pennatiformis var. bryanii (Laysan) and C. 
pennatiformis var. pennatiformis (main Hawaiian Islands). At the time 
we designated critical habitat on Laysan, Kauai, and Maui in 2003, and 
on Oahu in 2012, this species was known from only one occurrence 
(totaling an unknown number of individuals) on Laysan Island (C. 
pennatiformis var. bryanii), and one occurrence (totaling 30 
individuals) on east Maui (C. pennatiformis var. pennatiformis) (68 FR 
9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May 
22, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Both occurrences were in 
the coastal ecosystem (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May 22, 
2003). The known occurrence of C. pennatiformis var. pennatiformis in 
the coastal ecosystem on east Maui has not been relocated (Wagner et 
al. 2005; HBMP 2010).
    Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa), a short-lived grass-like perennial 
in the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is known from the islands of Niihau, 
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai (Koyama 1999, pp. 1,399-1,400). At the 
time we designated critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, C. trachysanthos 
was found on Kauai and Oahu, respectively (68 FR 9116, February 27, 
2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). This species has not been 
observed on the islands of Lanai and Molokai, in the lowland dry 
ecosystems since 1912 and 1919, respectively (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Cyrtandra ferripilosa (haiwale), a short-lived perennial shrub in 
the African violet family (Gesneriaceae), occurs only on Maui (St. John 
1987, pp. 497-498; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 29). This species was 
discovered in 1980 in the east Maui mountains at Kuiki in Kipahulu 
Valley (St. John 1987, pp. 497-498; Wagner et al. 2005a--Flora of the 
Hawaiian Islands database). Currently, there are a few individuals each 
in two occurrences at Kuiki and on the Manawainui plane in the montane 
mesic and montane wet ecosystems (Oppenheimer 2010f, in litt.; Welton 
2010a, in litt.).
    Cyrtandra filipes (haiwale), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999d, pp. 753-754; Oppenheimer 2006b, in litt.). According to Wagner 
et al. (1999d, p. 754), the range of C. filipes includes Maui and 
Molokai. Historical collections from Kapunakea (1800) and Olowalu 
(1971) on Maui indicate it once had a wider range on this island. In 
2004, it was believed there were over 2,000 plants at Honokohau and 
Waihee in the west Maui mountains; however, recent studies have shown 
that these plants do not match the description for C. filipes 
(Oppenheimer 2006b, in litt.). Currently, there are between 134 and 155 
individuals in 4 occurrences in the lowland wet and wet cliff 
ecosystems at Kapalaoa, Honokowai, Honolua, and Waihee Valley on west 
Maui, and approximately 7 individuals at Mapulehu in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem on Molokai, with an historical occurrence in the lowland wet 
ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2010c, in litt.).
    Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is known from Lanai and west Maui 
(Wagner et al. 1999d, p. 770; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). At the time 
we designated critical habitat on Maui in 2003, C. munroi was known 
from two occurrences on Lanai and five occurrences on west Maui (68 FR 
1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). However, no critical 
habitat was designated for this species on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 
9, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, C. munroi is found in 3 occurrences 
totaling 23 individuals at Puu Alii (20 individuals), Waialala Gulch (1 
individual), and Lanaihale (2 individuals), in the montane wet and wet 
cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). On 
west Maui, C. munroi is found in 6 occurrences totaling 45 individuals 
at

[[Page 17802]]

Makamakaole Gulch (1 individual), Honokohau Gulch (1 individual), 
Kahana Valley (1 individual), Hahakea Gulch (1 individual), Kapunakea 
Preserve (12 individuals), and Amalu Stream (29 individuals), in the 
lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010i, in litt.).
    Cyrtandra oxybapha (haiwale), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999d, p. 771). This species was discovered in the upper Pohakea Gulch 
in Hanaula in the west Maui mountains in 1986 (Wagner et al. 1989, p. 
100; TNC 2007). Currently, there are 2 known occurrences with a total 
of 137 to 250 individuals. Cyrtandra oxybapha occurs in the montane wet 
ecosystem on west Maui, from Hanaula to Pohakea Gulch. This occurrence 
totals between 87 and 97 known individuals, with perhaps as many as 150 
or more (Oppenheimer 2008c, in litt.). The current status of the 50 to 
100 individuals in the montane mesic ecosystem in Manawainui Gulch on 
east Maui is unknown, as these plants have not been surveyed since 1997 
(Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.).
    Diplazium molokaiense (NCN), a short-lived perennial terrestrial 
fern in the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), is known from all of the 
major Hawaiian Islands except Hawaii Island (Palmer 2003, p. 125). At 
the time we designated critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui, in 
2003, and on Oahu in 2012, D. molokaiense was known only from east Maui 
(68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, D. 
molokaiense is known from three occurrences on Maui. On west Maui, 
there are five individuals at Puehuehunui in the montane mesic 
ecosystem. On east Maui, there are 2 occurrences, one at Honomanu 
(about 15 individuals) in the montane wet ecosystem, and one in the 
Kula FR (about 50 individuals) in the montane mesic ecosystem (Wood 
2006b, pp. 32-34; TNC 2007; Wood 2007, p. 14; PEPP 2009, p. 71; HBMP 
2010). Diplazium molokaiense occurred historically in the dry cliff 
ecosystem on east Maui, and the lowland wet and dry cliff ecosystems on 
west Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). It was also found in the lowland mesic 
and dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai, and in the lowland mesic ecosystem 
on Molokai (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis (naenae), a short-lived perennial 
shrub or small tree in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from 
west Maui (Carr 1999b, pp. 304-305). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, D. plantaginea ssp. humilis was known from 2 
occurrences totaling 60 to 65 individuals on west Maui (68 FR 25934, 
May 14, 2003). Currently, D. plantaginea ssp. humilis is known from 1 
occurrence of 35 individuals in Iao Valley, in the wet cliff ecosystem 
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 72; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
    Eugenia koolauensis (nioi), a long-lived perennial shrub or small 
tree in the myrtle family (Myrtaceae), is known from Oahu and Molokai 
(Wagner et al. 1999w, p. 960). At the time we designated critical 
habitat on Molokai in 2003 and on Oahu in 2012, this species was only 
known from 13 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, E. koolauensis is extant only on 
Oahu. This species was last seen on Molokai in 1920, in the lowland dry 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Festuca molokaiensis (NCN), a short-lived perennial in the grass 
family (Poaceae), is found on Molokai (Catalan et al. 2009, p. 54). 
This species is only known from the type locality at Kupaia Gulch, in 
the lowland mesic ecosystem (Catalan et al. 2009, p. 55). Last seen in 
2009, the current number of individuals is unknown; however, field 
surveys for F. molokaiensis at Kupaia Gulch are planned for 2011 
(Oppenheimer 2010g, in litt.). Oppenheimer (2011, pers. comm.) suggests 
that the drought over the past couple of years on Molokai may have 
suppressed the growth of F. molokaiensis and prevented its observation 
by botanists in the field. He also suggested that this species may be 
an annual whose growth will be stimulated by normal rainfall patterns.
    Flueggea neowawraea (mehamehame) is a long-lived perennial tree in 
the family Euphorbiaceae. This species is known from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Hayden 1999, pp. 620-621). At 
the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, there were 100 
occurrences on Kauai, 4 occurrences on Maui, and 2 occurrences on the 
island of Hawaii; in 2012, there were 18 occurrences on Oahu, (68 FR 
9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). 
Flueggea neowawraea was last observed at Waihii on Molokai in 1931 
(HBMP 2010). Currently, two individuals of F. neowawraea are found on 
east Maui's southern flank of Haleakala at Auwahi, in the lowland dry 
ecosystem (PEPP 2009, p. 73; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.). Flueggea 
neowawraea was last observed on Molokai in 1931 at Waianui, in the 
lowland mesic ecosystem (HBMP 2010).
    Geranium arboreum (Hawaiian red-flowered geranium), a short-lived 
perennial shrub in the geranium family (Geraniaceae), is known from 
east Maui (Wagner et al. 1999e, p. 729). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, there were 12 occurrences totaling 158 
individuals (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, there are 5 
occurrences totaling fewer than 30 individuals in east Maui's montane 
mesic and subalpine ecosystems. Historically, G. arboreum was also 
found in the montane dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2009d, in 
litt.; Perlman 2009g, in litt.; Wood 2009g, in litt.; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). One hundred and 
eighty-nine individuals have been outplanted at 11 sites within 
Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
    Geranium hanaense (nohoanu), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
geranium family (Geraniaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999e, 
pp. 730-732). This species was first collected in 1973, from two 
adjacent montane bogs on the northeast rift of Haleakala, east Maui 
(Medeiros and St. John 1988, pp. 214-220). At that time, there were an 
estimated 500 to 700 individuals (Medeiros and St. John 1988, pp. 214-
220). Currently, G. hanaense occurs in ``Big Bog'' and ``Mid Camp Bog'' 
in the montane wet ecosystem on the northeast rift of Haleakala, with 
the same number of estimated individuals (Welton 2008, in litt.; Welton 
2010a, in litt.; Welton 2010b, in litt.).
    Geranium hillebrandii (nohoanu), a short-lived perennial shrub in 
the geranium family (Geraniaceae), is found on Maui (Aedo and Munoz 
Garmendia 1997; p. 725; Wagner et al. 1999e, pp. 732-733; Wagner and 
Herbst 2003, p. 28). Little is known of the historical locations of G. 
hillebrandii, other than the type collection made in the 1800s at Eke 
Crater, in the west Maui mountains (Hillebrand 1888, p. 56). Currently, 
4 occurrences total over 10,000 individuals, with the largest 2 
occurrences in the west Maui bogs, from Puu Kukui to East Bog and 
Kahoolewa ridge. A third occurrence is at Eke Crater and the 
surrounding area, and the fourth occurrence is at Lihau (HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010h, in litt.). These occurrences are found in the 
montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems on west Maui (TNC 2007).
    Geranium multiflorum (nohoanu), a short-lived perennial shrub in 
the geranium family (Geraniaceae), is known from east Maui (Wagner et 
al. 1999e, pp. 733-734). At the time we

[[Page 17803]]

designated critical habitat in 2003, there were 13 occurrences. Due to 
the inaccessibility of the plants, and the difficulty in determining 
the number of individuals (because of the plant's multi-branched form), 
the total number of individuals of this species was not known; however, 
it was assumed to not exceed 3,000 (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). 
Currently, G. multiflorum is found in nine occurrences on east Maui, 
from Koolau Gap to Kalapawili Ridge, in the subalpine, montane mesic, 
montane wet, and dry cliff ecosystems. It is estimated there may be as 
many as 500 to 1,000 individuals (Bily et al. 2003, pp. 4-5; TNC 2007; 
Perlman 2009h, in litt.; Wood 2009h, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010b, in litt.; HNP 2012, in litt.). One hundred and fifty plants have 
been outplanted at eight locations within Haleakala National Park (NPS 
2012, in litt.).
    Gouania hillebrandii (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae), is known from Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe (Wagner et al. 1999z, p. 1,095). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 1984 on Maui, there was one occurrence (49 FR 
44753, November 9, 1984). Currently, on Molokai, there is 1 occurrence 
of about 50 individuals at Puu Kolekole in the lowland mesic ecosystem 
(USFWS 1990, pp. 4-10; TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, p. 61; Perlman 2008f, in 
litt.; Wood 2009i, in litt.). On west Maui, there are fewer than 1,000 
individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). This species was last observed on Lanai 
and Kahoolawe in the 1800s (HBMP 2010).
    Gouania vitifolia (NCN), a short-lived perennial climbing shrub or 
woody vine in the buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae), is known from Oahu, 
Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999z, p. 1,097). At the 
time we designated critical habitat on Maui and Hawaii in 2003 and Oahu 
in 2012, G. vitifolia was only known from one occurrence on the island 
of Hawaii and two occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 
39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, 
botanists are searching potentially suitable habitat in the wet cliff 
ecosystem on west Maui where G. vitifolia was last seen in the 1800s 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010z, in litt.).
    Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrubby 
tree in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from Oahu, Molokai, 
Lanai, and Maui (Wagner et al. 1999m, p. 325). At the time we 
designated critical habitat on Molokai and Maui in 2003 and on Oahu in 
2012, H. arborescens was known from 1 occurrence on Molokai, 4 
occurrences on west Maui, and 19 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 12982, 
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 
2012). However, no critical habitat was designated for this species on 
Maui in 2003 (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, there are five or 
six occurrences on Molokai and Maui totaling 122 to 125 individuals. On 
Molokai, there are 30 individuals between Wailau and Pelekunu in the 
wet cliff ecosystem. Historically, this species was also reported from 
the montane wet ecosystem (HBMP 2010). On west Maui, 4 or 5 occurrences 
totaling 92 to 95 individuals are found in the lowland wet and wet 
cliff ecosystems, in Honokohau (30 individuals), Waihee (approximately 
60 individuals), Kapilau Ridge (1 individual), and Lanilili (1 
individual). There is some question regarding the identification of 
three individuals in Iao Valley (HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in 
litt.). This species has not been observed since 1940 on Lanai, in the 
wet cliff ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The results of a recent 
research study indicate that the plants on Oahu may be genetically 
distinct from plants on Molokai, Maui, and Lanai (Ching-Harbin 2003, p. 
81; Morden and Harbin 2013).
    Hesperomannia arbuscula (NCN), a short-lived perennial tree or 
shrub in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from Oahu and west 
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999m, p. 325). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003 on Maui and in 2012 on Oahu, eight occurrences were 
found on west Maui, and five occurrences were known from Oahu (68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, on 
west Maui, there are three individuals in Iao Valley, in the lowland 
wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010aa, in litt.). This 
species was last observed in the 1990s in the wet cliff, dry cliff, and 
lowland dry ecosystems on west Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The results 
of a recent research study indicate that the plants on west Maui may be 
H. arborescens; if a taxonomic change should be required, we will 
address that change in a future rulemaking (Ching-Harbin 2003, p. 81; 
Morden and Harbin 2013).
    Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus (kokio keokeo), a long-lived 
perennial tree in the mallow family (Malvaceae), is endemic to east 
Molokai (Bates 1999, pp. 882-883). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, this subspecies was known from three occurrences on 
east Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, H. arnottianus 
ssp. immaculatus is found in 5 occurrences, totaling fewer than 100 
individuals, from Waiehu to Papalaua in the coastal and wet cliff 
ecosystems (Perlman 2002b, in litt.; TNC 2007; NTBG 2009j; Wood 2009j, 
in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele) is a short-lived perennial 
shrub or small tree in the mallow family (Malvaceae). This species is 
known from the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Hawaii, 
and possibly Kahoolawe. There are three subspecies: H. brackenridgei 
ssp. brackenridgei (Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii), H. brackenridgei ssp. 
mokuleianus (Kauai and Oahu), and H. brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana 
(Molokai and Oahu) (Wilson 1993, p. 278; Bates 1999, pp. 885-886). At 
the time we designated critical habitat on Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii in 
2003 and on Oahu in 2012, H. brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei was known 
from 2 occurrences on Lanai, 5 occurrences on Maui, and 4 occurrences 
on Hawaii, and H. brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus was known from 7 
occurrences totaling between 47 and 50 individuals on Oahu. Hibiscus 
brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana was reported from one occurrence on Oahu 
and had not been seen on Molokai since 1920 (68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, September 18, 2012). No critical habitat was designated for this 
species on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Currently, H. 
brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei is extant on the islands of Lanai, 
Maui, and Hawaii. On Lanai, there are two individuals near Keomuku 
Road, and one individual at Kaena, both in the lowland dry ecosystem. 
Historically, this subspecies was also known from Lanai's coastal 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.). On west Maui, there 
are a few individuals in Kaonohue Gulch in the lowland dry ecosystem. 
On east Maui, there is 1 occurrence of about 10 individuals at Keokea, 
in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, pp. 64-65; PEPP 
2009, pp. 76-78; Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.; 2010u, in litt.; 2010bb, 
in litt; PEPP 2011, p. 118). Historically, on Molokai, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei ssp. molokaiana was found in the coastal ecosystem at 
Kihaapilani (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Huperzia mannii (wawaeiole), is a short-lived perennial fern ally 
in the hanging fir-moss family (Lycopodiaceae) that is typically 
epiphytic on native plants such as Metrosideros polymorpha or Acacia 
koa. This species is known

[[Page 17804]]

from Kauai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Palmer 2003, p. 256). At 
the time we designated critical habitat on Kauai and Maui in 2003, this 
species was known from Maui and the island of Hawaii (68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003). No critical habitat was designated for this species on 
Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, on Maui there 
are 6 occurrences totaling 97 to 100 individuals. On west Maui, 14 to 
17 individuals of H. mannii occur in the West Maui NAR, in the montane 
mesic ecosystem. This species also occurred historically in the lowland 
wet and montane wet ecosystems (HBMP 2010). On east Maui, 2 individuals 
are reported north of Waikamoi Preserve in the montane wet ecosystem; 
10 individuals occur at Kipahulu in the lowland wet ecosystem; 
approximately 40 individuals occur at Cable Ridge in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem; approximately 30 individuals occur at Kaapahu in the lowland 
mesic ecosystem; and 1 individual was observed at Manawainui (Kipahulu 
FR) in the montane mesic ecosystem (HNP 2004, pp. 5-7; HNP 2006, p. 3; 
TNC 2007; Welton and Haus 2008, pp. 12-13; Perlman 2009i, in litt., 
2009j, in litt.; Wood 2009k, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Welton 2010a, in 
litt.). Sixty-seven plants have been outplanted at eight locations 
within Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
    Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum) is a short-lived stoloniferous 
(creeping along the ground with rooting from nodes) perennial in the 
grass family (Poaceae) known from Kauai, Oahu (historical), Molokai, 
east Maui, and Hawaii island (O'Connor 1999, pp. 1,556-1,557). At the 
time we designated critical habitat in 2003 and 2012, I. byrone was 
known from two occurrences on Kauai (2 individuals, last observed in 
1993); two occurrences on Molokai (100 to 1,000 individuals, last 
observed in 1994), six occurrences on Maui (fewer than 2,000 
individuals), and six occurrences on Hawaii Island (unknown numbers, 
last observed in 1997) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, 
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 
Pratt 2009, in litt.; Wood 2009, in litt.). In 2004, I. byrone was re-
observed on Hawaii Island (unknown number of individuals) (HBMP 2010). 
Currently, I. byrone is known from six occurrences on Molokai and Maui, 
possibly totaling several thousand individuals (HBMP 2010). On Molokai, 
I. byrone is found in the coastal ecosystem from Wailau to Waiehu 
(approximately 200 individuals) (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2009e, in litt,; 
HBMP 2010). On east Maui, there are an unknown number of individuals at 
Pauwalu Point; 20 individuals in scattered patches at Mokuhuki islet; 
many individuals at Keawaiki Bay; and an unknown number of individuals 
at Kalahu Point, and at Waiohonu Stream and Muolea Point, all in the 
coastal ecosystem. These occurrences may total several thousands of 
individuals, depending on rainfall (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010b, in litt.); however, exact numbers of individuals are difficult 
to determine because of its growth habit. Overall, the numbers of 
individuals have decreased from the more than 5,000 reported in 2010 to 
possibly several thousand individuals in 2015, with the highest numbers 
occurring along the northeast coast of Maui (Service 2010, in litt.). 
Current threats to this species are significant and include grazing by 
feral ungulates and deer, competition with nonnative plants, drought, 
hurricanes, and human use of coastal areas. Potential effects of 
climate change include sea level rise. In addition, the recently 
established nonnative plant, Polypogon interruptus (ditch polypogon), 
occupies the same coastal habitat as I. byrone on Molokai and Maui and 
is observed to displace I. byrone (Warshauer et al. 2009, in litt.). 
Fortini et al. (2013, p. 78) conducted a landscape-based assessment of 
climate change vulnerability for I. byrone and concluded that this 
species is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 
Furthermore, this study identified this species as one that will have 
no overlapping area between its current and future climate envelope 
(areas that contain the full range of climate conditions under which 
the species is known to occur) by 2100. To be considered for delisting, 
threats to this species must be managed or controlled (e.g., by 
fencing) and the species must be represented in an ex situ (at other 
than the plant's natural location, such as a nursery or arboretum) 
collection. In addition, a minimum of 8 to 10 self-sustaining 
populations (over a period of at least 5 years), consisting of all size 
classes, should be documented on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and if 
possible, at least one other island where it now occurs or occurred 
historically. The delisting goals for this species have not been met, 
and no separate occurrences total more than 300 mature individuals. In 
addition, all threats are not being sufficiently managed throughout all 
of the occurrences. Therefore, designation of unoccupied habitat (in 
addition to occupied habitat) is essential to the conservation of I. 
byrone as it remains in danger of extinction throughout its range, and 
the species will require the expansion or reestablishment of 
populations in areas presently unoccupied by the species to withstand 
ongoing and future threats and to meet recovery goals.
    Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), a short-lived perennial 
shrub in the violet family (Violaceae), is known from Niihau, Oahu, 
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999aa, p. 1,331). At 
the time we designated critical habitat on Molokai, and Maui in 2003, 
and on Oahu in 2012, I. pyrifolium was known from a single occurrence 
on the island of Hawaii (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 
2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, there are no 
extant occurrences on Lanai, Molokai, or Maui. Historically, I. 
pyrifolium was found on Molokai in the lowland mesic ecosystem, and on 
west Maui in the lowland wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems. We 
have no habitat information for the historical occurrences on Lanai 
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, p. 103; HBMP 2010).
    Kadua cordata ssp. remyi (formerly Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. 
remyi) (kopa), is a short-lived perennial subshrub in the coffee family 
(Rubiaceae), and is known from Lanai (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 1,150-
1,152). In 2003, this subspecies was known from eight individuals; 
however, no critical habitat was designated for this subspecies on 
Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Currently, two wild and three out-
planted individuals are reported from Kaiholena-Hulopoe ridge, in the 
lowland wet ecosystem. Historically, this species also occurred in the 
lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, pp. 5, 82; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010cc, in litt.).
    Kadua coriacea (kioele) is a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
coffee family (Rubiaceae), and is known from Oahu, Maui, and the island 
of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999a, p. 1,141). At the time we designated 
critical habitat on Maui in 2003 and on Oahu in 2012, this species was 
known from one individual in the lowland dry ecosystem at Lihau, on 
west Maui, and four occurrences on the island of Hawaii (68 FR 25934, 
May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). However, no critical 
habitat was designated for this species on Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39264, 
July 2, 2003). In 2008, the only known individual on Maui was burned 
during a wildfire and died (PEPP 2008, p. 67).
    Kadua laxiflora (formerly Hedyotis mannii) (pilo) is a short-lived 
perennial subshrub in the coffee family

[[Page 17805]]

(Rubiaceae), and is known from Molokai, Lanai, and west Maui (Wagner et 
al. 1999a, p. 1,148). At the time we designated critical habitat on 
Maui in 2003, this species was known from a total of five occurrences 
on Lanai (two occurrences), Molokai (one occurrence), and west Maui 
(two occurrences) (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). However, no critical habitat was 
designated for this species on Lanai or Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, 
there are two individuals at Hauola Gulch in the montane wet ecosystem. 
There are historical reports from the lowland mesic, lowland wet, and 
wet cliff ecosystems on this island. On west Maui, there are four 
individuals at Kauaula Valley, in the wet cliff ecosystem. 
Historically, this species was also reported from the lowland wet and 
dry cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; Perlman 2008g, in litt.; Oppenheimer 
2009f, in litt.; PEPP 2009, pp. 3, 14, 24, 82-83; HBMP 2010). There are 
no extant individuals on Molokai, although there are historical reports 
from the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010).
    Kanaloa kahoolawensis (kohe malama malama o kanaloa), a short-lived 
perennial shrub in the pea family (Fabaceae), occurs only on Kahoolawe 
(Lorence and Wood 1994, p. 137). Soil cores suggest K. kahoolawensis 
was quite widespread in lowland dry areas throughout the main Hawaiian 
Islands during the early Pleistocene (Burney et al. 2001, p. 632; 
Athens 2002 et al., p. 74). At the time we designated critical habitat 
in 2003, K. kahoolawensis was known from two individuals on the Aleale 
sea stack on the south central coast of Kahoolawe (68 FR 25934, May 14, 
2003). Currently, K. kahoolawensis is known from the same location with 
one surviving individual, in the coastal ecosystem (TNC 2007; NTBG 
2008; HBMP 2010).
    Kokia cookei (Cooke's kokio), a short-lived perennial small tree in 
the mallow family (Malvaceae), is known from Molokai, historically in 
the lowland dry ecosystem (Bates 1999, p. 890; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). At 
the time K. cookei was listed in 1979, there were no individuals 
remaining in the wild, and one individual in an arboretum on Oahu; no 
critical habitat was designated for this species on Molokai (44 FR 
62470, October 30, 1979; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, one 
individual is in cultivation at Waimea Arboretum, and there are 
propagules at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility, Lyon Arboretum, Amy 
Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Leeward Community College, Hoolawa 
Farms, and Maui Nui Botanical Garden (Orr 2007, in litt.; Seidman 2007, 
in litt.).
    Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis (kamakahala), a short-lived 
perennial shrub or small tree in the logania family (Loganiaceae), is 
known from Lanai (Wagner et al. 1999z, pp. 861-862). In 2003, this 
variety was known from one occurrence totaling three to eight 
individuals along the summit of Lanaihale; however, no critical habitat 
was designated for this species on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). 
Currently, L. tinifolia var. lanaiensis is found in one occurrence of 
at least five individuals in Awehi Gulch in the wet cliff ecosystem. 
This variety was historically also found in the lowland mesic, lowland 
wet, and montane wet ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010t, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010d, in litt.).
    Labordia triflora (kamakahala), a short-lived perennial shrub or 
small tree in the logania family (Loganiaceae), is known from east 
Molokai (Wagner et al. 1999z, p. 423). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, this species was known from 10 individuals 
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, 4 occurrences totaling 20 
individuals are reported from Kua, Wawaia, Kumueli, and Manawai Gulch, 
in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2007, p. 48; PEPP 2008, 
p. 85; HBMP 2010).
    Lysimachia lydgatei (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
primrose family (Primulaceae), is known from west Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999bb, p. 1,082). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were four occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, 
there are 2 occurrences totaling approximately 30 individuals. Both 
occurrences are found at Puehuehunui, in the montane mesic and wet 
cliff ecosystems (Perlman 1997, in litt.; TNC 2007; Wood 2009l, in 
litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010dd, in litt.). This species is also 
historically known from the lowland dry ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010).
    Lysimachia maxima (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
primrose family (Primulaceae), is known from Molokai (Wagner et al. 
1999bb, p. 1,083). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
this species was known from one occurrence (68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003). Currently, L. maxima is known from 2 occurrences totaling 28 
individuals on east Molokai. There are 20 individuals near Ohialele, 
and 8 individuals in 2 distinct patches in east Kawela Gulch, in the 
lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 48; TNC 2007; 
PEPP 2008, p. 85; HBMP 2010).
    Marsilea villosa (ihi ihi), a short-lived perennial fern in the 
marsilea family (Marsileaceae), is known from Niihau, Oahu, and Molokai 
(Palmer 2003, pp. 180-182). At the time we designated critical habitat 
on Molokai in 2003 and on Oahu in 2012, this species was found in four 
occurrences on Molokai, and in five to six occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 
12982, March 18, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). No critical 
habitat was designated for this species on Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 
12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, M. villosa is known from eight 
occurrences on Molokai, totaling possibly thousands of individuals in 
areas that flood periodically, such as small depressions and flood 
plains with clay soils. There is one small occurrence at Kamakaipo, and 
seven occurrences between Kaa and Ilio Point, covering areas from 20 
square (sq) ft (6 sq m) to over 2 ac (0.8 ha), all in the coastal 
ecosystem (Perlman 2006b, in litt.; TNC 2007; Bakutis 2009b, in litt.; 
Wood 2009m, in litt.; Chau 2010, in litt.; Garnett 2010b in litt.; HBMP 
2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Melanthera kamolensis (formerly Lipochaeta kamolensis) (nehe) is a 
short-lived perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), and is 
known from east Maui (Wagner et al. 1990a, p. 337). At the time we 
designated critical habitat in 2003, this species was known from one 
occurrence (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, a single occurrence 
of M. kamolensis is found in Kamole Gulch, totaling between 30 and 40 
individuals, in the lowland dry ecosystem. A second occurrence just 
west of Kamole appears to be a hybrid swarm (hybrids between parent 
species, and subsequently formed progeny from crosses among hybrids and 
crosses of hybrids to parental species) of M. kamolensis and M. rockii, 
with approximately 100 individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Medeiros 2010, 
in litt.).
    Melicope adscendens (alani), a short-lived perennial sprawling 
shrub in the rue family (Rutaceae), is known from Maui (Stone et al. 
1999, p. 1,183). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were 16 occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, M. 
adscendens is known from 2 occurrences totaling 33 individuals at 
Auwahi, in the lowland dry and montane mesic ecosystems on east Maui 
(TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 85; Buckman 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010). 
Historically, this species has not been observed below 3,200 ft (975 m) 
(Wagner et al. 1999, p. 1,183).

[[Page 17806]]

    Melicope balloui (alani), a short-lived perennial tree or shrub in 
the rue family (Rutaceae), is known from east Maui (Stone et al. 1999, 
pp. 1,183-1,184). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were 3 occurrences totaling 50 individuals (68 FR 25934, May 14, 
2003). Currently, there are approximately 50 individuals near Palikea 
Stream, in the lowland wet ecosystem, and a few individuals at 
Puuokakae in the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; Wood 2009n, in litt.; 
HBMP 2010). The status and taxonomic certainty of the occurrence within 
Haleakala National Park is in question (NPS 2012, in litt.).
    Melicope knudsenii (alani), a long-lived perennial tree in the rue 
family (Rutaceae), is known from Kauai and Maui (Stone et al. 1999, pp. 
1,192-1,193). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, there 
were 10 occurrences on Kauai and 4 occurrences on Maui (68 FR 9116, 
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, on east Maui, 
there are two individuals at Auwahi, in the montane dry ecosystem (TNC 
20007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.).
    Melicope mucronulata (alani), a long-lived perennial tree in the 
rue family (Rutaceae), is known from Molokai and east Maui (Stone et 
al. 1999, p. 1,196). At the time we designated critical habitat on 
Molokai and Maui in 2003, there were two occurrences on Molokai and two 
occurrences on east Maui (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003). Currently, there are two occurrences on Molokai, one 
individual at Kupaia Gulch, and three individuals at Onini Gulch, in 
the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2008, p. 69; PEPP 2009, p. 
86; HBMP 2010;). This species was historically also found in the 
montane mesic ecosystem on Molokai (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The 
occurrence status of M. mucronulata in the lowland dry and montane dry 
ecosystems on east Maui is unknown.
    Melicope munroi (alani), a short-lived perennial shrub in the rue 
family (Rutaceae), is known from Lanai and Molokai (Stone et al. 1999, 
p. 1,196). In 2003, there were two occurrences on Lanai; however, no 
critical habitat was designated for this species on Lanai or Molokai 
(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, 
on Lanai, M. munroi is known from at least 2 occurrences of fewer than 
40 individuals on the Lanaihale summit and the ridge of Waialala Gulch, 
in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010t, in litt.). This species has not been seen on Molokai 
since 1910, where it was last observed in the lowland mesic ecosystem 
(68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
    Melicope ovalis (alani), a long-lived perennial tree in the rue 
family (Rutaceae), is known from east Maui (Stone et al. 1999, p. 
1,198). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, there were 
two occurrences (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, there are 
approximately 50 individuals in 4 occurrences in the lowland wet 
ecosystem in Keanae Valley, and in the montane wet and wet cliff 
ecosystems at Kipahulu Valley and Palikea Stream (TNC 2007; Bily et al. 
2008 p. 45; Wood 2009o, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in 
litt.; Welton 2010a, in litt.). Forty-five individuals were outplanted 
in nine locations within Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
    Melicope reflexa (alani), a short-lived perennial sprawling shrub 
in the rue family (Rutaceae), is endemic to east Molokai (Stone et al. 
1999, p. 1,203). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were three occurrences (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, 
there are two occurrences totaling at least six individuals. There are 
at least five individuals at Puuohelo and one individual at Puniuohua 
in the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010ee, 
in litt.). Historically, this species was also found in the lowland 
mesic and montane wet ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010u, in litt.; Wood 2010b, in litt.).
    Mucuna sloanei var. persericea (sea bean), a short-lived perennial 
vine in the pea family (Fabaceae), is found on Maui (Wilmot-Dear 1990, 
pp. 27-29; Wagner et al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database). 
In her revision of Mucuna in the Pacific Islands, Wilmot-Dear 
recognized this variety from Maui based on leaf indumentum (covering of 
fine hairs or bristles) (Wilmot-Dear 1990, p. 29). At the time of 
Wilmot-Dear's publication, M. sloanei var. persericea ranged from 
Makawao to Wailua Iki, on the windward slopes of the east Maui 
mountains (Wagner et al. 2005a-Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database). 
Currently, there are possibly a few hundred individuals in five 
occurrences: Ulalena Hill, north of Kawaipapa Gulch, lower Nahiku, Koki 
Beach, and Piinau Road, all in the lowland wet ecosystem on east Maui 
(Duvall 2010, in litt.; Hobdy 2010, in litt.).
    Myrsine vaccinioides (kolea), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
myrsine family (Myrsinaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 
946; HBMP 2010). This species was historically known from shrubby bogs 
near Violet Lake on west Maui (Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 946). In 2005, 
three occurrences of a few hundred individuals were reported at Eke, 
Puu Kukui and near Violet Lake (Oppenheimer 2006c, in litt.). 
Currently, there are estimated to be several hundred, but fewer than 
1,000, individuals scattered in the summit area of the west Maui 
mountains at Eke Crater, Puu Kukui, Honokowai-Honolua, and Kahoolewa, 
in the montane wet ecosystem (Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
    Neraudia sericea (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the nettle 
family (Urticaceae), is known from Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe 
(Wagner et al. 1999cc, p. 1,304). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, N. sericea was known from Molokai and Maui (68 FR 
12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, this 
species is found only on east Maui at Kahikinui, where there are fewer 
than five individuals in the montane mesic ecosystem. This species has 
not been observed in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui since the 
early 1900s. Historically, N. sericea was found in the lowland dry and 
dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai, the lowland mesic and montane mesic 
ecosystems on Molokai, the lowland dry and dry cliff ecosystems on west 
Maui, and the lowland dry ecosystem on Kahoolawe (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Medeiros 2010, in litt.).
    Nototrichium humile (kului), a short-lived perennial trailing shrub 
in the amaranth family (Amaranthaceae), is known from Oahu and east 
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999dd, pp. 193-194). At the time we designated 
critical habitat on Maui in 2003 and Oahu in 2012, N. humile was only 
known from 12 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, September 18, 2012). This species has not been seen on Maui 
since 1976, when one individual was reported from the lowland dry 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Peperomia subpetiolata (alaala wai nui), a short-lived perennial 
herb in the pepper family (Piperaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999g, p. 1035; HBMP 2010). Historically, P. subpetiolata was known 
only from the lower Waikamoi (Kula pipeline) area on the windward side 
of Haleakala on east Maui (Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 1,035; HBMP 2010). 
In 2001, it was estimated that 40 individuals occurred just west of the 
Makawao-Koolau FR boundary, in the montane wet ecosystem. Peperomia 
cookiana and P. hirtipetiola also occur in this area, and are known to 
hybridize with P. subpetiolata (NTBG 2009g, p. 2; Oppenheimer 2010j, in 
litt.). In 2007, 20 to 30 hybrid plants were observed at Maile Trail, 
and at three areas near the

[[Page 17807]]

Waikamoi Flume road (NTBG 2009g, p. 2). Based on the 2007 and 2010 
surveys, all known plants are now considered to be hybrids mostly 
between P. subpetiolata and P. cookiana, with a smaller number of 
hybrids between P. subpetiolata and P. hirtipetiola (NTBG 2009g, p. 2; 
Lau 2011, in litt.). Peperomia subpetiolata is recognized as a valid 
species, and botanists continue to search for plants in its previously 
known locations as well as in new locations with potentially suitable 
habitat (NTBG 2009g, p. 2; PEPP 2010, p. 96; Lau 2011, pers. comm.).
    Peucedanum sandwicense (makou), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
parsley family (Apiaceae), is known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, 
and Keopuka islet off the coast of east Maui (Constance and Affolter 
1999, p. 208). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, P. 
sandwicense was known from 15 occurrences on Kauai, 5 occurrences on 
Molokai, 3 occurrences on Maui; and, in 2012 from 2 occurrences on Oahu 
(68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, P. 
sandwicense is known from 6 occurrences totaling over 45 individuals on 
Molokai and east Maui. On Molokai, there are 3 occurrences totaling 32 
to 37 individuals, at Mokapu islet (25 individuals), Lepau Point (2 
individuals), and Kalaupapa Trail (5 to 10 individuals), all in the 
coastal ecosystem. There is a report of an individual found near the 
lowland wet ecosystem, but this plant has not been relocated since 1989 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; NTBG 2010a, in litt. ; NTBG 2010b, in litt.). On 
east Maui, P. sandwicense occurs on Keopuku islet (15 individuals), 
Pauwalu Point (an unknown number of individuals), and Honolulu Nui (an 
unknown number of individuals), in the coastal ecosystem. Historically, 
this species was found on west Maui in the lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010; NTBG 2010a, in litt.; NTBG 2010b, in litt.).
    Phyllostegia bracteata (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
mint family (Lamiaceae), is found on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999h, pp. 
814-815). Historically, this species was known from the east Maui 
mountains at Ukulele, Puu Nianiau, Waikamoi Gulch, Koolau Gap, 
Kipahulu, Nahiku-Kuhiwa trail, Waihoi Valley, and Manawainui; and from 
the west Maui mountains at Puu Kukui and Hanakaoo (HBMP 2010). This 
species appears to be short-lived, ephemeral, and disturbance-
dependent, in the lowland wet, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, 
and wet cliff ecosystems (NTBG 2009h, p. 1). There have been several 
reported sightings of P. bracteata between 1981 and 2001, at Waihoi 
Crater Bog, Waikamoi Preserve, Waikamoi flume, and Kipahulu on east 
Maui, and at Pohakea Gulch on west Maui; however, none of these 
individuals were extant as of 2009 (PEPP 2009, pp. 89-90). In 2009, one 
individual was found at Kipahulu, near Delta Camp, on east Maui, but 
was not relocated on a follow-up survey during that same year (NTBG 
2009h, p. 3). Botanists continue to search for P. bracteata in 
previously reported locations, as well as in other areas with 
potentially suitable habitat (NTBG 2009h, p. 3; PEPP 2009, pp. 89-90).
    Phyllostegia haliakalae (NCN), a short-lived perennial vine in the 
mint family (Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai, Lanai, and east Maui 
(Wagner 1999, p. 269). The type specimen was collected by Wawra in 1869 
or 1870, in a dry ravine at the foot of Haleakala. An individual was 
found in flower on the eastern slope of Haleakala, in the wet cliff 
ecosystem, in 2009; however, this plant has died (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 
2010b, in litt.). Collections were made before the plant died, and 
propagules outplanted in the Puu Mahoe Arboretum (three plants) and 
Olinda Rare Plant Facility (four plants) (Oppenheimer 2011b, in litt.). 
In addition, this species has been outplanted in the lowland wet, 
montane wet, and montane mesic ecosystems of Haleakala National Park 
(HNP 2012, in litt.). Botanists continue to search in areas with 
potentially suitable habitat for wild individuals of this plant 
(Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt.). Phyllostegia haliakalae was last 
reported from the lowland mesic ecosystem on Molokai in 1928, and from 
the dry cliff and wet cliff ecosystems on Lanai in the early 1900s (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010). Currently no individuals are known in the wild on 
Maui, Molokai, or Lanai; however, over 100 individuals have been 
outplanted (HNP 2012, in litt).
    Phyllostegia hispida (NCN), a short-lived perennial vine in the 
mint family (Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai (Wagner et. al. 1999h, 
pp. 817-818). Until an individual was rediscovered in 1996, P. hispida 
was thought to be extinct in the wild. This individual died in 1998, 
and P. hispida was thought to be extirpated, until another plant was 
found in 2005. Propagules were taken and propagated; however, the wild 
individual died. This sequence of events occurred again in 2006 and 
2007 (74 FR 11319, March 17, 2009). At the time we listed P. hispida in 
2009, no critical habitat was designated for this species on Molokai 
(74 FR 11319, March 17, 2009). Currently P. hispida is known from 4 
occurrences totaling 25 individuals in the montane wet and wet cliff 
ecosystems on Molokai (TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, pp. 7, 15, 90-93). 
Historically, this species also occurred in the lowland wet ecosystem 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Phyllostegia mannii (NCN), a short-lived perennial vine in the mint 
family (Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai and Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999h, pp. 820-821). At the time we designated critical habitat on 
Molokai and Maui in 2003, this species was only known from one 
individual on east Molokai. It had not been observed on Maui for over 
70 years (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, on Molokai, there are 
three individuals in Hanalilolilo, in the montane wet ecosystem. 
Historically, P. mannii occurred in Molokai's lowland mesic and lowland 
wet ecosystems, and the montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems on 
east Maui (TNC 2007; Perlman 2009k, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010u, in litt.; Wood 2010c, in litt.).
    Phyllostegia pilosa (NCN), a short-lived perennial vine in the mint 
family (Lamiaceae), is known from east Maui (Wagner 1999, p. 274). 
There are two occurrences totaling seven individuals west of Puu o 
Kakae on east Maui, in the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). 
The individuals identified as P. pilosa on Molokai, at Kamoku Flats 
(montane wet ecosystem) and at Mooloa (lowland mesic ecosystem), have 
not been observed since the early 1900s (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Pittosporum halophilum (hoawa), a short-lived perennial shrub or 
small tree in the pittosporum family (Pittosporaceae), is found on 
Molokai (Wood 2005, pp. 2, 41). This species was reported from Huelo 
islet, Mokapu Island, Okala Island, and Kukaiwaa peninsula. On Huelo 
islet, there were two individuals in 1994, and in 2001, only one 
individual remained (Wood et al. 2001, p. 12; Wood et al. 2002, pp. 18-
19). The current status of this species on Huelo islet is unknown. On 
Mokapu Island, there were 15 individuals in the coastal ecosystem in 
2001, and in 2005, 10 individuals remained. On Okala Island, there were 
two individuals in 2005, and one individual on the sea cliff at 
Kukaiwaa peninsula (Wainene) (Wood 2005, pp. 2, 41). As of 2010, there 
were three occurrences totaling five individuals: three individuals on 
Mokapu Island, one individual on Okala Island, and one individual on 
Kukaiwaa peninsula (Bakutis 2010, in litt.; Hobdy 2010, in litt.; 
Perlman 2010, in litt.). At least 17

[[Page 17808]]

individuals have been outplanted at 3 sites on the coastline of the 
nearby Kalaupapa peninsula (Garnett 2010a, in litt.).
    Plantago princeps (laukahi kuahiwi), a short-lived perennial shrub 
or herb in the plantain family (Plantaginaceae), is known from the 
islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 
1999ee, pp. 1,054-1,055). Wagner et al. recognize four varieties of P. 
princeps: P. princeps var. anomala (Kauai and Oahu), P. princeps var. 
laxiflora (Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii), P. princeps var. longibracteata 
(Kauai and Oahu), and P. princeps var. princeps (Oahu) (Wagner et al. 
1999ee, pp. 1,054-1,055). At the time we designated critical habitat on 
Kauai, Molokai, and Maui, in 2003, and on Oahu in 2012, there was one 
known occurrence of P. princeps var. laxiflora on Molokai and eight 
occurrences on Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 
18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). 
Currently, P. princeps var. laxiflora is known from 6 occurrences 
totaling approximately 70 individuals on Maui (Oppenheimer 2010a, in 
litt.). On east Maui, there are 3 occurrences totaling 41 to 46 
individuals in the dry cliff and wet cliff ecosystems, at Waikau (1 
individual), Kaupo Gap (about 30 individuals), and Palikea (10 to 15 
individuals). On west Maui, there are 3 occurrences totaling 15 
individuals in the wet cliff ecosystem, in Kauaula Valley, Nakalaloa 
Stream, and in Iao Valley (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2009g, in litt.; HBMP 
2010). Almost 500 individuals have been outplanted at 43 sites within 
Haleakala National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.). On Molokai, this species 
was found in the lowland wet and montane mesic ecosystems as recently 
as 1987 (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Platanthera holochila (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
orchid family (Orchidaceae), is known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and 
Maui (Wagner et al. 1999ff, p. 1,474). At the time we designated 
critical habitat on Kauai, Maui in 2003, and on Oahu in 2012, there 
were two known occurrences on Kauai, one occurrence on Molokai, and six 
occurrences on Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). No critical habitat was 
designated for this species on Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003). Currently, there are 4 known occurrences totaling 44 individuals 
on Molokai and west Maui. On Molokai, there is 1 occurrence at 
Hanalilolilo totaling 24 individuals in the montane wet ecosystem. 
There are 3 occurrences on west Maui, at Waihee Valley in the wet cliff 
ecosystem (12 individuals), Waihee Valley in the wet cliff ecosystem (6 
individuals), and Pohakea Gulch in the montane wet ecosystem (2 
individuals). Historically, this species was also found in the montane 
wet ecosystem on east Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in 
litt.).
    Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), a long-lived perennial tree in the 
asparagus family (Asparagaceae), is found only on the island of Lanai 
(Wagner et al. 1999i, p. 1,352; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 67). 
Historically known throughout Lanai, this species is currently found in 
the lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff 
ecosystems, from Hulopaa and Kanoa gulches southeast to Waiakeakua and 
Puhielelu (St. John 1947, pp. 39-42 cited in St. John 1985, pp. 171, 
177-179; HBMP 2006; PEPP 2008, p. 75; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010d, in 
litt.). Currently, there are several hundred to perhaps as many as 
1,000 individuals. The number of individuals has decreased by about 
one-half in the past 10 years (there were more than 2,000 individuals 
in 1999), with very little recruitment observed recently (Oppenheimer 
2008d, in litt.).
    Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
purslane family (Portulacaceae), is known from a single collection from 
Poopoo islet off the south coast of Lanai, and from the island of 
Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999gg, p. 1,074). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2003, there was 1 known occurrence on Poopoo islet 
and 24 occurrences on Hawaii Island (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 
39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, this species is only known 
from an unknown number of individuals in the coastal ecosystem on 
Poopoo islet (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Pteris lidgatei (NCN), a short-lived perennial terrestrial fern in 
the maidenhair fern family (Adiantaceae), is known from Oahu, Molokai, 
and Maui (Palmer 2003, p. 229). At the time we designated critical 
habitat on Molokai and Maui in 2003, and on Oahu in 2012, this species 
was known from two occurrences on Maui and five occurrences on Oahu (68 
FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, 
September 18, 2012). Currently, P. lidgatei is known from four 
occurrences totaling over nine individuals on Molokai and Maui. On 
Molokai, there are six to eight individuals in Kumueli Gulch in the 
montane wet ecosystem. Historically, this species was also found in 
Molokai's wet cliff ecosystem. On west Maui, P. lidgatei is known from 
a single individual at Kauaula Valley in the wet cliff ecosystem, an 
unknown number of individuals in both the upper Kauaula Valley in the 
lowland wet ecosystem and upper Kahakuloa Stream in the wet cliff 
ecosystem (PEPP 2007, pp. 54-55; TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 103; HBMP 
2010; Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Remya mauiensis (Maui remya), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from west Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999m, p. 353). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were 5 known occurrences totaling 21 individuals (68 FR 25934, 
May 14, 2003). Currently, R. mauiensis is found in 6 occurrences 
totaling approximately 500 individuals at Kauaula (lowland mesic 
ecosystem), Puehuehunui (lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems), 
Ukumehame (wet cliff ecosystem), Papalaua (montane mesic ecosystem), 
Pohakea (lowland dry ecosystem), and Manawainui (lowland dry ecosystem) 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010ff, in litt.). Historically, this 
species also occurred in Maui's lowland wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010).
    Sanicula purpurea (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb in the 
parsley family (Apiaceae), is known from bogs and surrounding wet 
forest on Oahu and west Maui (Constance and Affolter 1999, p. 210). At 
the time we designated critical habitat in 2003 (Maui) and 2012 (Oahu), 
this species was known from seven occurrences on west Maui and five 
occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 
18, 2012). Currently, on west Maui, as many as 50 individuals are found 
in 4 known occurrences in bogs in the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; 
Perlman 2007d, in litt.; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010gg, in litt.; Wood 
2010d, in litt.).
    Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (iliahi, Lanai sandalwood) is a 
long-lived perennial tree in the sandalwood family (Santalaceae). 
Currently, S. haleakalae var. lanaiense is known from Molokai, Lanai, 
and Maui, in 26 occurrences totaling fewer than 100 individuals (Wagner 
et al. 1999c, pp. 1,221-1,222; HBMP 2010; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 
834-835). On Molokai, there are more than 12 individuals in 4 
occurrences from Kikiakala to Kamoku Flats and Puu Kokekole, with the 
largest concentration at Kumueli Gulch, in the montane mesic and 
lowland mesic ecosystems (Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835). On Lanai, 
there are approximately 10 occurrences totaling 30 to 40 individuals: 
Kanepuu, in the

[[Page 17809]]

lowland mesic ecosystem (5 individuals); the headwaters of Waiopae 
Gulch in the lowland wet ecosystem (3 individuals); the windward side 
of Hauola on the upper side of Waiopae Gulch in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (1 individual); the drainage to the north of Puhielelu Ridge 
and exclosure, in the headwaters of Lopa Gulch in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (3 individuals); 6 occurrences near Lanaihale in the montane 
wet ecosystem (21 individuals); and the mountains east of Lanai City in 
the lowland wet ecosystem (a few individuals) (HBMP 2008; Harbaugh et 
al. 2010, pp. 834-835; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010a, in litt.). On west Maui, 
there are eight single-individual occurrences: Hanaulaiki Gulch in the 
lowland dry ecosystem; Kauaula and Puehuehunui Gulches in the lowland 
mesic, montane mesic, and wet cliff ecosystems; Kahanahaiki Gulch and 
Honokowai Gulch in the lowland wet ecosystem; Wakihuli in the wet cliff 
ecosystem; and Manawainui Gulch in the montane mesic and lowland dry 
ecosystems (HBMP 2010; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835; Wood 2010a, 
in litt.). On east Maui, there are 4 occurrences (10 individuals) in 
Auwahi, in the montane mesic, montane dry, and lowland dry ecosystems 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Harbaugh et al. 2010, pp. 834-835).
    Schenkia sebaeoides (formerly Centaurium sebaeoides) (awiwi) is a 
short-lived annual herb in the gentian family (Gentianaceae) known from 
the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and west Maui (Wagner et 
al. 1990b, p. 725; 68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). At the time we 
designated critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui in 2003, and on 
Oahu in 2012, the species was reported from one occurrence on Lanai, 
three occurrences on Kauai, two occurrences on Molokai, three 
occurrences on Maui, and two occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220, January 
9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 
FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). No critical 
habitat was designated for this species on Lanai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003). Currently, on Lanai, Molokai, and Maui, there are at 
least eight occurrences, with the highest number of individuals on 
Molokai. The annual number of individuals on each island varies widely 
depending upon rainfall (;Oppenheimer 2009i, in litt.; HBMP 2010). On 
Lanai, there is 1 occurrence totaling between 20 and 30 individuals, in 
the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). On Molokai, there are 
2 or more occurrences containing thousands of individuals in the 
coastal ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). On west Maui, there are 5 
occurrences, totaling several thousand individuals, along the north 
coast from Haewa Point to Puu Kahulanapa, in the coastal ecosystem 
(Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.).
    Schiedea haleakalensis (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known from east Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999j, pp. 512-514). At the time we designated critical habitat in 
2003, this species was known from two occurrences in Haleakala National 
Park (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Currently, S. haleakalensis is found 
in 2 occurrences totaling fewer than 50 individuals, at Leleiwi Pali 
and Kaupo Gap in the subalpine and dry cliff ecosystems, within 
Haleakala National Park (Welton 2010a, in litt.). One hundred forty-
three individuals have been outplanted at 11 sites within Haleakala 
National Park (NPS 2012, in litt.).
    Schiedea jacobii (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb or subshrub in 
the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), occurs only on Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999j, p. 284). Discovered in 1992, the single occurrence consisted of 
nine individuals along wet cliffs between Hanawi Stream and Kuhiwa 
drainage (in Hanawi NAR), in the montane wet ecosystem on east Maui 
(Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 286). By 1995, only four plants could be 
relocated in this location. It appeared that the other five known 
individuals had been destroyed by a landslide (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 
286). In 2004, one seedling was observed in the same location, and in 
2010, no individuals were relocated (Perlman 2010, in litt.). The State 
of Hawaii plans to outplant propagated individuals in a fenced area in 
Hanawi Natural Area Reserve in 2011 (Oppenheimer 2010a, in litt.; 
Perlman 2010, in litt.).
    Schiedea laui (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb or subshrub in 
the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is found only on Molokai (Wagner et 
al. 2005b, pp. 90-92). In 1998, when this species was first observed, 
there were 19 individuals located in a cave along a narrow stream 
corridor at the base of a waterfall in the Kamakou Preserve, in the 
montane wet ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005b, pp. 90-92). By 2000, only 9 
individuals with a few immature plants and seedlings were relocated, 
and in 2006, 13 plants were seen (Wagner et al. 2005b, pp. 90-92; PEPP 
2007, p. 57). Currently, there are 24 to 34 individuals in the same 
location in Kamakou Preserve (Bakutis 2010, in litt.).
    Schiedea lydgatei (NCN), a short-lived perennial subshrub in the 
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known from east Molokai (Wagner et 
al. 1999j, p. 516). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
this species was known from four occurrences totaling more than 1,000 
individuals (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there are over 
200 individuals between Kawela and Makolelau gulches, in the lowland 
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; PEPP 2009, p. 109; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 
2010u, in litt.).
    Schiedea salicaria (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the pink 
family (Caryophyllaceae), occurs on Maui (Wagner et al. 1999j, pp. 519-
520). It is historically known from a small area on west Maui, from 
Lahaina to Waikapu. Currently, this species is found in three 
occurrences: Kaunoahua gulch (500 to 1,000 individuals), Puu Hona 
(about 50 individuals), and Waikapu Stream (3 to 5 individuals), in the 
lowland dry ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 2007; Oppenheimer 2010k, in 
litt.; Oppenheimer 2010l, in litt.). Hybrids and hybrid swarms between 
S. salicaria and S. menziesii are known on the western side of west 
Maui (Wagner et al. 2005b, p. 138). However, according to Weller (2012, 
in litt.) the hybridization process is natural when S. salicaria and S. 
menziesii co-occur and because of the dynamics in this hybrid zone, 
traits of S. salicaria prevail and replace those of S. menziesii. 
Weller (2012, in litt.) notes that populations of both species will 
likely remain distinct because the two species do not overlap 
throughout much of their range.
    Schiedea sarmentosa (NCN), a short-lived perennial herb in the pink 
family (Caryophyllaceae), is endemic to Molokai (Wagner et al. 2005b, 
pp. 116-119). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, this 
species was known from five occurrences with an estimated total of over 
1,000 individuals (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, S. 
sarmentosa is known from three occurrences from Onini Gulch to 
Makolelau, with as many as several thousand individuals, in the lowland 
mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; Perlman 2009l, in litt.; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010hh, in litt.; Perlman 2010, in litt.; Wood 2010e, in 
litt.).
    Sesbania tomentosa (ohai) is a short-lived perennial shrub or small 
tree in the pea family (Fabaceae) (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 704-705). 
At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, S. tomentosa was 
known from 1 occurrence on Kauai, 9 occurrences on Molokai, 7 
occurrences on Maui, several thousand individuals on Nihoa Island, ``in 
great abundance'' on Necker Island, 31 occurrences on Hawaii Island; 
and, in 2012, from 3 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 9116, February 27, 
2003; 68 FR

[[Page 17810]]

12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 28054, May 22, 
2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). 
Historically widespread throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), this species now occurs in larger 
numbers only on Nihoa and Necker (NWHI, approximately 5,500 
individuals), with relatively few occurrences persisting on the eight 
main Hawaiian islands. Currently, on the eight main Hawaiian Islands, 
S. tomentosa is known from Kauai, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and 
Hawaii (possibly totaling as many as 2,000 individuals). The number of 
individuals at any one location varies widely, depending on rainfall 
(TNC 2007; NTBG 2009k). On Molokai, there is one occurrence on the 
northwest shore from Moomomi to Nenehanaupo (35 individuals), and about 
1,000 or more individuals on the south coast scattered from Kamiloloa 
to the Kawela plain, in the coastal and lowland dry ecosystems. 
Historically, this species also occurred in Molokai's lowland mesic 
ecosystem (TNC 2007; Cole 2008, in litt.; NTBG 2009k). On west Maui, 
there are 3 occurrences totaling 80 individuals from Nakalele Point to 
Mokolea Point, in the coastal ecosystem. Historically, this species 
also occurred in the lowland dry ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 2007; NTBG 
2009k; Oppenheimer 2009h, in litt.). On east Maui, there is one 
occurrence of 10 individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; 
Cole 2008, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2009h, in litt.; Oppenheimer 2010i, in 
litt.). On Kahoolawe, about 300 individuals occur in the coastal 
ecosystem on Puu Koae islet. Sesbania tomentosa has not been seen in 
the coastal and lowland dry ecosystems on Lanai for over 50 years (TNC 
2007; HBMP 2010). Current threats to this species are significant and 
include herbivory by feral ungulates, deer, nonnative insects (borers 
and scale), and slugs, seed predation by rats, fire, drought, and low 
fruit set resulting from lack of pollinators or self-incompatibility, 
and low seedling recruitment. Herbivory by the nonnative gray bird 
grasshopper, Schistocerca nitens, is a threat to occurrences on Nihoa 
(Latchininsky 2008, 15 pp.). Fortini et al. (2013, p. 89) conducted a 
landscape-based assessment of climate change vulnerability for S. 
tomentosa, and concluded that this species is moderately vulnerable to 
the impacts of climate change. To be considered for delisting, threats 
to S. tomentosa must be managed or controlled, and there must be a 
minimum of 8 to 10 self-sustaining populations consisting of all size 
classes, over a period of 5 years, that should be documented on 2 to 3 
of the eight main Hawaiian islands where it now occurs or occurred 
historically. These goals have not been met, as currently no population 
on the main Hawaiian Islands is considered sufficiently large and self-
sustaining; in addition, all threats are not being sufficiently managed 
throughout all of the occurrences, even at the more remote occurrences 
on the NWHI. Designation of unoccupied habitat (in addition to occupied 
habitat) is essential to the conservation of S. tomentosa as it remains 
in danger of extinction throughout its range, therefore it requires 
sufficient habitat to persist in the face of ongoing and future 
threats, and for the expansion or reestablishment of multiple, self-
sustaining populations in areas presently not occupied by the species 
to meet recovery goals.
    Silene alexandri (NCN), a short-lived perennial subshrub in the 
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known from Molokai (Wagner et al. 
1999j, p. 522). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, S. 
alexandri was extirpated in the wild, but individuals remained in 
cultivation (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, S. alexandri is 
known from 1 occurrence of 25 individuals near Kawela Gulch, in the 
lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, p. 111; HBMP 
2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.).
    Silene lanceolata (NCN), a short-lived perennial subshrub in the 
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Lanai, and the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 523). At the 
time we designated critical habitat on Molokai in 2003 and on Oahu in 
2012, S. lanceolata was known from Molokai, Oahu, and the island of 
Hawaii (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 77 FR 
57648, September 18, 2012). However, no critical habitat was designated 
for this species on Lanai, Kauai, or Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003). Currently, on Molokai, there are 2 occurrences totaling 
approximately 200 individuals at Kapuaokoolau and along cliffs between 
Kawela and Makolelau, in the lowland mesic ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2008; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). This species has not been observed 
in the lowland dry ecosystem on Lanai since the 1930s (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010).
    Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai), a short-lived perennial shrub 
in the nightshade family (Solanaceae), is reported from Kauai, Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii (Symon 1999, pp. 1,270-1,271). At 
the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, this species was only 
known from one occurrence on the island of Hawaii (68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003). Currently, there are no known occurrences on Lanai, Molokai, or 
Maui (HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, p. 112; HBMP 2010). Historically, this 
species occurred in the lowland dry, lowland mesic, and dry cliff 
ecosystems on Lanai, and in the lowland dry and lowland mesic 
ecosystems on east Maui. It is unclear when and where this plant was 
collected on Molokai (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN), an annual herb in the parsley family 
(Apiaceae), is known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and the island 
of Hawaii (Constance and Affolter 1999, p. 212). At the time we 
designated critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui in 2003, and on 
Oahu in 2012, S. hawaiiensis was known from 3 occurrences on Lanai, 2 
occurrences on Kauai, 1 occurrence on Molokai, 5 occurrences on Maui, 
30 occurrences on Hawaii Island, and 4 occurrences on Oahu (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). No 
critical habitat was designated for this species on Hawaii Island in 
2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently in Maui Nui there are nine 
occurrences totaling possible a several thousand individuals. On Lanai, 
there are 3 occurrences at Makiki Ridge, Kahewai Gulch to Puhialelu 
Ridge, and Kapoho Gulch, totaling between 500 and 600 individuals in 
the lowland dry and lowland mesic ecosystems. On Molokai, there are 
thousands of individuals at Makolelau and Kapuaokoolau, in the lowland 
mesic and montane mesic ecosystems (Perlman 2007e, in litt.; TNC 2007; 
HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010u, in litt.). On east Maui, there is one 
occurrence at Kanaio, with possibly 1,000 individuals, in the lowland 
dry ecosystem. On west Maui, there are at least 3 occurrences that may 
total over 1,000 individuals at Puu Hipa, Olowalu, and Ukumehame in the 
lowland dry ecosystem. A recent (2010) fire at Olowalu burned at least 
50 individuals (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010b, in litt. 2010i, 
in litt.). Because of this species' annual growth habit (grows, blooms, 
seeds, and dies within 1 year), larger numbers of individuals (as 
compared to long-lived perennials) are required to ensure long-term

[[Page 17811]]

persistence as reproduction is dependent on the longevity of the 
seedbank. Overall, the numbers of individuals have declined from the 
approximately 13,000 wild individuals reported in 2010 to approximately 
6,000 wild individuals reported in 2015 (Service 2010, in litt.; 
Service 2015, in litt.). Current threats to this species are herbivory 
by feral pigs, goats, sheep, deer, and mouflon; competition with 
nonnative plants; fire; erosion; landslides; rockslides; and drought 
(Service 1999, in litt; Service 2015, in litt.). Fortini et al. (2013, 
p. 89) conducted a landscape-based assessment of climate change 
vulnerability for S. hawaiiensis and concluded that this species has 
moderately low vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Since S. 
hawaiiensis is an annual plant, to be considered for delisting, a 
minimum of 5 to 7 naturally reproducing populations of at least 500 
individuals each must be stable or increasing in numbers on islands 
where it now occurs or occurred historically. These goals have not been 
met and threats are not being sufficiently managed. Designation of 
unoccupied habitat (in addition to occupied habitat) is essential to 
the conservation of S. hawaiiensis as it remains in danger of 
extinction throughout its range, therefore sufficient habitat is 
required to allow the species to persist in the face of ongoing and 
future threats, and for the expansion or reestablishment of multiple, 
self-sustaining populations in areas presently not occupied by the 
species to meet recovery goals.
    Stenogyne bifida (NCN), a short-lived climbing perennial herb in 
the mint family (Lamiaceae), is known from Molokai (Weller and Sakai 
1999, p. 835). At the time we designated critical habitat in 2003, 
there were five known occurrences (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). 
Currently, S. bifida is known from one individual in Kawela Gulch, in 
the montane wet ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, p. 113; 
Tangalin 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010). The status of the plants in the 
montane mesic ecosystem, farther west, is unknown (Oppenheimer 2009i, 
in litt.). Historically, this species was also found in Molokai's 
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and wet cliff ecosystems 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Stenogyne kauaulaensis (NCN), a short-lived perennial vine in the 
mint family (Lamiaceae), occurs on Maui. This recently described (2008) 
plant is found only along the southeastern rim of Kauaula Valley, in 
the montane mesic ecosystem on west Maui (TNC 2007; Wood and 
Oppenheimer 2008, pp. 544-545). At the time S. kauaulaensis was 
described, the authors reported a total of 15 individuals in one 
occurrence. However, one of the authors reports that due to the clonal 
(genetic duplicate) growth habit of this species, botanists believe it 
is currently represented by only three genetically distinct individuals 
(Oppenheimer 2010k, in litt.).
    Tetramolopium capillare (pamakani), a short-lived perennial 
sprawling shrub in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from 
west Maui (Lowrey 1999, p. 363). At the time we designated critical 
habitat in 2003, this species was known from five occurrences (68 FR 
25934, May 14, 2003). Although Tetramolopium capillare was last 
observed in the wet cliff (Kauaula) and dry cliff (Ukumehame) 
ecosystems in 2001, and in the lowland dry ecosystem (Ukumehame) in 
1995, these plants are no longer extant (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; 
Oppenheimer 2010i, in litt.). Currently, there are no known occurrences 
on west Maui (PEPP 2009, p. 113).
    Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (NCN), a short-lived 
perennial shrub in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from 
Oahu and Lanai (Lowrey 1999, p. 376). At the time we designated 
critical habitat in 2012, this subspecies was only known from three 
occurrences on Oahu (77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). Currently, T. 
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is only found on Oahu. This subspecies was 
last observed in the lowland dry ecosystem on Lanai in the early 1900s 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, pp. 113-114; HBMP 2010).
    Tetramolopium remyi (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known from Lanai and west Maui 
(Lowrey 1999, pp. 367-368). At the time we designated critical habitat 
in 2003, there was one occurrence on Lanai totaling approximately 150 
individuals, and there were an unknown number of individuals in the 
Kuia area on west Maui (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003). Currently, there is one known individual on Lanai at Awehi, 
in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Oppenheimer 2010ii, 
in litt.; Perlman 2008h, in litt.). There are an unknown number of 
individuals in the Kuia area on west Maui in the lowland dry ecosystem 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
    Tetramolopium rockii (NCN), a short-lived perennial shrub in the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is endemic to the island of Molokai 
(Lowrey 1999, p. 368). There are two varieties: T. rockii var. 
calcisabulorum and T. rockii var. rockii (Lowrey 1999, p. 368). At the 
time we designated critical habitat in 2003, T. rockii was known from 
four occurrences totaling thousands of individuals (68 FR 12982, March 
18, 2003). Tetramolopium rockii var. calcisabulorum was reported from 
Kaiehu Point to Kapalauoa, intergrading with var. rockii. Tetramolopium 
rockii var. rockii occurred from Kalawao to Kahinaakalani, Kaiehu point 
to Kapalauoa, and Moomomi to Kahinaakalani. Currently, numbers 
fluctuate considerably from year to year but remain in the thousands, 
and occurrences are found along the northwest shore of Molokai, from 
Kaa Gulch to Kahinaakalani, and on Kalaupapa peninsula from Alau to 
Makalii, in the coastal ecosystem (Canfield 1990, p. 20; Perlman 2006c, 
in litt.; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; NTBG 2009l; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010f, in 
litt.).
    Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN), a twining, short-lived perennial herb in 
the pea family (Fabaceae), is known from all of the main Hawaiian 
Islands except Kauai (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 720-721). At the time we 
designated critical habitat on Maui and Hawaii in 2003 and Oahu in 
2012, V. o-wahuensis was known from 6 occurrences totaling 
approximately 30 individuals on Lanai, Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, 
and the island of Hawaii (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, 
March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003; 
77 FR 57648, September 18, 2012). However, no critical habitat was 
designated for this species on Lanai or Molokai in 2003 (68 FR 1220, 
January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003). Currently, there are 22 
individuals in 3 occurrences on Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe. On 
Molokai, 2 occurrences totaling 12 individuals are known from 
Makakupaia and Makolelau, in the lowland mesic ecosystem. On east Maui, 
there are approximately 10 individuals at Kanaio Beach in the coastal 
ecosystem. On Kahoolawe, there is one individual in the lowland dry 
ecosystem. Historically, V. o-wahuensis was found in the lowland dry 
and lowland mesic ecosystems on Lanai, and in the coastal ecosystem on 
Kahoolawe (Perlman 2005, in litt.; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010; Wood 2010g, in 
litt.).
    Viola lanaiensis (NCN), a short-lived perennial subshrub in the 
violet family (Violaceae), is known from Lanai (Wagner et al. 1999aa, 
pp. 1,334-1,336). In 2003, there were 2 known occurrences totaling 
fewer than 80 individuals; however, no critical habitat was designated 
for this species on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).

[[Page 17812]]

Currently, 6 individuals are found in Awehi Gulch, in the wet cliff 
ecosystem on Lanai. Historically, this species was also reported in the 
montane wet and dry cliff ecosystems on Lanai (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; 
PEPP 2008, p. 84; PEPP 2009, p. 117; HBMP 2010). A new population of 
over 140 individuals of V. lanaiensis was recently discovered on Helu 
Peak, west Maui, in the montane mesic ecosystem (Havran et al. 2012. 
This information extends the known range for V. lanaiensis to the 
island of Maui. However, we will reevaluate the listing status of this 
species in a future proposed rulemaking.
    Wikstroemia villosa (akia), a short-lived perennial shrub or tree 
in the akia family (Thymelaeaceae), is found on Maui (Peterson 1999, 
pp. 1,290-1,291). Historically known from the lowland wet, montane wet, 
and montane mesic ecosystems on east and west Maui, this species is 
currently known from a recent discovery (2007) of one individual on the 
windward side of Haleakala (on east Maui), in the montane wet ecosystem 
(Peterson 1999, p. 1,291; TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). As of 2010, there was 
one individual and one seedling at the same location (Oppenheimer 
2010m, in litt.). In addition, three individuals have been outplanted 
in Waikamoi Preserve (Oppenheimer 2010m, in litt.).
    Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae), a long-lived perennial tree in the rue 
family (Rutaceae), is known from Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the 
island of Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, pp. 1,214-1,215). At the time we 
designated critical habitat on Kauai, Molokai, and Maui in 2003, Z. 
hawaiiense was known from 3 occurrences on Kauai, 5 individuals on 
Molokai, 9 occurrences on Maui, and 186 occurrences on the island of 
Hawaii (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 
FR 25934, May 14, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003). No critical habitat 
was designated for this species on Hawaii in 2003 (68 FR 39624, July 2, 
2003). Currently, on Molokai and Maui, this species is known from 5 or 
6 occurrences totaling 14 individuals. On Molokai, there are two mature 
individuals in the lowland wet ecosystem, one individual above Kamalo 
in the montane wet ecosystem, and one individual in Makolelau Gulch in 
the lowland mesic ecosystem. On west Maui, there are seven individuals 
at Puehuehunui in the montane mesic and lowland mesic ecosystems. On 
east Maui, at Auwahi, there are three individuals in the montane dry 
and lowland dry ecosystems. Historically, this species also occurred in 
Maui's subalpine and montane mesic ecosystems (Perlman 2001, in litt.; 
Evans et al. 2003, pp. 41, 47; NTBG 2005; TNC 2007; Wood 2007, in 
litt.; HBMP 2008; PEPP 2009, pp. 22, 27, 119; HBMP 2010). Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense was last seen on Lanai in the lowland wet ecosystem in 1947 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010).
Animals
Birds
Kiwikiu
    The Maui parrotbill, or kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), is a 
small Hawaiian honeycreeper found only on the island of Maui, currently 
in the mid- to upper-elevation montane mesic and montane wet ecosystems 
(USFWS 2006, p. 2-79; TNC 2007). The Hawaiian honeycreepers are in the 
subfamily Drepanidinae of the finch family, Fringillidae (AOU 1998, p. 
673). The kiwikiu is most common in wet forests dominated by 
Metrosideros polymorpha trees and a few mesic areas dominated by M. 
polymorpha and Acacia koa trees with an intact, dense, diverse native 
understory and subcanopy of ferns, sedges, epiphytes, shrubs and small 
to medium trees (USFWS 2006, p. 2-79). In 1980, the number of kiwikiu 
was estimated by the Hawaii Forest Bird Survey (HFBS) at 500 230 (95 percent confidence interval) birds with an average 
density of 10 birds per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) (Scott et al. 1986, p. 
115). Currently, the kiwikiu is found only on Haleakala on east Maui, 
in an area of 12,355 ac (50 sq km) at elevations between 4,500 and 
6,500 ft (1,360 to 1,970 m) (NPS 2012, in litt.). The kiwikiu is 
insectivorous and often feeds in a deliberate manner, using its massive 
hooked bill to dig, tear, crack, crush, and chisel the bark and softer 
woods on a variety of understory native shrubs and small- to medium-
sized subcanopy trees, especially Rubus hawaiensis (akala), Broussaisia 
arguta (kanawao), and M. polymorpha (USFWS 2006, p. 2-77; NPS 2012, in 
litt.). Kiwikiu also pluck and bite open fruits, especially B. arguta 
fruits, in search of insects, but do not eat the fruit itself (USFWS 
2006, pp. 2-77-2-78). The open cup nest, composed mainly of lichens 
(Usnea sp.) and Leptecophylla tameiameiae (pukiawe) twigs, is built by 
the female an average of 40 ft (12 m) above the ground in a forked 
branch just under the outer canopy foliage (USFWS 2006, p. 2-78). Based 
on collections of subfossil bones, the current geographic range is much 
restricted compared to the known prehistorical range, which included 
mesic leeward forests and low elevations between 660 and 1,000 ft (200 
to 300 m) on east Maui as well as Molokai (James and Olson 1991, p. 80; 
Olson and James 1991, pp. 14-15; TNC 2007). Surveys from 1995 to 1997 
at Hanawi, a study site located in the core of the species' range, 
showed that the kiwikiu occurred there at approximately the same 
density (40 birds per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km)) as in 1980 (Simon et al. 
2002, p. 477). However, subsequent surveys across the species' range 
have not conclusively shown that its densities are stable (Camp et al. 
2009, p. 39).
Akohekohe
    The crested honeycreeper, or akohekohe (Palmeria dolei), is a small 
forest bird found only on the island of Maui, currently in the mid- to 
upper-elevation montane mesic and montane wet ecosystems (USFWS 2006, 
p. 2-139; TNC 2007). Like the kiwikiu, the akohekohe is also a Hawaiian 
honeycreeper in the subfamily Drepanidinae of the finch family, 
Fringillidae (AOU 1998, p. 678). The akohekohe is most common in the 
wet forest habitat described above for the kiwikiu, except that the 
lower limit of the akohekohe's elevational range is higher (roughly 
5,000 ft (1,525 m)) than the lower limit of the kiwikiu's elevational 
range (USFWS 2006, p. 2-139; NPS 2012, in litt.). In 1980, the number 
of akohekohe was estimated by the HFBS at 3,800 700 (95 
percent confidence interval) individuals (Scott et al. 1986, p. 168). 
Currently the akohekohe is found only on Haleakala, east Maui, in 
14,080 ac (58 sq km) at elevations between 5,000 and 6,500 ft (1,500 to 
1,970 m) at Manawainui, Kipahulu Valley, and the upper Hana rainforest 
(USFWS 2006, p. 2-140; NPS 2012, in litt.). The akohekohe is primarily 
nectarivorous, but also feeds on caterpillars, spiders, and dipterans 
(flies) (USFWS 2006, p. 2-138). Nectar is primarily sought from flowers 
of Metrosideros polymorpha trees but also from several subcanopy tree 
and shrub species when M. polymorpha trees are not in bloom (USFWS 
2006, p. 2-139; NPS 2012, in litt.). The open cup nest is built by the 
female an average 46 ft (14 m) above the ground in the terminal ends of 
branches below the canopy foliage of M. polymorpha trees (USFWS 2006, 
p. 2-139). Based on collections of subfossil bones, the current 
geographic range is much restricted compared to the known prehistorical 
range, which included dry leeward areas of east and west Maui, and 
Molokai (Berlin and VanGelder 1999, p. 3). The HFBS and subsequent 
surveys of the akohekohe range yielded densities of 81 10 
birds per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) in 1980, 98 11 birds per 
0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) from 1992 to 1996, and 116 14 birds 
per 0.39 sq

[[Page 17813]]

mi (1 sq km) between 1997 and 2001 (Camp et al. 2009, p. 81; Gorresen 
et al. 2009, pp. 123-124). Densities in the core of the species' range 
within the Hanawi Natural Area Reserve were 183 59 birds 
per 0.39 sq mi (1 sq km) in 1988, and 290 10 birds per 0.39 
sq mi (1 sq km) from 1995 to 1997 (Berlin and VanGelder 1999, p. 11). 
These results indicate that the species' rangewide and core densities 
have both increased and the current population may be larger than 
previously estimated (Gorresen et al. 2009, p. 124).
Tree Snails
    Newcomb's tree snail (Newcombia cumingi), a member of the family 
Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily Achatinellinae 
(Newcomb 1853, p. 25), is known only from the island of Maui (Cowie et 
al. 1995, p. 62). The exact life span and fecundity of the Newcomb's 
tree snail is unknown, but they attain adult size within 4 to 5 years 
(Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 2). Newcomb's tree snail is believed to 
exhibit the low reproductive rate of other Hawaiian tree snails 
belonging to the same family (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 2). It 
feeds on fungi and algae that grow on the leaves and trunks of its 
native host plant, the tree Metrosideros polymorpha (Pilsbry and Cooke 
1912-1914, p. 103). Historically, Newcomb's tree snail was distributed 
from the west Maui mountains (near Lahaina and Wailuku) to the slopes 
of Haleakala (Makawao) on east Maui (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 
10). In 1994, a small population of Newcomb's tree snail was found on a 
single ridge on the northeastern slope of the west Maui mountains, in 
the lowland wet ecosystem (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 3; TNC 2007). 
Eighty-six snails were documented in the same location in 1998; in 
2006, only nine individuals were located; and, in 2012, only one 
individual was located (Thacker and Hadfield 1998, p. 2; Hadfield 2007, 
p. 8; Higashino 2013, in litt.).
    Partulina semicarinata (Lanai tree snail, pupu kani oe), a member 
of the family Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily 
Achatinellinae, is known only from the island of Lanai (Pilsbry and 
Cooke 1912-1914, p. 86). Adults may attain an age exceeding 15 to 20 
years, and reproductive output is low, with an adult snail giving birth 
to 4 to 6 live young per year (Hadfield and Miller 1989, pp. 10-12). 
Partulina semicarinata is arboreal and nocturnal, and grazes on fungi 
and algae growing on leaf surfaces (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 
103). This snail species is found on the following native host plants: 
Metrosideros polymorpha, Broussaisia arguta (kanawao), Psychotria spp. 
(kopiko), Coprosma spp. (pilo), Melicope spp. (alani), and dead 
Cibotium glaucum (tree fern, hapuu). Occasionally the snail is found on 
nonnative plants such as Psidium guajava (guava), Cordyline australis 
(New Zealand tea tree), and Phormium tenax (New Zealand flax) (Hadfield 
1994, p. 2). Historically, P. semicarinata was found in wet and mesic 
M. polymorpha forests on Lanai. There are no historical population 
estimates for this snail, but qualitative accounts of Hawaiian tree 
snails indicates they were once widespread and abundant, possibly 
numbering in the tens of thousands between the 1800s and early 1900s 
(Hadfield 1986, p. 69). In 1993, 105 individuals of P. semicarinata 
were found during surveys conducted in its historical range. Subsequent 
surveys in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2005 documented 55, 12, 4, and 29 
individuals, respectively, in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet 
cliff ecosystems in central Lanai (Hadfield 2005, pp. 3-5; TNC 2007).
    Partulina variabilis (Lanai tree snail, pupu kani oe), a member of 
the family Achatinellidae and the endemic Hawaiian subfamily 
Achatinellinae, is known only from the island of Lanai (Pilsbry and 
Cooke 1912-1914, p. 86). Adults may attain an age exceeding 15 to 20 
years, and reproductive output is low, with an adult snail giving birth 
to 4 to 6 live young per year (Hadfield and Miller 1989, pp. 10-12). 
Partulina variabilis is arboreal and nocturnal, and grazes on fungi and 
algae growing on leaf surfaces (Pilsbry and Cooke 1912-1914, p. 103). 
This snail is found on the following native host plants: Metrosideros 
polymorpha, Broussaisia arguta, Psychotria spp., Coprosma spp., 
Melicope spp., and dead Cibotium glaucum. Occasionally Partulina 
variabilis is found on nonnative plants such as Psidium guajava and 
Cordyline australis (Hadfield 1994, p. 2). Historically, Partulina 
variabilis was found in wet and mesic M. polymorpha forests on Lanai. 
There are no historical population estimates for this snail, but 
qualitative accounts of Hawaiian tree snails indicate they were 
widespread and abundant, possibly numbering in the tens of thousands 
between the 1800s and early 1900s (Hadfield 1986, p. 69). In 1993, 111 
individuals of P. variabilis were found during surveys conducted in its 
historical range. Subsequent surveys in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2005 
documented 175, 14, 6, and 90 individuals, respectively, in the lowland 
wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in central Lanai (Hadfield 
2005, pp. 3-5; TNC 2007).

An Ecosystem-Based Approach To Determining Primary Constituent Elements 
of Critical Habitat

    Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to designate critical 
habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently 
with the publication of a final determination that a species is 
endangered or threatened. In this final rule, we are designating 
critical habitat for 125 endangered or threatened species (122 plants, 
1 tree snail, and 2 forest birds) on the islands of Molokai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe. As described in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 
34464), we proposed critical habitat for the first time for 50 plant 
and animal species (37 newly listed and 2 species for which we 
reaffirmed listed status, as well as 11 previously listed plant and 
animal species that did not have designated critical habitat (May 28, 
2013; 78 FR 32014)), and proposed to revise critical habitat for 85 
listed plant species, for a total of 135 species. As noted above, as a 
result of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, no critical 
habitat is designated for 10 of those species, therefore we are 
finalizing critical habitat for 125 of those 135 species.
    In this final rule, we are designating critical habitat for 125 
species in 165 unique critical habitat units. Although critical habitat 
is identified for each species individually, we have found that the 
conservation of each depends, at least in part, on the successful 
functioning of the physical or biological features of their commonly 
shared ecosystem. Each critical habitat unit identified in this final 
rule contains the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of those individual species that occupy that particular 
unit, or areas essential for the conservation of those species 
identified that do not presently occupy that particular unit. Where the 
unit is not occupied by a particular species, we conclude it is still 
essential for the conservation of that species because the designation 
allows for the expansion of its range and reintroduction of individuals 
into areas where it occurred historically, and provides area for 
recovery in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the 
potential to eliminate the species from the one or more locations where 
it may presently be found. Under current conditions, many of these 
species are so rare in the wild that they are at high risk of 
extirpation or even extinction from various stochastic events, such as

[[Page 17814]]

hurricanes or landslides. Therefore, building up resilience and 
redundancy in these species through the establishment of multiple, 
robust populations is a key component of recovery.
    Each of the areas designated represents critical habitat for 
multiple species, based upon their shared habitat requirements (i.e., 
physical or biological features) essential for their conservation. This 
designation of critical habitat also takes into account any species-
specific conservation needs. For example, the presence of a seasonally 
wet area within the coastal ecosystem is essential for the conservation 
of the plant Marsilea villosa, but is not a requirement shared by all 
of the other species within that same ecosystem; this is an example of 
a species-specific requirement. However, a broader, functioning 
ecosystem is also essential to M. villosa because it provides the 
``ecosystem-level'' physical or biological features required to support 
its specific life-history requirements.
    In the interest of reducing the length of this document, we have 
provided detailed background information regarding the islands of Maui 
Nui, as well as descriptions of the relevant Maui Nui ecosystems that 
provide habitat for these species, in our supporting document 
``Supplemental Information for the Designation and Nondesignation of 
Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 
Species,'' available at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES).

IV. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On June 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list 38 Maui Nui 
species (35 plants and 3 tree snails) as endangered and reevaluate the 
listing of 2 Maui Nui plant species as endangered throughout their 
ranges, and to designate critical habitat for 135 species (77 FR 
34464). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period. On August 9, 
2012 (77 FR 47587), we extended the comment period for the proposed 
rule for an additional 30 days, ending on September 10, 2012. We 
requested that all interested parties submit comments or information 
concerning the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for 
135 species. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, 
county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and 
other interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we 
published a public notice of the proposed rule on June 20, 2012, in the 
local Honolulu Star Advertiser, Maui Times, and Molokai Dispatch 
newspapers, at the beginning of the comment period. We received three 
requests for public hearings. On January 31, 2013, we published a 
document (78 FR 6785) reopening the comment period on the June 11, 
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464), announcing the availability of our 
draft economic analysis (DEA) on the proposed critical habitat, and 
requesting comments on both the proposed rule and the DEA. This comment 
period closed on March 4, 2013. In addition, in that same document 
(January 31, 2013; 78 FR 6785) we announced a public information 
meeting and hearing, which we held in Kihei, Maui, on February 21, 
2013. On June 10, 2015, we again reopened the comment period on the 
proposed critical habitat for an additional 15 days (80 FR 32922); this 
comment period closed on June 25, 2015.
    In addition, on February 25, 2013, during a meeting of the Maui 
County Council's Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs (PIA) Committee 
in Wailuku, Maui, the council received public testimony on the 
Service's June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule. Fourteen 
individuals present at the meeting provided oral testimony, and 4 
individuals provided only written testimony, on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for 135 species.
    During the comment periods, we received a total of 150 unique 
comment letters on the proposed listing of 38 species, reevaluation of 
listing for 2 species, and proposed designation of critical habitat. In 
addition, we received 5,107 copies of an electronic form letter in 
support of critical habitat designation from a Web site available to a 
worldwide audience. No additional scientific information was provided 
in these form letters. We also received a petition entitled ``Maui 
Hunters Oppose Maui Nui Critical Habitat Designation,'' signed by 93 
individuals. Of the 150 commenters, 11 were State of Hawaii or Maui 
County elected officials, three were Federal agencies (Pacific West 
Region of the National Park Service, Haleakala National Park, and 
Kalaupapa National Historical Park), four were State of Hawaii agencies 
(Hawaii Department of Health (although they did not provide any 
comments specific to critical habitat), Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture, Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hawaii 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands), three were affiliated with Maui 
County (Maui County Police Department, Maui County Planning Department, 
and Maui County Council Committee on Policy and Intergovernmental 
Affairs), and 129 were nongovernmental organizations or individuals; 
and, counted separately, the 5,107 electronic form letters (as 
described above). During the February 21, 2013, public hearing, 25 
individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed designation 
of critical habitat for 135 species and the DEA. Due to the nature of 
the proposed rule, we received combined comments from the public and 
peer reviewers on both the listing action and the critical habitat 
designation. Comments relevant to the proposed listing of the 38 
species and reevaluation of 2 species were addressed in the final 
listing rule published May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014). In this final rule, 
we address only those comments relevant to the designation of critical 
habitat.
    All substantive information provided during the comment periods 
related to the critical habitat designation has either been 
incorporated directly into this final rule as appropriate or is 
addressed below. Comments we received are grouped into comments 
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation, the 
Lanai Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or the DEA. For readers' 
convenience, we have combined similar comments into single comments and 
responses.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 
from 10 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on the Maui 
Nui plants, snails, and forest birds and their habitats, including 
familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which these 
species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received 
responses from four of these individuals. Of these four peer reviewers, 
three provided comments on the proposed critical habitat designation 
(the other reviewer commented only on the proposed listings). These 
peer reviewers generally supported our methodology and conclusions. We 
reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for 135 species. Peer reviewer comments 
are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final 
rule as appropriate.
General Peer Review Comments
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer noted the absence of a literature 
cited section for the proposed rule.
    Our Response: Although not included with the proposed rule itself, 
information on how to obtain a list of

[[Page 17815]]

our supporting documentation used was provided in the proposed rule 
under the sections Public Comments and References Cited (77 FR 34464; 
June 11, 2012). In addition, the lists of references cited in the 
proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and in this final rule are 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos. 
FWS-R1-ES-2011-0098 and FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071, respectively, in the 
``Supporting Documents'' section, and upon request from the Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information 
regarding the biogeographical differences between east and west Maui.
    Our Response: We have included this information in this final rule 
and corrected statements about the range of annual rainfall on east 
Maui (Giambelluca et al. 2011--online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii), the 
diversity of vegetation in the mesic and wet ecosystems of east Maui 
relative to west Maui (Price 2004, p. 493), and the geologic age of the 
youngest lava flows found within the Cape Kinau region of east Maui 
(Sherrod et al. 2006, p. 40) (see The Islands of Maui Nui in our 
supporting document ``Supplemental Information for the Designation and 
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe for 135 Species,'' available at http://www.regulations.gov 
(see ADDRESSES)).
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical Habitat for Plants
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that, based on personal 
observations and information from Wagner et al. (2005, pp. 3 and 135), 
Schiedea lydgatei, a listed endangered plant for which we proposed 
revised critical habitat in the lowland mesic ecosystem on Molokai, 
occurs in lowland dry shrublands. In addition, this same reviewer noted 
that the endangered Schiedea sarmentosa, for which we proposed revised 
critical habitat in lowland mesic ecosystem on Molokai, occurs in 
lowland dry forest and shrubland on steep slopes and cliffs.
    Our Response: We believe that both Schiedea lydgatei and S. 
sarmentosa are appropriately characterized as occupants of the lowland 
mesic ecosystem. According to the Hawaii State geodatabase dataset for 
annual rainfall in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 1986, digitized in 
ArcMap), Schiedea lydgatei and S. sarmentosa occur within the area 
defined as mesic, with rainfall between 50 to 75 inches (in) (127 to 
190 centimeters (cm)) per year. In addition, this area is within mesic 
habitat defined by The Nature Conservancy's GIS database for ``An 
Ecoregional Assessment of Biodiversity Conservation for the Hawaiian 
High Islands'' (http://www.hawaiiecoregionplan.info/). Portions of this 
area are affected by erosion resulting from browsing and trampling by 
feral ungulates and may be locally drier from lack of ground cover and 
exposure to wind, making it appear that this area should be 
characterized as ``lowland dry.'' However, for the reasons cited above, 
we believe it is characterized correctly within the mesic ecosystem.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that it may be appropriate 
to exclude certain State lands pursuant to the criteria under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act from designated critical habitat for plants. These 
State lands include State Natural Area Reserves (NARs) that are fenced, 
ungulate-free, and staffed, and that are Priority I watershed areas 
according to the State's `Rain Follows the Forest' plan (Hawaii 
Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR) 2011, entire), or 
State lands covered by the HDLNR and Watershed Partnerships' Watershed 
Protection and Restoration Plan and that have permanent management 
teams of watershed partnership staff. The reviewer identified the 
following specific areas to consider excluding from critical habitat: 
Fenced, ungulate-free NARs of the west Maui mountains, ungulate-free 
portions of Hanawi NAR, and Puu Alii and Olokui NARs on Molokai.
    Our Response: We commend the State of Hawaii for its dedication of 
staff and resources toward protection and management of species and 
their habitats through the `Rain Follows the Forest' plan, management 
plans for individual State NARs, and watershed partnerships programs 
throughout the State. These initiatives, plans, and programs serve to 
focus conservation efforts and educate the public on the importance of 
these areas. The DLNR-DOFAW expressed support for the management goals 
of the critical habitat designation for west Maui, but were concerned 
that designation of critical habitat on lands actively managed for 
watershed and species protection on west Maui could have undesirable 
impacts on those private landowners who are conservation partners and 
members of the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership. We have taken 
those conservation efforts by these partners under consideration, and 
as a result of this evaluation, we have excluded all such private 
landowners from the designation of critical habitat in this final rule, 
based on the demonstrated beneficial conservation efforts of those 
landowners (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors).
    We support and value the conservation efforts by the State and 
recognize the necessity of actions taken on State lands for 
conservation of species and their habitats. We also agree that, if 
fenced, and maintained as ungulate-free, these areas on State lands 
would provide benefits to the species and their habitats. However, we 
note that the West Maui NAR-Kahakuloa section is within a public 
hunting area (pigs, goats, and birds) with daily bag limits, Hanawi NAR 
is within a public hunting area (goats and pigs) with daily bag limits, 
and Puu Alii NAR and Olokui NAR on Molokai are also within public 
hunting areas (goats and pigs) with daily bag limits, implying these 
areas are not yet entirely ungulate-free. Therefore, any beneficial 
management actions to address the threats from nonnative species in the 
NARs (e.g., fencing, weed control) may be negated by the presence of 
ungulates. In addition, we considered the State's comments that ``the 
Department [of Land and Natural Resources] does not have concerns or 
objections to the designation of CH [critical habitat] as proposed for 
Department lands within the West Maui mountains,'' nor did the State 
express concerns or object to critical habitat designation with regard 
to any of the NARs suggested by the peer reviewer. Although the State 
did not specifically request exclusion of any State lands under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, they did request that some areas be removed from 
the designation based on a conflict between the State's intended use of 
those areas (e.g., recreational hunting) and critical habitat, or 
suggested that some of these areas were not necessary for the recovery 
of the species, and that recovery could be achieved elsewhere. We 
concluded that the suggested areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat. Further, the State offered no explanation as to why the 
benefit of exclusion of any State lands may outweigh the benefit of 
inclusion in critical habitat. Consequently, the Secretary has chosen 
not to exercise her discretionary authority to exclude any State lands 
from this final designation of critical habitat for the Maui Nui 
species.
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical Habitat for Akohekohe and Kiwikiu
    (5) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that we did not adequately 
discuss the basis for proposing extensive areas of unoccupied habitat

[[Page 17816]]

for the two honeycreepers on west Maui and on Molokai. It was suggested 
that we include additional discussion on the significance of risk to 
isolated populations and their susceptibility to stochastic events. 
Additionally it was recommended that we elaborate upon the need for 
establishing secondary populations of the honeycreepers and to explain 
the feasibility of captive breeding to support these planned introduced 
populations.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewers' comments. In this 
final rule we have included additional information to explain the need 
to designate unoccupied habitat for the two honeycreepers on west Maui 
and on Molokai (see ``Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds,'' below). 
These forest birds now occur in low numbers and have experienced 
significant range restrictions. They face threats from natural 
processes such as inbreeding depression and natural and manmade 
stochastic events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and changes in habitat 
vegetation such as periodic dieback events (Revised Recovery Plan for 
Hawaiian Forest Birds (Recovery Plan), Service 2006, pp. ix-x). For 
both of these birds, long-term recovery cannot be achieved based solely 
upon the protection of existing populations. Population growth and 
expansion is essential to the conservation of these species, which will 
require sufficient areas of suitable unoccupied habitat within their 
historical range. In proposing areas of unoccupied habitat, we used the 
recovery areas identified for the akohekohe and kiwikiu in the Recovery 
Plan, the known locations of the species, The Nature Conservancy's 
Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian High Islands (2006) and 
ecosystem maps (TNC 2007), published and unpublished reports, and GIS 
layers (see Methods, below). According to the Recovery Plan, the 
recovery areas are areas that will allow for the long-term survival and 
recovery of these two Hawaiian forest birds.
    In this final rule we have also outlined the recovery criteria, as 
identified in the Recovery Plan, to ensure the conservation of the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu within their existing occupied habitat and those 
unoccupied habitats identified as essential for their conservation (see 
``Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds,'' below).
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer prioritized proposed critical 
habitat in order of importance to the akohekohe and kiwikiu. The 
reviewer suggested the following: First priority critical habitat units 
should include units with populations of one or both of the 
honeycreepers and units adjacent to these areas within the same 
ecosystem designations; second priority critical habitat units should 
include adjacent habitat areas with the potential of linking isolated 
populations and/or providing contiguous habitat around Haleakala; third 
priority critical habitat units should include mesic Acacia koa (koa) 
woodlands above the current distribution of the two birds. Regarding 
these third priority areas, the reviewer emphasized that they are 
essential habitat because koa woodlands may represent a more optimal 
foraging habitat for the honeycreepers, and higher elevation habitat 
may provide a cooler refuge from encroaching disease (avian malaria, 
transmitted by mosquitoes) as local mean temperatures continue to rise. 
The reviewer went on to suggest that even heavily grazed and logged 
areas in the mesic koa woodlands should not be exempt from critical 
habitat, as areas with active or planned koa reforestation projects may 
have the greatest potential for sustaining higher densities of 
honeycreepers through their capacity to support the birds' arthropod 
prey.
    Our Response: We appreciate the thorough consideration given by 
this peer reviewer to our proposed critical habitat for the akohekohe 
and kiwikiu. However, under the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12, critical habitat areas are not prioritized or ranked in any way 
at the time they are designated. However, the information provided by 
the peer reviewer may be germane to the prioritization of recovery 
actions for the akohekohe and kiwikiu, therefore we have provided it to 
the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team so that it may be incorporated 
into future planning efforts, as appropriate, possibly including 
revision of the 2006 Recovery Plan. As explained above, we used the 
recovery areas identified for the akohekohe and kiwikiu in the Recovery 
Plan, and other information (see also Methods, below) to identify 
critical habitat boundaries. According to the Recovery Plan, the 
recovery areas are areas that will provide for the long-term survival 
and recovery of these two Hawaiian forest birds. Recovery areas 
encompass existing endangered forest bird populations, as well as 
habitat areas from which these species have disappeared in the recent 
past, but which still provide or could provide the conditions and 
resources essential to support populations of endangered forest bird 
species. The recovery plan recognizes that to ensure the potential for 
population increase, additional unoccupied but potentially suitable 
habitat will require restoration. These areas include koa forest and 
grazed areas that have potential for reforestation upslope from current 
populations, as suggested by the peer reviewer (see, for example, 
Service 2006, pp. 2-84--2-85, regarding habitat restoration needs for 
the kiwikiu, with particular attention to koa forests). In addition, 
the recovery area identified includes high-elevation forest habitat (up 
to the maximum elevation available on west Maui, excluding only the 
highest slopes of Haleakala on east Maui above treeline), thereby 
capturing as much potentially disease- and vector-free habitat as 
possible. We incorporated these areas as they are described in the 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (Service 2006, pp. 2-
80) into the forest bird critical habitat designation; we believe the 
areas we have designated are in agreement with the conservation 
principles suggested for the akohekohe and kiwikiu by the peer 
reviewer.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that actively managing for 
annual disease mortality may be essential for population expansion of 
the honeycreepers within the mesic and wet lowland areas proposed for 
critical habitat in order to ultimately restore the birds to their 
original altitudinal distribution.
    Our Response: We agree that active management for disease mortality 
is likely essential for expansion of the honeycreeper into lowland 
mesic and wet areas where they no longer occur. In this final rule, we 
have provided additional background information on disease management 
within the lowland units proposed as critical habitat for the two 
honeycreepers (see ``Disease and Disease Vectors'' in the section 
Special Management Considerations or Protections, below). In addition, 
the importance of mosquito control due to the threat to Hawaiian forest 
birds, including the akohekohe and kiwikiu, from mosquito-borne 
diseases at lower elevations is discussed in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2006, pp. 2-85, 2-143, and pp. 4-62--4-82), Ahumada et al. in Pratt et 
al. (2010, pp. 331-355), and LaPointe et al. in Pratt et al. (2010, pp. 
405-424).
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that our proposed designation 
of critical habitat for the honeycreepers within unoccupied lowland to 
montane mesic forest habitat on west Maui and Molokai would help to 
restore these species to their historic and prehistoric ranges and, 
more importantly, would provide habitat for secondary populations to 
insure against the

[[Page 17817]]

impacts resulting from disease or stochastic events including 
hurricanes or fires. However, the reviewer suggested that despite the 
benefit of being more distant from the current honeycreeper populations 
on east Maui, proposed units on Molokai were more likely to require 
management for avian malaria due to the lower elevation compared to 
proposed units on west Maui. The reviewer suggested that proposed 
higher elevation units on west Maui would be more suitable for 
translocations of the honeycreepers.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we proposed critical habitat in 
unoccupied areas on east and west Maui and Molokai to support the 
recovery strategy of expanding the range of the two species of 
honeycreepers beyond the currently limited habitat surrounding the 
summit of east Maui (Service 2006, pp. 2-83, 2-143). According to the 
Recovery Plan, reestablishment of the akohekohe and kiwikiu on west 
Maui or Molokai is an important component of the recovery strategies 
for these two species in order to reduce the threat from catastrophic 
events such as hurricanes and epizootics of disease (in this case, 
epizootics refers to contributing factors of a disease that is 
temporarily prevalent in an animal population). We agree that critical 
habitat units on Molokai are more likely to require management for 
avian malaria due to their lower elevation compared to critical habitat 
units on west Maui. Selection of sites for translocation of these 
species will be determined by the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team.
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer emphasized that the successful 
conservation of the two honeycreepers within designated lands will 
require control of feral pigs in order to provide the healthy and 
diverse understory necessary as foraging substrate and alternative 
nectar and arthropod food resources for the two birds. Additionally, 
the reviewer stated that feral pig control will also reduce the 
available larval mosquito habitat and, dependent on the surface 
hydrology, may go a long way toward eliminating disease transmission in 
the designated units. Lastly, the reviewer asserted that both cattle 
ranching and the management of feral pigs as game animals within State 
and privately owned designated lands would continue to increase the 
detrimental impacts to the honeycreepers' habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that a healthy and diverse understory is 
necessary for the successful conservation of native forest birds on the 
Maui Nui islands. The Recovery Plan provides details regarding the 
recovery strategies for the akohekohe and kiwikiu. These strategies 
include the protection, restoration, and management of native high-
elevation forests on east Maui, research to understand threats from 
disease and predation, and captive propagation to produce birds and 
translocation of birds for reestablishment of wild populations on west 
Maui or Molokai (Service 2006, p. 2-83 and p. 2-143). Habitat 
management and restoration will include fencing and removal of feral 
ungulates (in particular feral pigs) that degrade and destroy native 
forest bird habitat. In addition, fencing and removal of feral 
ungulates may contribute to the control of avian disease in these two 
birds by reducing or eliminating larval mosquito habitat in wet forests 
created by the feeding and wallowing habits of feral pigs (LaPointe et 
al. in Pratt et al. 2010, pp. 405-424).
    Game mammal hunting is a recreational and cultural activity in 
Hawaii that is regulated by the HDLNR on State and private lands (HDLNR 
2002, entire). Critical habitat does not give the Federal government 
authority to control or otherwise manage feral animals on non-Federal 
land. These land management options continue to be landowner decisions 
and, absent Federal involvement, are not affected by the designation of 
critical habitat. It is well-known that game mammals affect listed 
plant and animal species in Hawaii. We believe it is important to 
develop and implement management programs that provide for the recovery 
of listed species, but also acknowledge the importance of continued 
ungulate hunting in game management areas. We welcome opportunities to 
work closely with the State and other partners to ensure that game 
management programs are implemented in a manner consistent with both of 
these needs.
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested the final rule be 
shortened and made more accessible to the general public by including a 
more simple listing or graphic depiction of the relevant facts 
including both former and current species' ranges, current population 
sizes, current densities, territory sizes, minimal viable population 
sizes, and ranges of limiting factors.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestions offered by this peer 
reviewer and agree that the status information on the akohekohe and 
kiwikiu (77 FR 34464, June 11, 2012, pp. 34525-34526) in the proposed 
rule may not be as accessible to the public as desired, although it is 
provided in the same format as the status information on the other 
listed species. The akohekohe and kiwikiu were listed as endangered 
species in 1967 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967) and at that time critical 
habitat was not designated for these two species because it was not 
provided for by the statute at that time. Since 1967, detailed 
information on ranges, densities, territory sizes, and recovery actions 
needed for native Hawaiian forest birds, including the akohekohe and 
kiwikiu, can be found in several published and unpublished documents 
(e.g., Service 2006 and Pratt et al. 2010, entire) and is not repeated 
in this final rule. The Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest 
Birds, for example, contains an excellent short description of each 
species and their status (Service 2006; kiwikiu, pp. 2-77--2-85, 
akohekohe, pp. 2-138--2-143). In this final rule we are not 
reevaluating the listing as endangered of these two forest birds, we 
are only designating critical habitat for them.
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that recovery areas 
identified in the 2006 Recovery Plan be renamed and addressed in our 
rule as ``Maui Nui critical habitat areas and needed recovery actions 
for critical habitat parcels.'' Additionally, the reviewer recommended 
that the recovery actions listed in the Recovery Plan are appropriate 
actions to promote, fund, and implement in designated critical habitat 
for the Hawaiian honeycreepers.
    Our Response: In our description of the information we used to 
identify the areas that contain the physical or biological features 
essential for the conservation of the akohekohe and kiwikiu, we state 
that we developed this information by considering the ``recovery area 
as determined in the revised Recovery Plan'' (see Methods), in addition 
to other published and unpublished data sources. The areas designated 
as critical habitat in this final rule are not equivalent to, or the 
same as, the recovery areas in the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan is 
a planning document, to aid in the conservation and recovery of the 
species, and has no regulatory authority. Critical habitat, on the 
other hand, is a term defined and used in the Act, and imposes 
regulatory authority over Federal activities. Critical habitat is a 
specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the 
conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may 
require special management and protection, and 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. Under the Act, Federal agencies are 
required to

[[Page 17818]]

consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on actions they carry out, 
fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. In this way, a critical habitat 
designation protects areas that are necessary for the conservation of 
the species. We agree with the reviewer that the recovery actions 
listed in the Recovery Plan are appropriate actions to promote, fund, 
and implement, as appropriate, in designated critical habitat areas.
Peer Reviewer Comments on Critical Habitat for Lanai Tree Snails
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer provided us with maps created in 
the early 1900s by renowned ornithologist and botanist, George Munro, 
showing the distribution of the Lanai tree snails within the Lanaihale 
Mountains. The peer reviewer recommended that the boundaries of the 
final critical habitat designation for these species be adjusted 
accordingly, in conjunction with careful review of the remaining 
available habitat in the Lanaihale Mountains.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates this additional information 
concerning the historical range of the snails. We have examined the 
maps provided and analyzed the best available information regarding the 
snails' habitat requirements based upon the physical and biological 
features essential to their conservation and which may require special 
management considerations or protection, unoccupied habitat essential 
to the conservation of the snails, and the current status of habitat 
within the Lanaihale mountains. For the reasons described below (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not 
designated on the island of Lanai in this final rule, as a consequence 
of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, it is 
important to understand that any exclusion does not reflect a 
determination that the area in question does not meet the definition of 
critical habitat or is not important for the conservation of the 
species; an exclusion only reflects the Secretary's determination that 
the benefits of excluding that area from critical habitat outweigh the 
benefits of including it in the designation.

Comments From Federal Agencies

    We received comments from the National Park Service (Pacific West 
Region), Haleakala National Park (on Maui), and Kalaupapa National 
Historical Park (on Molokai). Haleakala National Park provided 
information on one or more of the plant and forest bird species 
addressed in this final rule that occur in the Park, and this 
information was incorporated, as appropriate, into the final rule 
listing 38 species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as endangered, which 
published on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014), or into this final rule and 
its supporting documentation.
    (13) Comment: The National Park Service (NPS) supported the intent 
concerning exclusions of ``developed areas such as buildings, paved 
areas, and other structures that lack the physical or biological 
features essential for the conservation of the species.'' However, the 
NPS suggested that all such areas within Haleakala National Park be 
excluded from critical habitat designation and that the exclusion 
include a buffer area.
    Our Response: In our proposed rule published on June 11, 2012 (77 
FR 34464), and in this final rule, we state that existing manmade 
features and structures such as buildings, and developed or paved 
areas, including trails, are not designated as critical habitat. 
Federal actions involving these areas would not trigger section 7 
consultation unless the specific action would also affect adjacent 
critical habitat or its primary constituent elements. This would 
include existing manmade features and structures in Haleakala National 
Park. There are, however, no predefined ``buffer areas'' that are 
included in the textual exclusion of existing manmade features and 
structures. Mapping every structure, building, developed area, paved 
area, or trail, and the surrounding physical or biological features, 
may prove confusing and indecipherable to the general public, and in 
any case, is not a realistic possibility at the scale of mapping 
provided in the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, in this final 
rule, as with all critical habitat rules, we made every effort to avoid 
including manmade features and structures that may be contained within 
critical habitat, but the scale of the maps we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures 
and the lands under them that are inside critical habitat boundaries 
shown on the maps in this final rule are excluded by text in this final 
rule and are not designated as critical habitat (see below, Criteria 
Used to Identify Critical Habitat).
    (14) Comment: The NPS urged us to only designate occupied critical 
habitat for the two forest birds (akohekohe and kiwikiu) and not 
currently unoccupied areas. According to their letter, including areas 
for critical habitat designation where akohekohe and kiwikiu do not 
currently exist is based on assumptions that: (1) Unoccupied areas will 
produce all the elements necessary for the survival of the species; (2) 
unoccupied areas will not contain elements that are detrimental to the 
species (e.g., invasive, nonnative species and mosquitoes); and (3) 
reintroduction of the species into unoccupied areas will be successful 
(e.g., the species will persist in the area). Data from Haleakala 
National Park show that some invasive plants are difficult, if not 
impossible, to control after feral ungulates are removed. In addition, 
there is no effective way to remove mosquitoes from an area.
    Our Response: We appreciate the NPS' comments but disagree with its 
rationale for removing all unoccupied areas from critical habitat; we 
consider all unoccupied areas designated as critical habitat for the 
two forest birds to be essential to the conservation of the species, 
because the areas presently occupied by these forest birds are not 
adequate to ensure their conservation, for the reasons detailed here. 
Each of these bird species has been reduced to a single population, 
resulting in significant vulnerability of each species to extinction. 
The conservation of these species will require a significant increase 
in numbers of individuals and populations; in addition, there is 
evidence that these species are presently restricted to suboptimal 
habitats. The akohekohe is currently found in one population on east 
Maui within approximately 14,080 ac (58 sq km) at elevations between 
5,000 and 6,900 ft (1,500 to 2,100 m). This species has been reduced to 
an estimated 5 percent of its former historical range on Maui, and has 
been extirpated from the island of Molokai. The kiwikiu is now found in 
only one population on Haleakala Volcano on Maui, and is restricted to 
an area of 12,400 ac (50 sq km) of wet montane forests at high 
elevation (4,000 to 7,700 ft (1,200 to 2,350 m). This species formerly 
occupied dry leeward forests and low elevation areas on east Maui as 
well, and has also been extirpated from Molokai.
    The Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds recognizes that 
the long-term recovery strategy for the akohekohe and kiwikiu are 
similar because they inhabit similar geographic areas and face similar 
threats (Service 2006, p. 2-141). Historically, kiwikiu favored koa 
forests for foraging, but such forests have been largely lost to past 
logging and ranching, such that kiwikiu are now restricted to wet 
montane forests with low numbers of koa that are likely marginal 
habitat for the species

[[Page 17819]]

(Service 2006, pp. 2-81, 2-84). The specialized foraging behavior of 
the kiwikiu requires the birds to defend large territories year-round, 
resulting in relatively low densities of birds (Service 2006, p. 2-78); 
this additionally translates into relatively large areas of habitat 
required to support populations of kiwikiu. Likewise the akohekohe was 
initially observed in koa forests on Maui, but is now absent due to the 
widespread destruction of these forest types (Service 2006, p. 2-140). 
Akohekohe also use relatively large areas of habitat, as, being 
nectarivorous, they migrate altitudinally for foraging in response to 
the timing of flowering of various trees and shrubs. Akohekohe are now 
restricted to high elevation forests due to the presence of mosquito-
borne diseases at lower elevations, but are additionally restricted at 
upper elevations in some areas by destruction of forest habitat.
    Areas currently unoccupied by the two bird species are essential to 
their conservation for multiple reasons. Primary amongst these is the 
high risk of extinction faced by any species that occurs in only a 
single population; this risk may be from a predictable threat such as 
disease, or a stochastic threat, such as a hurricane. For both the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu, the reestablishment of additional populations is 
needed to reduce this elevated risk of extinction (Service 2006, pp. 2-
83, 2-143); this risk could be reduced from the establishment of 
additional populations on Maui, and possibly by reestablishing the 
species on Molokai as well. The risk of extinction for these species is 
such that one of the recovery criteria for listed Hawaiian forest birds 
is the requirement that the species occurs in two or more viable 
populations or a viable metapopulation (Service 2006, pp. 2-83--2-84, 
2-143, 3-5--3-6). The establishment of additional populations in 
currently unoccupied areas reduces the likelihood of significant 
impacts to the species as a whole from risks associated with disease, 
as well as catastrophes such as hurricanes and fires, and increases the 
ecological breadth of the species to help buffer against climatic 
fluctuations. Additional or larger populations will additionally 
promote natural demographic and evolutionary processes to increase the 
long-term viability of the species. Unoccupied areas can help 
facilitate the dispersal of birds, including seasonal movements, which 
can increase gene flow between isolated populations and increase the 
viability of established and newer populations. For all of these 
reasons, we have concluded that a critical habitat designation limited 
to the areas presently occupied by the akohekohe and kiwikiu is 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species, and we have 
therefore designated as critical habitat certain areas outside of the 
present range of the akohekohe and kiwikiu that we have determined are 
essential to the conservation of these species.
    (15) Comment: Kalaupapa National Historical Park (KNHP) agreed with 
our ecosystem-based approach for grouping plants and defining their 
habitat consistently. According to KNHP, this approach will aid in the 
management of endangered and threatened plants as part of the 
collection of native communities across the landscape. According to 
their letter, much of the proposed critical habitat falls on areas with 
intact native plant communities or areas already under protection by 
decree or due to their remote locations, and added that proposing 
critical habitat in intact native plant communities or protected 
conservation areas or areas with difficult access will favor public 
acceptance of the proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: We appreciate KNHP's comments regarding the proposal 
to designate critical habitat for 135 species on the islands of Maui, 
Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe. We agree that using an ecosystem-based 
approach to organize this rule and designate critical habitat will help 
provide for more focused conservation efforts and concerted management 
efforts to address the common threats that occur across these 
ecosystems.

Comments From State of Hawaii Elected Officials

    (16) Comment: Maui Senator Rosalyn Baker commented that the Service 
did not discuss the proposal or its potential impacts with most of the 
owners of the affected lands. Senator Baker also stated that many 
landowners have not been offered the opportunity to work 
collaboratively with the Service to determine if their lands are 
currently occupied by the species or if their lands are essential to 
the species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Senator's comments and suggestions 
to work collaboratively with Maui landowners regarding critical 
habitat. We also appreciate the Senator's suggestions to increase our 
outreach efforts to the Maui community, particularly to individual 
landowners, and we plan to adopt these suggestions as we move forward 
with conservation in Maui Nui. We used the best available scientific 
information to determine habitat essential to the species (see Methods, 
below), and incorporated new information received since publication of 
the proposed rule on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), and release of our 
draft economic analysis (DEA) on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), to 
further refine the critical habitat boundaries. Our notification 
process followed Service policies; our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c); 
and the Act, as amended, at section 4(b)(5) in paragraphs (A), (C), 
(D), and (E). We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, 
county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and 
other interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we 
published a public notice of the proposed rule on June 20, 2012, in the 
local Honolulu Star Advertiser, Molokai Dispatch, and Maui News 
newspapers, at the beginning of the comment period. The proposed rule 
also directed reviewers to contact the Service for further 
clarification on any part of the proposed rule, and provided contact 
information (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). During the initial comment 
period on our proposed rule we became aware that there were errors in 
the landownership information in the geospatial data sets associated 
with parcel data from Maui County (2008), which were used to identify 
affected landowners. We recognize that some landowners whose properties 
overlapped with the proposed critical habitat did not receive 
notification letters due to errors in landownership information we 
received from the State, or missing landowner information in the 
State's geospatial data sets. However, we subsequently received updated 
landownership information for the parcel data for the County of Maui 
(2010). Shortly after publishing our January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), 
document announcing the DEA, reopening the comment period on the DEA 
and the proposed rule, and announcing the public information meeting 
and public hearing, we sent letters to all of the affected landowners 
that we were able to identify. In that letter we provided information 
on the proposed rule, the DEA, and the public information meeting and 
hearing held on February 21, 2013, in Kihei, Maui. In addition, we 
again contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment. We met with the State 
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, 
Hawaii Cattlemen's Council (including a representative of the Hawaii 
Farm

[[Page 17820]]

Bureau Federation), Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc., Ulupalakua 
Ranch, Haleakala Ranch, Alexander and Baldwin (including East Maui 
Irrigation Co., Inc.), West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership, 
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership, East Maui 
Watershed Partnership, and Castle and Cooke Resorts. We also provided 
maps of parcel-specificity to every landowner who contacted us and 
requested them following publication of the 2012 proposed rule and the 
2013 notice. In order to reach as many interested individuals as 
possible on Maui Nui we believe we used the best approach afforded by 
our staff levels and resources and fully complied with our statutory 
and regulatory requirements for public notice.
    (17) Comment: Senator Baker commented that proposed critical 
habitat on State, county, and private lands will have a direct and 
negative impact on Maui County, and is essentially a ``taking'' without 
compensation. The Senator added that the designation will also affect 
property values, trigger rezoning of lands to conservation status, and 
place the landowner at risk of third-party lawsuits that may prohibit 
future land use activities.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Senator's comments and have 
addressed the issues she raised below (see our responses to Comments 
(22), (50), and (59) (regarding rezoning), (55) (regarding ``Federal 
nexus''), (56) (regarding ``taking''), and (59) (regarding property 
values)). Our final economic analysis (FEA) dated September 23, 2015, 
acknowledges the potential for critical habitat designation to increase 
the possibility of legal challenges that may affect private entities 
(IEc 2015, pp. 3-3--3-4, 5-17, 5-20). Due to significant uncertainties 
regarding the extent to which the designation will increase the 
probability of legal challenges (over and above the presence of the 
listed species or other designated critical habitat (e.g., Blackburn's 
sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni) critical habitat)), the direct costs 
of legal fees and time spent on lawsuits, and the potential outcome of 
lawsuits, the DEA (and subsequent FEA) does not estimate a monetary 
cost from potential third-party lawsuits. The FEA does, however, 
recognize the possibility of lawsuits as a consequence of the 
designation, and presents a qualitative assessment of this and other 
potential indirect effects that are subject to significant uncertainty 
in Section 5.3.2 (IEc 2015, pp. 5-16--5-23); our final designation of 
critical habitat takes all of these potential effects into 
consideration.
    (18) Comment: The chair of the Maui County Council (Council), Ms. 
Gladys Baisa, and the chair of the Council's Policy and 
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Mr. G. Riki Hokama, commented that 
the Service failed to consult with individuals in the community, native 
Hawaiian groups, private landowners, ranchers and farmers, and others 
who, in their view, may suffer devastating economic and cultural 
impacts from the designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We thank the chairs for their comments. We discussed 
with key stakeholders the likelihood of potential indirect impacts of 
the critical habitat designation, based on the consequences of previous 
designations on Maui (IEc 2015, p. 5-16). As noted in our response to 
Comment (16), above, there is significant uncertainty surrounding the 
likelihood, timing, and magnitude of any of these potential indirect 
impacts, therefore we were unable to monetize such impacts; we do, 
however, evaluate them qualitatively (IEc 2015, pp. 5-16--5-23), and 
this final designation of critical habitat reflects our thorough 
consideration of these indirect impacts. In terms of quantified 
impacts, our FEA projects a total of approximately $120,000 in 
incremental impacts over 20 years from critical habitat designation 
(IEc 2015, p. 1-7).
    (19) Comment: The Council's chair commented that Maui County 
farmers and ranchers who fund their operations with Federal funds or 
may seek Federal funding in the future will be (negatively) affected by 
the proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (59), below.
    (20) Comment: The Council's chair suggested that the designation of 
critical habitat should include all policy-making entities, including 
the Hawaii State legislature, State and County departments, and the 
Maui County Council.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestions to work collaboratively 
with Hawaii State and Maui County policy makers. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act provides the Secretary with the authority to designate critical 
habitat for endangered or threatened species. The Act defines 
``Secretary'' as the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
Commerce. For the species at issue here, it is the Secretary of the 
Interior who is vested with this authority. However, the Service and 
the Secretary are committed to working with our conservation partners 
in State agencies and County and local jurisdictions, and specifically 
invite the comments of such agencies on our proposed rulemakings. We 
give full and careful consideration to such comments in the development 
of our final rulemakings.
    (21) Comment: The Council's chair expressed concerns with the 
economic analysis and suggested that a more detailed approach that 
recognizes the differences in the opportunity cost of the land is 
needed. In addition, she stated that potential price increases due to 
costs associated with critical habitat rules and regulations could 
jeopardize Hawaii's efforts towards food sustainability.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Council chair's comments. See also 
our response to Comments (37) and (60), below.
    (22) Comment: The Council's chair commented that designation of 
critical habitat within areas currently zoned for agriculture may cause 
the State to reclassify them to conservation. Rezoning to conservation 
will subject the landowner to additional permitting requirements and 
restrictions on the use of the land.
    Our Response: The relevant State endangered and threatened species 
statute contains no reference to designated critical habitat. Also, 
unlike the automatic conferral of State law protection for all 
federally listed species, State law does not require initiation of the 
amendment process for federally designated critical habitat. (Compare 
HRS section 195D-5.1 with HRS section 195D-4(a)). Although the State of 
Hawaii has a relatively long history of critical habitat designation, 
there is no record of such rezoning ever having occurred in response to 
critical habitat. See also our response to Comments (50) and (55), 
below.
    (23) Comment: The Maui County Council's Policy and 
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (PIA Committee) commented that 
native Hawaiian groups had not been consulted regarding proposed 
critical habitat in Maui County, per section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which ``requires open, good faith 
consultation with interested parties.''
    Our Response: The intent of the National Historic Preservation Act 
of 1966 (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is to preserve historical and 
archaeological sites in the United States. Under the NHPA, Federal 
undertakings with a potential to cause effects to historic properties 
must complete the process set out in NHPA's section 106 and its 
implementing regulations. However, the designation of critical habitat 
does not cause effects to historic properties or direct future agency 
actions that may

[[Page 17821]]

affect historic properties. The designation of critical habitat simply 
requires a Federal agency proposing an activity to consult with us 
pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that the activity does 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If the Federal agency 
activity itself may result in effects to historic properties, it is the 
responsibility of the Federal agency proposing the activity to ensure 
that the activity complies with the NHPA. Therefore, we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat has no potential to cause 
effects to historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) 
(Initiation of the section 106 process [NHPA]).
    (24) Comment: The Maui County Council's PIA Committee commented 
that it is unacceptable that the Maui Nui proposed rule will be 
finalized without holding public hearings on the islands of Lanai and 
Molokai, and that many residents are probably unaware of the proposed 
rule.
    Our Response: Under the Act at section 4(b)(5)(E) and our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3), we are directed to hold at least 
one public hearing on a proposed rule (i.e., proposed listing and/or 
critical habitat designation), if requested. We received three requests 
for public hearings, all from Maui residents. We regret that we were 
not able to hold public hearings on the islands of Lanai and Molokai 
due to our limited resources, but in accordance with the requirements 
of the Act, we held a public hearing on the island of Maui, where the 
County government and most of the County population are located. See 
our response to Comment (16), above, regarding our notification process 
to all interested parties, including residents of Lanai and Molokai.
    (25) Comment: The Maui County Council's PIA Committee commented 
that many parties who provided public testimony during the Committee's 
meeting on February 25, 2013, already engage in significant voluntary 
conservation efforts and that finalizing critical habitat as proposed 
may result in fewer voluntary actions. The Committee suggested that by 
working collaboratively with affected parties the Service will 
encourage ongoing conservation efforts.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments and suggestion, and 
acknowledge and fully support the current and ongoing voluntary 
conservation actions undertaken by the State watershed partnerships, 
other State and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and 
individual landowners. Service staff made themselves available at the 
February 25, 2013, meeting of the Maui County Council's PIA Committee, 
to provide information on the proposed critical habitat, and answered 
numerous questions on the proposed rule for the members of the 
committee and others present. We appreciate the concerns of potentially 
affected parties, and we intend to continue working collaboratively 
with these partnerships, agencies, organizations, and landowners; we 
will also seek to include others as we conduct conservation in the 
Hawaiian Islands.

Comments from State of Hawaii Agencies

    (26) Comment: The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 
(DLNR) commented that they support the proposal to designate critical 
habitat for 135 species on the islands of Maui Nui and that they also 
support the proposed exclusions. They, and the landowner, asked that 
the Service reevaluate the exclusion of 8,746 ac of land owned by 
Haleakala Ranch on east Maui and reflect that amount to be 9,796 ac.
    Our Response: The original amount of acreage of proposed critical 
habitat only overlapped 8,746 ac (3,539 ha) of Haleakala Ranch lands. 
The statement ``Designation of critical habitat on the 9,796 ac of 
Haleakala Ranch Company Lands'' was an estimate of the total area under 
consideration, but not proposed, at the time of the proposed rule. In 
this rule, we are excluding 8,716 ac (3,527 ha) of proposed critical 
habitat on Haleakala Ranch lands. The 30-ac difference from the 
proposed 8,746 ac results from the sale of 30 ac (12 ha) of Haleakala 
Ranch lands within proposed Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 to another 
landowner between the time of publication of the proposed and final 
critical habitat rules.
    The Hawaii DLNR's Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) 
provided extensive comments on the proposed rule. Those comments are 
organized by island and by region, and we address them accordingly, 
below.
West Maui
    (27) Comment: DOFAW supported the goals of critical habitat 
designation proposed for west Maui, and stated that they have no 
concerns or objections to the designation of CH [critical habitat] as 
proposed for Department lands within the West Maui mountains. They did 
express concern, however, that the designation may have undesirable 
impacts on the activities of some of its conservation partners. DOFAW 
fears that designation of those lands as critical habitat will not 
appreciably enhance conservation efforts for listed species but may 
impose regulatory and administrative burdens on landowners that have, 
for years, been committed to conservation efforts on their lands. DOFAW 
urged the Service to evaluate exclusion from critical habitat under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for landowners in this partnership (West 
Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership), and to meet and discuss the 
option with interested landowners. DOFAW believes that the benefits of 
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat, but defers to the comments and desires of the private 
landowners on the matter.
    Our Response: We appreciate DOFAW's comments and agree that many 
landowners in the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (WMMWP) are 
committed to conservation efforts on their lands and are active 
participants in the WMMWP, which provides or accepts funds and enters 
into agreements with State or Federal agencies to implement effective 
conservation actions that benefit listed species and their habitat. 
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider other relevant impacts, 
in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national security, in 
identifying areas to exclude from critical habitat. We received several 
requests for exclusion from parties to the WMMWP, and in each case we 
carefully considered whether the benefits of exclusion would outweigh 
the benefits of including the areas in question in critical habitat. In 
the majority of cases, this consideration resulted in the exclusion of 
landowners who are active members of the WMMWP and have demonstrated 
the positive conservation benefits of their participation, and as a 
consequence, critical habitat is not designated on any private lands 
within WMMWP boundaries in this final rule (see Exclusions Based on 
Other Relevant Factors, below).
East Maui
Kipahulu Forest Reserve to Koolau Forest Reserve
    (28) Comment: DOFAW suggested that the lower boundary of critical 
habitat in this area follow both current and the State's recently 
proposed management fenceline boundaries in these forest reserves 
(FRs). According to DOFAW, listed species at lower elevations can be 
protected and recovered within the RFF (``Rain Follows the Forest'' 
plan) priority watershed areas.

[[Page 17822]]

    Our Response: DOFAW's recommendation would entail removing or 
excluding lands proposed for designation so that the designation would 
be co-extensive with RFF priority watershed areas. We agree with and 
support the goals and intent of the RFF but are concerned about the 
scope of the RFF goals and the timeline to accomplish these goals. 
Currently, only 10 percent of the State's priority watershed protection 
areas are fenced from hooved animals, although we recognize the State's 
goal is to double the area protected in the next 10 years. The State 
asserts that the first goals of the RFF are to remove all hooved 
animals from Priority I and II areas; that fencing 840,000 acres of 
these areas will be incremental and will depend upon landowner 
approval; and that ``decades of work will be required.'' Approximately 
35 percent of the Priority I areas are on State lands; however, only 4 
percent of these lands are currently fenced. In addition, Priority I 
and II areas do not include lowland dry and mesic ecosystems on Maui, 
the most critically imperiled ecosystems throughout the State. Under 
the RFF, beneficial management actions to address the threats from 
nonnative species to these ecosystems may not be undertaken for 
decades, and perhaps not at all. In addition, the designation of 
critical habitat serves to educate the public about the importance of 
these areas for conservation of the Maui Nui species. For all of these 
reasons, we consider there to be benefits to the inclusion of these 
areas in critical habitat for the Maui Nui species, thus we are not 
aligning the lower boundary of critical habitat with the current and 
recently proposed management fenceline boundaries proposed by the 
State. Although there are some potential benefits to exclusion in terms 
of maintaining our partnership with the State, at the present time, 
because the effectiveness and timing of the described management 
actions under the RFF plan are unknown and do not address threats on 
many of the areas we proposed as critical habitat, and because of the 
great importance of these lowland dry and mesic habitats to the Maui 
Nui species, we are unable to conclude that the benefits of excluding 
these areas outweigh the benefits of including them in the final 
critical habitat designation.
Makawao and Kula Forest Reserves
    (29) Comment: DOFAW stated that it is seeking to have much of the 
lands in the Makawao and Kula FRs available for customary practice and 
recreation, and that they will conduct management for listed species 
recovery on other State lands. DOFAW also stated that it will protect 
any known listed species within the Makawao and Kula FRs by 
constructing protective fencing around listed species to prevent access 
by feral ungulates and suggested that these two FRs be removed from 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: We have considered DOFAW's request to remove Makawao 
and Kula FRs from critical habitat. We understand DOFAW's mandate to 
provide multipurpose public use on some of their lands, including 
customary practice and recreation. Within the Kula and Makawao FRs, 
DOFAW plans to provide public recreational use, which may include 
public hunting opportunities. We support DOFAW's commitment to provide 
in-situ protection to listed species that currently occur within 
Makawao and Kula FRs. Protective fencing around listed plant 
occurrences will protect them from immediate disturbance and predation 
by feral ungulates. However, while such localized efforts may 
contribute to the protection of individuals of the species, they will 
not provide for the expansion and growth of populations that is 
essential to the conservation of the species. We further note that 
while the State proposes to conduct management for listed species 
recovery on other Department lands, no specific plans or details are 
provided that would lead us to conclude that the benefits of excluding 
the Makawao and Kula FRs would outweigh the benefits of including these 
areas in critical habitat.
    Portions of three proposed critical habitat units (plant critical 
habitat units Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 (1,777 ac, 719 ha), Maui--
Subalpine--Unit 1 (3,060 ac, 1,238 ha), and Maui--Alpine--Unit 1 (13 
ac, 5 ha); and the corresponding forest bird critical habitat units 
Unit 18--Montane Mesic and Unit 24--Subalpine) overlapped a total of 
4,899 ac (1,984 ha) in Kula FR. In this final rule, we are designating 
the same areas within Kula FR as critical habitat for 29 species (27 
plants and 2 forest birds) in these units. Each of these five critical 
habitat units provides the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species and requires special management 
considerations or protections (e.g., feral ungulate control) (occupied 
habitat) or habitat that is essential to the conservation and recovery 
of the species (unoccupied habitat). For example, the Kula FR contains 
the only known occurrences of the endangered plant Geranium arboreum 
(totaling fewer than 40 individuals). Fencing these individuals will 
provide immediate direct protection from feral ungulates; however, 
fencing these individuals will not provide for recovery of the species. 
Due to the small numbers of individuals and low population size of this 
species, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery. The 
recovery guidelines (i.e., the steps needed to reach recovery and 
delist a species) for a long-lived perennial plant species such as G. 
arboreum call for 8 to 10 populations of 100 individuals per 
population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years (Service 1997, pp. 91-
93). Therefore, in addition to the habitat containing the currently 
known individuals, areas of suitable habitat within the historical 
range of G. arboreum (northern and southern Haleakala, and slopes of 
western Haleakala) are needed for recovery of this species. Due to 
their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for the recovery of all of these 
29 plant and 2 bird species.
    In Makawao FR, portions of three proposed critical habitat units 
(plant critical habitat units Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1, Maui--Montane 
Wet--Unit 1, and Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1; and the corresponding 
forest bird critical habitat Unit 2--Lowland Wet, Unit 10--Montane Wet, 
and Unit 18--Montane Mesic) overlapped a total of 1,912 ac (774 ha) in 
Makawao FR. These units are critical habitat for 45 species (43 plants 
and 2 forest birds). Each of these six critical habitat units provides 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the 45 species, is within the historical range of these plant and bird 
species, and requires special management (occupied habitat) or these 
units provide the primary constituent elements (PCEs) necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range and 
are essential to the conservation of the species (unoccupied habitat). 
Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for the recovery of 
the 45 plant and bird species. We revised the unit boundaries for 
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 and Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 that 
overlapped with Makawao FR, which resulted in acreage reductions in 
these units as follows: Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1: reduced by 138 ac 
(56 ha) and Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1: reduced by 470 ac (191 ha), 
with 282 ac (114 ha) redefined as part of Maui--Montane

[[Page 17823]]

Wet--Unit 1. These revisions were based on comments from DOFAW, as well 
as other interested parties indicating that: (a) Changes in land use 
had occurred within the proposed critical habitat units that would 
preclude certain areas from supporting the physical and biological 
features; or (b) the areas in question were not essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Although DOFAW requested that we remove all portions of Kula FR and 
Makawao FR from critical habitat, we did not entirely remove these 
forest reserves from critical habitat designation in this final rule. 
The portions of the five plant critical habitat units (Maui--Lowland 
Wet--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1, 
Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1, and Maui--Alpine--Unit 1) and the 
corresponding forest bird critical habitat units (Unit 2--Lowland Wet, 
Unit 10--Montane Wet, Unit 18--Montane Mesic, and Unit 24--Subalpine) 
that overlap with the Kula and Makawao FRs are located on the west side 
of Haleakala, and none of this area is within the State's Priority I 
watershed protection area (RFF). Therefore, beneficial management 
actions to address the threats from nonnative species to these 
ecosystems may not be undertaken for decades, and perhaps not at all. 
As described above, in response to information received from DOFAW and 
other parties, we removed an area of approximately 608 ac (247 ha) that 
overlapped with the Makawao FR upon a determination that this area does 
not meet the definition of critical habitat. All remaining areas, 
however, do meet the definition of critical habitat for the reasons 
described in detail above. DOFAW has proposed some management actions 
in these areas, but it is unclear whether these actions will be 
implemented, and in any case, the actions proposed are not likely to 
make a meaningful contribution to the conservation of the species 
(e.g., fencing off individuals plants to protect them from ungulates, 
while a potentially useful defensive mechanism, does not actively 
promote the recovery of the species). Based on these considerations, we 
could not conclude that the benefit of excluding these areas outweigh 
the benefit of including them in the final designation.
Kaupo to Kahikinui and Na Kula Natural Area Reserve
    (30) Comment: According to its letter, DOFAW is working with the 
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership (LHWRP) to restore 
and protect mauka (mountain) lands from Kaupo to the western boundary 
of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) lands of Kahikinui moku 
(section of land), and recognizes the need to protect coastal lands 
from Nuu Makai to Keonioio. DOFAW suggested that the critical habitat 
boundary from Kaupo to Kahikinui follow the LHWRP fenceline. DOFAW 
stated that the areas proposed at mid-elevation are larger than needed 
for recovery of certain species. In addition, DOFAW is concerned that 
the designation may have undesirable impacts on the activities of some 
of its conservation partners and will not appreciably enhance 
conservation efforts for listed species but may impose regulatory and 
administrative burdens on landowners. DOFAW urged the Service to 
evaluate a section 4(b)(2) exclusion from critical habitat for the 
private landowners in the LHWRP, and believes that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat, but defers to the comments and desires of the private 
landowners.
    Our Response: We appreciate DOFAW's comments and support the goals 
and intent of the LHWRP and believe that management actions such as 
those conducted by LHWRP provide some conservation benefits to listed 
species and their habitat. We did not realign the critical habitat 
boundary to follow the LHWRP fenceline as the fence traverses two 
different habitat types for multiple species, and removing areas in 
elevations above the fenceline would fragment adjoining habitat in 
subalpine and dry cliff habitats. In addition, for the reasons 
described in this document, we have determined that all areas 
identified here as critical habitat are essential for the conservation 
of the species. However, for the reasons described below (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, below), critical habitat is 
not designated on private lands in the LHWRP in this final rule, where 
landowners provided us with information demonstrating their 
participation in conservation efforts that benefit the species. 
Approximately 7 mi (11 km) of fenceline from Kaupo to Kahikinui is 
above 7,000 ft (2,134 m) elevation, and is on private lands or is 
within Haleakala National Park boundaries. The forest bird recovery 
area (Service 2006, map data) and critical habitat for the two forest 
birds is below this elevation in the fenceline area for about half of 
the fence distance. See also our responses to Comments (66) and (67), 
below.
    In addition, we revised the unit boundary we proposed for Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 1, and this revision resulted in a reduction in 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 by 1,607 ac (650 ha). This revision was based 
on comments from DOFAW, as well as other interested parties and recent 
site visits indicating that: (1) Changes in land use had occurred 
within the proposed critical habitat unit that would preclude certain 
areas from supporting the physical and biological features; or (2) the 
area in question was not essential to the conservation of the species. 
Based upon this information we concluded that the areas in question do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat, therefore they were 
removed from the final designation.
Honuaula and Kanaio
    (31) Comment: DOFAW did not object to the designation of critical 
habitat for most of the areas proposed within the moku (section of 
land) of Honuaula and the ahupuaa (tract of land from summit to ocean) 
of Kanaio. However, included in the proposed critical habitat within 
Kanaio is an area that is proposed for use for recreational hunting. 
DOFAW asked that this area be removed from critical habitat, and 
suggested that the species can be recovered in protected areas nearby, 
such as the Kanaio NAR and private lands held by partners committed to 
protection of those resources.
    Our Response: We appreciate DOFAW's comments regarding Honuaula and 
Kanaio. We understand DOFAW's mandate to provide multipurpose public 
use on some of their lands, including public recreational use such as 
public hunting opportunities within the ahupuaa of Kanaio. However, at 
this time we have not removed Kanaio NAR or the area west of the NAR 
from critical habitat unit Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1; this area is 
essential for 19 endangered plant species due to the small numbers and 
low population sizes of these 19 species, as the area provides suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction, which are essential 
to achieving population levels necessary for recovery of these species. 
As we have determined that this area is essential for the conservation 
of these species, and the area in question is planned for recreational 
hunting (therefore ungulates would be present), we could find no 
benefit to exclusion of this area that would outweigh the benefit of 
including it in critical habitat, therefore it was not excluded from 
the final designation. We did, however, re-evaluate and remove an area 
from critical habitat designation on State lands surrounding Puu Pimoe 
(146 ac (59 ha)) after site visits determined that

[[Page 17824]]

changes in land use had occurred within the area that would preclude it 
from supporting the physical and biological features (see Comment (30), 
above). As the area in question therefore does not meet the definition 
of critical habitat, it was removed from the final designation.
    In addition, although DOFAW suggests that these species can be 
recovered in nearby protected areas such as Kanaio NAR and private 
lands, the southern portion of the NAR and private lands are not yet 
protected from feral ungulates, a major threat to listed species in 
this area. Kanaio NAR extends from 1,000 to 3,000 ft (305 to 900 m) 
elevation, an area that is not suitable for recovery of coastal or 
lowland dry species, or species that occur at higher elevations. 
Conservation management actions such as ungulate eradication from these 
areas have not yet been funded or implemented. Based on our 
consideration of all of these factors, we could not conclude that the 
benefits of excluding this area outweigh the benefits of including it 
in the final designation of critical habitat.
Lanai
    (32) Comment: DOFAW did not object to the designation of critical 
habitat for most of the areas proposed for Lanai but was concerned that 
the proposed critical habitat would establish boundaries on the 
landscape that would be difficult to identify in the field. In 
particular, DOFAW was concerned that unfenced critical habitat may be 
inadvertently accessed from the public hunting areas, and requested 
that we remove two areas from proposed critical habitat: (1) The area 
near Honopu Road, because it believes no listed species occur there and 
other areas can provide recovery habitat; and (2) the apparent 
``buffer'' that extends around the lands of Kanepuu Preserve.
    Our Response: We appreciate DOFAW's request. For the reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, 
below), critical habitat is not designated on the island of Lanai in 
this final rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
Molokai
    (33) Comment: DOFAW suggested that certain lands be removed from 
the western section of proposed critical habitat as they are not needed 
for recovery and the affected species can be better managed and 
recovered elsewhere on Molokai, including Kahanui, Kapuna, and Pukaawa 
sections of the Molokai FR. DOFAW clarified that the western section of 
proposed critical habitat referred to the western portion of critical 
habitat Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1, during a meeting with Service 
staff on August 14, 2012.
    Our Response: We have considered DOFAW's request to remove the 
western section of Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 from critical 
habitat. Maps provided by DOFAW for their ``Priority Watershed Areas'' 
of Molokai indicate the westernmost section of Molokai--Lowland Mesic--
Unit 1 is within the State's ``Priority II'' area, and, therefore, is 
of lower priority to DOFAW in terms of future on-the-ground management 
and protection, although these conservation management actions have not 
yet been funded or implemented. Our analysis indicates that DOFAW is 
requesting we remove approximately 3,224 ac (1,305 ha) or approximately 
one-third of critical habitat in the lowland mesic ecosystem on 
Molokai. This unit is critical habitat for 37 plant species and the two 
forest birds; 17 of the plant species currently occur in this unit (see 
below, Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units). This unit provides the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and requires special management considerations or protections 
(e.g., nonnative species control) (occupied habitat) or habitat that is 
essential to the conservation and recovery of the species (unoccupied 
habitat). For example, the only known occurrence, totaling 10 
individuals, of the endangered plant Cyanea dunbariae (a Molokai 
endemic) and 5 of the 11 occurrences, totaling approximately 150 of the 
200 known individuals, of the endangered C. mannii (a Molokai endemic), 
are on State lands within Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1. Due to the 
small numbers of individuals and low population sizes of these species, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery. The 
recovery guidelines for short-lived perennial plant species such as 
Cyanea dunbariae and C. mannii are 8 to 10 populations of 300 
individuals per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years 
(Service 1996, p. iv). Therefore, areas of suitable habitat within the 
historical ranges of C. dunbariae and C. mannii (including lowland wet, 
montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems), in addition to the lowland 
mesic ecosystem containing the currently known individuals, are needed 
for recovery of these two species. For C. dunbariae, this area is only 
found in the lowland mesic ecosystem (Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1), 
the only known location of this species, and the lowland wet and 
montane mesic ecosystems, within its historical range but where the 
species no longer occurs. For C. mannii, areas of suitable habitat 
within its historical range are only found in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem (Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1), and montane wet and montane 
mesic ecosystems, where only 11 occurrences and 200 total individuals 
of this species are found. Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is the only 
unit within its lowland habitat determined to be essential for its 
recovery and in need of special management or protections. Therefore, 
we disagree with DOFAW's statement that the western section of 
Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is not needed for recovery. Molokai--
Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is essential for the conservation of C. dunbariae 
and C. mannii and the other 35 endangered plant species and the two 
endangered forest birds due to the small numbers and low population 
sizes of these 39 species because this unit provides suitable habitat 
and space for expansion or reintroduction, which are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery of these species. 
Therefore, the western section of Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is 
included in this final critical habitat designation.
    (34) Comment: The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) 
requested that all of its lands within proposed critical habitat be 
excluded from final designation. The DHHL supported the Service's new 
approach of multi- versus single-species protection, and sees economic 
benefits to taking a comprehensive planning and management approach. 
However, the DHHL feels that its current land use and management 
practices are sufficient to protect the species and their habitat. The 
DHHL also recommended that the Service consult with the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Native 
Hawaiian Relations, and their beneficiaries to include native 
intelligence and knowledge of species, habitat, and place-based 
management and protection prior to designation of critical habitat. The 
DHHL stated that they rely on Federal funding, and section 7 
consultations could lead to direct negative economic impacts to them.
    Our Response: We support the DHHL's ongoing management on Maui at 
Auwahi for seabird protection, Kahikihnui for koa (Acacia koa) forest 
ecosystem protection, Puu o Kali for wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis) 
dryland forest protection, and, on Molokai at Moomomi Park for 
shoreline

[[Page 17825]]

and associated resource protection and Kapaakea Mauka for community 
pasture lands and stewardship, including the development of fire 
breaks.
    Prior to publishing our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), 
we met with representatives of the DHHL on July 22, 2011, and August 
30, 2011. At those meetings we provided information regarding our 
compilation of available information on species and habitat areas on 
Maui, and requested updated information from the DHHL. The DHHL 
provided information on its currently developed lands and their lands 
slated for future homesteads and other development. The DHHL did not 
express concern regarding critical habitat on lands on which they are 
conducting conservation actions, such as at Puu o Kali, on Maui. At the 
time we published our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), we 
notified elected officials, the Maui County Planning Department, and 
several Hawaiian organizations including Kamehameha Schools, the Office 
of Hawaiian Affairs (offices for Honolulu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai), 
the DHHL, the State Historic Preservation Division, the Kahoolawe 
Island Reserve Commission, and Kahea-The Hawaiian-Environmental 
Alliance. Following publication of our proposed rule, we again met with 
DHHL representatives (October 11, 2012). At that meeting, DHHL staff 
stated that they need to be able to use their lands to ``their fullest 
ability'' and that they may develop wind and geothermal energy projects 
on the islands of Maui and Molokai in the future. The DHHL provided 
information on future development and current grazing leases on its 
lands in proposed critical habitat. In addition, the DHHL expressed 
interest in developing conservation partnership projects with the 
Service in the future.
    Based on information provided by the DHHL in its March 1, 2013, and 
June 23, 2015, letters, and at the October 11, 2012, meeting, we 
reviewed and incorporated new information, and made changes to 4 of the 
9 critical habitat units on Maui and all 4 critical habitat units on 
Molokai that overlapped DHHL's lands. These revisions were based on 
comments indicating that: (a) Changes in land use had occurred within 
the proposed critical habitat units that would preclude certain 
unoccupied areas from supporting the primary constituent elements; and 
(b) the areas in question were not essential to the conservation of the 
species. Following our review of the information provided, we removed 
those unoccupied areas that we determined did not meet the definition 
of critical habitat. For the remaining areas, while we appreciate any 
management efforts implemented by DHHL, the fact that management is 
already taking place does not mean that the area in question does not 
meet the definition of critical habitat. The Courts have been clear 
that the statutory standard does not specify that ``additional'' 
special management considerations or protections may be required, and 
the very fact that areas are being actively managed or protected serves 
as evidence that special management considerations or protections may 
be required, in accordance with the statutory definition of critical 
habitat.
    Although the DHHL stated that section 7 consultation (due to a 
nexus created by Federal funding provided to the DHHL) on designated 
critical habitat on its lands could lead to direct negative economic 
impacts, they did not indicate how, specifically, they foresee a 
consultation resulting in such impacts. Our FEA specifically considered 
the potential effects of critical habitat designation on DHHL lands 
(IEC 2015, p. 3-6). In communications with DHHL, it was established 
that most lands proposed as critical habitat are within DHHL's own 
conservation land use district, so existing management is consistent 
with the needs of critical habitat. For the proposed critical habitat 
that overlaps with DHHL's special use district, which may potentially 
be subject to future energy development, there were no specific plans 
for any projects, and DHHL stated that they are trying to avoid any 
development in critical habitat (IEC 2015, p. 3-6). We therefore do not 
have information to suggest any likely direct negative economic impacts 
of the designation on DHHL.
    (35) Comment: The DHHL requested that the Secretaries (of the 
Department of Interior and the Department of Commerce) consider the 
effects of designation of critical habitat on Hawaiian Home Lands in a 
manner similar to the effects it has on tribal lands, including the 
impact on tribal sovereignty. DHHL states that the United States 
maintained authority over consents to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 
(HHCA) amendments and exchanges involving Hawaiian home lands. It 
further states that the United States has the responsibility to ensure 
that the State of Hawaii is carrying out its trust duties under the 
HHCA and may sue for breach of trust.
    Our Response: In accordance with the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations With Native American 
Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of 
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to incorporate 
native intelligence and knowledge of species, habitat, and place-based 
management and protection, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not 
subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain 
sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to 
tribes. In addition, a 2004 consolidated appropriations bill (Pub. L. 
118 Statute 444, Section 148) established the Office of Native Hawaiian 
Relations within the Secretary's Office and its duties include 
effectuating and implementing the special legal relationship between 
the Native Hawaiian people and the United States; and fully integrating 
the principle and practice of meaningful, regular, and appropriate 
consultation with the Native Hawaiian people by assuring timely 
notification of and prior consultation with the Native Hawaiian people 
before any Federal agency takes any actions that may have the potential 
to significantly affect Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands. A 
2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Department of the 
Interior states that ``Federal agencies are required to consult with 
Native Hawaiian organizations before taking any action that may have 
the potential to significantly affect Native Hawaiian resources, 
rights, or lands.'' Although native Hawaiians are not technically a 
``recognized Federal tribe'' as referenced in the above Executive and 
Secretarial Orders, we endeavor to fully engage and work directly with 
native Hawaiians as much as possible. At the time we published our 
proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), we notified several 
Hawaiian organizations including the DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (offices for Honolulu, Maui, Molokai, and 
Lanai), the State Historic Preservation Division, the Kahoolawe Island 
Reserve Commission (KIRC), and Kahea-The Hawaiian-Environmental 
Alliance. We attended meetings with

[[Page 17826]]

staff from DHHL (July and August, 2011, and October, 2012), Kamehameha 
Schools (July 2011), and KIRC (July 2012), to discuss the proposal and 
address any concerns regarding the proposed listings and proposed 
critical habitat, and have considered all comments provided by these 
organizations in this final rule.
    (36) Comment: The University of Hawaii, Institute for Astronomy 
(IfA) was concerned regarding proposed critical habitat on Map 23, 
Maui--Alpine--Unit 1 and Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1, as it appears to 
include buildings, roads, and other paved areas, owned and managed by 
the University of Hawaii, as part of the Haleakala High Altitude 
Observatory Site (HO). In 1961, State of Hawaii Executive Order No. 
1987 set aside approximately 18 ac (7.3 ha) of land for the HO to be 
used for observatory site purposes only. The IfA requested that the HO 
be excluded from critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We carefully reviewed the areas proposed as critical 
habitat that overlap lands owned by the State and the University of 
Hawaii. Maui--Alpine--Unit 1, at the summit of Haleakala, encompasses a 
total of 2,107 ac (853 ha). The parcel referred to above, Tax Map Key 
(TMK) (2) 2-2-007:008 (18 ac; 7 ha) represents a small portion of the 
unit. The other larger parcels (TMK (2) 2-0-007:006 (138 ac; 56 ha) and 
TMK (2) 2-2-007:005 (161 ac; 65 ha) overlap both Maui--Alpine--Unit 1 
and Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1. As a result of this examination, we have 
determined that these unoccupied parcels, and other small areas within 
these parcels that include astronomical facilities, are too degraded or 
modified by buildings and roads to support the species, that changes in 
land use have occurred within the proposed critical habitat units that 
would preclude certain areas from supporting the species, and therefore 
these areas are not essential for the conservation of the species for 
which they were proposed as critical habitat. We have therefore removed 
295 acres (120 ha) of Maui--Alpine--Unit 1 and 44 acres (18 ha) of 
Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1, areas surrounding the HO, from designation as 
critical habitat (see below, Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule).
    (37) Comment: The Hawaii State Department of Agriculture (HDOA) 
stated that exclusion of agricultural lands from critical habitat 
designation is important for Hawaii's food sustainability. The HDOA 
indicated that compensation will help landowners to efficiently 
increase food production or purchase additional lands for agricultural 
production should critical habitat be designated on agricultural lands.
    Our Response: Following publication of our proposed rule we 
received additional information from the public and concerned 
landowners regarding lands within proposed critical habitat that are in 
active crop production or actively managed for cattle ranching. We 
appreciate this new information, and, based on the information we 
received, we have removed areas from the final designation that are too 
degraded or modified to support the species (i.e., where the essential 
physical or biological features are lacking in occupied habitat), where 
changes in land use have occurred within the proposed critical habitat 
units that would preclude certain areas from supporting the primary 
constituent elements, and, in the case of unoccupied areas, upon a 
determination that these areas are not essential for the conservation 
of the species for which they were proposed as critical habitat. In 
addition, we have excluded approximately 62,490 ac (25,289 ha) of 
privately owned lands under agricultural production for cattle ranching 
from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions 
Based on Other Relevant Factors, below) See our response to Comment 
(58, 59, and 60) regarding economically viable use of property and the 
effects of critical habitat designation. We have no information to 
suggest that critical habitat will have any impact on food 
sustainability in the State of Hawaii.
    (38) Comment: The HDOA stated that the section 7 consultation 
process is slow and cumbersome, and lacks a clear administrative appeal 
process. Formal consultations can take up to 90 days plus an additional 
45 days to prepare a biological opinion. The consultation process can 
result in modifications to the project, up to and including stopping 
the project from proceeding altogether. The HDOA believes the timeframe 
for formal consultations should be limited to 60 days in order to 
reduce uncertainty and risk for agricultural landowners. According to 
HDOA, if it is determined that a project will jeopardize a listed 
species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, a private 
landowner should have the ability to appeal the consultation finding 
without expending significant amounts of resources.
    Our Response: We appreciate the HDOA's concerns. Both the Act and 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) direct the process and timing of 
how the Service conducts consultation (see sections 7(a)(4), 
7(b)(1)(A), and 7(b)(1)(B) of the Act, and 50 CFR 402.14(e), (f), and 
(g)). Included is the process whereby a private landowner requiring a 
permit or license from a Federal agency may become an applicant to the 
process. Applicant status includes specific privileges with regard to 
timing and application for exemption from section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Comments From Maui County

    (39) Comment: The Maui County Police Department requested that 
their communications facilities be excluded from critical habitat for 
public safety reasons. Their specific concerns are Lanai--Montane Wet--
Unit 3 and Lanai--Wet Cliff--Unit 5, and Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 
and Maui--Subalpine--Units 1 and 2.
    Our Response: As developed areas or manmade structures such as the 
communications facilities referenced here (towers, roads, etc.) do not 
provide the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the Maui Nui species, they are not considered critical 
habitat; any such areas are not included in this designation. We make 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, 
pavement, and other structures within the boundaries of critical 
habitat; however, the scale of the maps we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands that 
have been inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown 
on the maps of this final rule, including the communications facilities 
in the five critical habitat units referenced by the Maui County Police 
Department, have been excluded by text in the rule and are not 
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving 
these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the action may affect the adjacent critical habitat. Maintenance of 
communications towers that result in minimal ground disturbance are 
unlikely to pose a threat to Maui Nui critical habitat. In most cases, 
the Service's concern with respect to these projects relates to the 
potential for effects to bird species resulting from collisions.
    (40) Comment: The Maui County Planning Department requested that we 
remove county lands from critical habitat within Lanai--Lowland Mesic--
Unit 1, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, and Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1. All 
of the county lands described in their

[[Page 17827]]

letter contain buildings, structures (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs), 
or roads.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the county 
and carefully reviewed these county lands in proposed critical habitat. 
As explained in our response to Comment (39), above, developed areas or 
manmade structures lacking the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Maui Nui species are excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Such is 
the case here for the county lands in Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1, 
which appeared to be within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat due only to the scale of mapping; these developed areas are not 
included in the final designation. In addition, we removed county lands 
proposed for critical habitat in Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 because 
these lands are too degraded or modified to support the species or 
because changes in land use had occurred within the proposed critical 
habitat units that would preclude certain areas from supporting the 
primary constituent elements (occupied areas), or because these areas 
are not essential for the conservation and recovery of the species for 
which they were proposed as critical habitat (unoccupied areas). These 
areas therefore do not meet the definition of critical habitat. The 
county facility within proposed Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not 
included within the unit; however, this may not have been apparent due 
to the resolution of the map printed in the June 11, 2012, proposed 
rule (77 FR 34464).
    (41) Comment: The Maui County Planning Department requested that we 
provide a mechanism in our proposed rule to exclude lands in the future 
from critical habitat based on the development of management plans that 
meet the criteria described in Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors (see 77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012).
    Our Response: 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, determine whether the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and conclude that the exclusion 
under consideration will not result in the extinction of the species. A 
revision to the critical habitat regulation requires a new rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register (see section 4(a)(3) of the Act and 
50 CFR 424.12), with notification of all interested parties. In our 
June 11, 2012, proposed rule and in this final rule we state that we 
consider a number of factors in evaluating an exclusion under the 
``other relevant factors'' provision of the statute, including whether 
the landowners have developed any conservation plans or other 
management plans for areas determined to be essential to the species, 
or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged 
by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. Currently, the 
County of Maui is a participating member in the Hawaii Association of 
Watershed Partnerships and provides funding for various fencing, 
survey, and invasive species projects on Maui, Lanai, and Molokai. 
Participating in a watershed partnership is only one aspect of the many 
landowner conservation activities we examine when determining whether 
exclusion from critical habitat outweighs the benefits of inclusion in 
critical habitat. We also consider the additional regulatory benefits 
that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification 
or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus, the 
educational benefits of mapping habitat essential for recovery of the 
listed species, and any benefits that may result from a designation due 
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. In 
evaluating a conservation plan, we consider a variety of factors 
including, but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it 
provides for the conservation of the essential physical or biological 
features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in the plan 
are likely to be implemented into the future; whether the plan's 
strategies are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    We must base our consideration of potential exclusions on the 
evidence available to us at the time of rulemaking; there is no 
mechanism for forecasting exclusions into the future based on 
conservation plans that have yet to be developed. However, after going 
through a new rulemaking process, we can revise a critical habitat 
designation in the future if appropriate.
    (42) Comment: The Maui County Planning Department requested that we 
consider excluding the Kanepuu Preserve and the Lanaihale Forest 
Conservation area, both on Lanai.
    Our Response: The areas referenced by the Maui County Planning 
Department are covered by the Lanai Memorandum of Understanding (see 
below) and are excluded from the final designation, as critical habitat 
is not designated on the island of Lanai as a consequence of exclusions 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, for the reasons described below (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors).
    (43) Comment: The Maui County Planning Department commented on an 
extensive trail system on the island of Lanai, and stated that use of 
these trails for hunting, recreation, and cultural activities is part 
of Lanai's economy. The Planning Department requested clarification for 
how these uses could be compatible with critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We have no information to suggest that critical 
habitat designation impacts trail usage. Regardless, for the reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors), 
critical habitat is not designated on the island of Lanai in this final 
rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Public Comments

    (44) Comment: Several commenters noted that on Maui all individuals 
of the endangered plant Canavalia pubescens are found on recent lava 
flows, and suggested that these flows be considered critical habitat 
for this plant. In addition, many lowland dry species flourish on 
recent lava flows (less than 10,000 years old) as these areas exhibit 
healthy recruitment of native plant species such as C. pubescens, and 
appear to offer protection from wildfires and other threats. Another 
commenter noted that the aa (basaltic lava having a rough surface) 
substrate supports the greatest remaining native lowland dry forest 
biodiversity. One commenter suggested three factors that may contribute 
to the survival of native species on this substrate: (a) The sparseness 
of vegetation on aa prevents the percolation of wildfires; (b) the 
ruggedness of the terrain and its sparse vegetation discourages 
ungulate browsers; and (c) the sparseness of soil prevents ecosystem 
domination by alien grasses. The same commenter also raised the 
possibility that the harshness of the habitats with aa substrate and 
shallow soils currently function as ecological sinks (i.e., areas where 
populations of species may be extirpated without input from population 
sources outside the area) for endangered species in the lowland dry 
ecosystem, as evidenced by the lack of recruitment of certain native 
tree species in these areas. The commenter hypothesized that areas 
currently devoid of native species and characterized by older (over 
500,000

[[Page 17828]]

years old), deeper soils previously supported the highest densities of 
these species and served as the source populations for their 
colonization of aa flows. Therefore, the commenter supported 
designation of areas with older, deeper soils in the lowland dry 
ecosystem.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments provided and agree that 
recent lava flows provide important habitat for the endangered plant 
Canavalia pubescens. Recent lava flows may be characterized by little-
weathered lava substrate that is one of the physical and biological 
features of the lowland dry ecosystem in which C. pubescens is known to 
occur. The occurrence of C. pubescens and other native plant species on 
recent lava flows indicates the importance of these areas to their 
conservation. The ruggedness of recent lava flow substrates may 
function as a deterrent to ingress of ungulates thereby preventing 
herbivory of native plant species. The limited accumulation of soil due 
to the lack of weathering on recent lava flow substrates may also 
prevent ingress of nonnative grasses, which typically prefer areas with 
greater soil formation, thereby allowing native vegetation that is 
adapted to these conditions to flourish. In addition, information in 
our files indicates that C. pubescens occurs on substrates ranging in 
age from 3,000 to 5,000 years old to 140,000 to 780,000 years old 
(Sherrod et al. 2006, p. 2; HBMP 2010). In this final rule, we 
designate four units on east Maui (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 through 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4) totaling 16,841 ac (6,816 ha) for C. 
pubescens, as well as 18 other plant species in the lowland dry 
ecosystem. The recovery guidelines for a short-lived perennial plant 
species such as C. pubescens are 8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals 
per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years (Service 1999, p. 
iv). In addition, these four critical habitat units provide varied 
substrate types, including those mentioned by the commenter (over 
500,000 years old) in the lowland dry ecosystem.
    (45) Comment: Two commenters faulted the Service for not providing 
adequate notification of the proposed rule to potentially impacted Maui 
residents. In addition, one commenter stated that the letters the 
Service sent out were vague and not specific to the lands that may be 
affected.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments and regret that some 
landowners did not receive our notification letters. Unfortunately, we 
are not able to send personalized letters and maps to all affected and 
interested parties. We did, however, provide maps of parcel-specificity 
to every landowner who contacted us and requested them following 
publication of the June 11, 2012, proposed rule and the January 31, 
2013, document reopening the comment period on the proposed rule. 
Please see our response to Comment (16), above, for a detailed 
explanation of the notification process we used to reach as many 
potentially interested parties as possible regarding this rulemaking.
    (46) Comment: One commenter stated that ``the proposed rule 
expressly fails to provide any detailed narrative description of 
appropriate specificity to allow fair comment'' and cited 77 FR 34688 
at (x)(B) ``[Reserved for textual description of Unit 3]''. The 
commenter also stated that the proposed rule contains only generalized 
``maps,'' such as Map 10 on 77 FR 34689, to indicate the areas proposed 
for designation. Another commenter added that more detailed mapping is 
required for landowners to accurately assess the impact of the proposed 
designation and assist the Service in determining the appropriateness 
of the designation.
    Our Response: The commenter misunderstands the bracketed 
information cited above. The bracketed information cited above does not 
infer a ``word'' description of the unit. A word description of each 
critical habitat unit is found in Descriptions of Proposed Critical 
Habitat Units in the June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule. The 
description for Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is found at 77 FR 34551 (77 
FR 34464; June 11, 2012). The ``textual description'' of Unit 3 (Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3) refers to the UTMs (mapping vertices) for unit 
delineation using GIS, which, until recently, were identified and 
published in the Federal Register in final rulemakings. However, on May 
1, 2012 (77 FR 25611), the Service published a final rule revising the 
regulations for requirements to publish textual descriptions of final 
critical habitat boundaries in the Federal Register. As a result, as of 
May 31, 2012 (the effective date of the May 1, 2012, rule), the Service 
no longer publishes the UTM coordinates for critical habitat boundaries 
in the Federal Register. Because the publication process for our 
proposed rule had already begun on May 31, 2012, the text reading 
``reserved for textual description'' (which applied to the old method 
of providing UTMs) had not been removed before publication of the 
proposed rule for the Maui Nui species on June 11, 2012. Currently, the 
coordinates on which each map is based are available to the public at 
the Federal eRulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov) using the 
docket number for the rulemaking (in this case, FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071), 
and at the Web site of the field office responsible for the critical 
habitat (http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands) for the final critical 
habitat for 125 Maui Nui species. The proposed rule included maps to 
identify the areas proposed for critical habitat designation. The 
proposed rule also directed reviewers to contact the Service for 
further clarification on any part of the proposed rule, and provided 
contact information. Although we did not include parcel-specific maps 
in the proposed rule, we did provide maps of this specificity to every 
landowner who contacted us and requested them following publication of 
the proposed rule and the January 31, 2013, document reopening the 
comment period on the proposed rule.
    (47) Comment: One commenter questioned the Service's determination 
of the status of a species within a given critical habitat unit as both 
``Species occupied'' and ``Species unoccupied'' at the same time, and 
cited 77 FR 34710 at (xxix) ``Table of Protected Species Within Each 
Critical Habitat Unit.''
    Our Response: We appreciate the comment and in this final rule have 
modified the ``Table of Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat 
Unit,'' first, by changing the title to ``Occupancy of Species by 
Designated Critical Habitat Units for [Island],'' and secondly, to 
accurately reflect whether a unit was either occupied or unoccupied by 
a species at the time of listing. In addition, each unit description 
provides a clear description of whether a unit is occupied or 
unoccupied by each species for which the unit is being designated (see 
Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units).
    (48) Comment: One commenter stated that it is na[iuml]ve to assume 
historical distribution patterns can be a guide to suitable locations 
for recovery efforts of rare species.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we use information on the present 
and historical distribution of each species, based on the best 
available scientific data, to determine the locations of past and 
current occurrences and to determine the physical or biological 
features essential to support the species in those locations. It is 
Service policy that listed species will not be relocated or 
transplanted by the Service outside their historical range without 
specific case-by-case approval from the Director (65 FR 56916; 
September 20, 2000), therefore we look first to areas within the 
historical range to guide recovery efforts for listed species. 
Furthermore, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR

[[Page 17829]]

424.12(b) state that, in determining what areas are critical habitat, 
the Secretary shall consider ``habitats . . . representative of the 
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.'' We 
recognize that not all areas within the historical distribution of a 
species will necessarily retain the physical or biological features 
essential to support the species under contemporary conditions; in many 
cases, the formerly occupied habitat has either been eliminated or has 
become severely degraded. In identifying areas for designation as 
critical habitat, we used information regarding the past and current 
locations of species, the past and current status of the habitat, and 
whether or not the habitat, including that in need of management, could 
provide the essential physical and biological features for the species 
for which it is designated. We note that in several cases, in response 
to public comment, we have removed areas from this final designation of 
critical habitat upon the receipt of information indicating that the 
areas in question are no longer capable of supporting the species.
    (49) Comment: One commenter stated that reliance on unpublished, 
non-public data that is not readily available to the public is contrary 
to legal requirements. Withholding this information deprives the public 
of a full and fair opportunity to comment on the rule. The rule should 
therefore be withdrawn.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2), we are required to designate, 
and make revisions to, critical habitat based on the best scientific 
data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact. In the 
June 11, 2012, proposed rule and in this final rule, we used the best 
scientific information available, including but not limited to, the 
State's Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program databases, the National 
Tropical Botanical Garden's plant databases, TNC's High Island 
Ecoregion Plan (along with the accompanying GIS ecosystem data), and 
our own rare plant species database. These databases include 
information from numerous sources including, but not limited to, expert 
field observations, museum collections, and published and unpublished 
literature, and are, in our opinion, sources of the best scientific 
data available. These data sources are often the best available 
information for the species. See also, Methods, below.
    As stated in the proposed rule, the supporting documentation we 
used in developing the proposed critical habitat was available to the 
public through a combination of online access through http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment at the Pacific Islands Fish and 
Wildlife Office. We provided direction as to how to obtain a list of 
the supporting documentation used under both the Public Comments and 
References Cited sections of the proposed rule. In addition, a list of 
references cited in the proposed rule and in this final rule is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and upon 
request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    (50) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the 
potential negative effects of critical habitat designation on their 
lands because of the interplay of Federal and Hawaii State law. For 
example, they were concerned that designation of critical habitat could 
lead to reclassification of land by the State into the conservation 
district pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 195D-5.1 and HRS 
205-1(3). In addition, they stated that although there are no 
prohibitions for adverse modification of habitat on private lands under 
the Endangered Species Act, such prohibitions exist under Hawaii 
endangered species law (HRS Chapter 195-D) and environmental impact 
statement law (HRS Chapter 343), and these State prohibitions may 
negatively impact landowners with critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: These concerns are addressed below, separated by 
topic.
    Reclassification of Land Due to Critical Habitat Designation--HRS 
section 195D-5.1 states that the Department of Land and Natural 
Resources (DLNR) ``shall initiate amendments to the conservation 
district boundaries consistent with section 205-4 in order to include 
high quality native forests and the habitat of rare native species of 
flora and fauna within the conservation district.'' HRS section 205-
2(e) specifies that ``conservation districts shall include areas 
necessary for * * * conserving indigenous or endemic plants, fish and 
wildlife, including those which are threatened or endangered * * *.'' 
Unlike the automatic conferral of State law protection for all 
federally listed species (see HRS 195D-4(a)), these provisions do not 
explicitly reference federally designated critical habitat, and DLNR 
has no history of proposing amendments to include designated critical 
habitat in the conservation district.
    As described in section 3.1 of the FEA, the analysis integrates the 
best available information regarding the potential effects of critical 
habitat on State and county land management based on interviews with 
staff from the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)'s Office 
of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and the State Office of 
Planning, as well as the County of Maui's Department of Planning. 
According to the State Office of Planning, critical habitat is taken 
into consideration during the redistricting process, but does not 
itself generate a redistricting of lands to the Conservation District. 
According to the County Department of Planning, the presence of 
critical habitat is one of many factors under consideration during the 
rezoning process. Representatives from OCCL, the State, and the county 
were unable to identify an instance in which the presence of critical 
habitat specifically drove decisions related to redistricting or 
rezoning. As such, it has not been the State's practice thus far to 
redistrict critical habitat areas as conservation district lands. The 
FEA does, however, describe uncertainty with regard to future State and 
county management of these lands in section 3.4. In addition, section 
5.3.2 of the FEA describes the potential indirect effects of critical 
habitat designation, including concern that the designation may result 
in costly lawsuits. Uncertainty exists regarding the potential for, as 
well as the number, timing, and outcome of, such lawsuits, thus 
associated impacts are not monetized in the economic analysis.
    Prohibitions Under Hawaii Endangered Species Law and Environmental 
Impact Statement Law With Critical Habitat Designation--HRS 195D covers 
conservation of aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants in the State of 
Hawaii. Only two sections of HRS 195D are relevant to this discussion, 
HRS section 195D-4 and 195D-5.1. HRS section 195D-4 recognizes the 
Federal status (endangered or threatened) of flora and fauna in Hawaii 
as determined by the Department of the Interior. This section also 
outlines State regulations for possession, trade, or other uses of 
these species. HRS section 195D-5.1 ``Protection of Hawaii's unique 
flora and fauna'' states that the DLNR shall initiate amendments to the 
conservation district boundaries consistent with section 205-4 in order 
to include high-quality native forests and the habitat for rare native 
species of flora and fauna within the conservation district. Neither of 
these sections of HRS 195D includes

[[Page 17830]]

automatic prohibitions against adversely modifying habitat on private 
lands.
    HRS 343 provides a comprehensive review of the environmental impact 
statement (EIS) process, and describes the applicability and 
requirements for environmental assessments (EA), regardless of the 
underlying land classification. It states that an environmental impact 
statement is required for any proposed land reclassifications under 
343-5(2) and 343-5(7) and ``any use within any land classified as a 
conservation district by the State land use commission under Chapter 
205.'' HRS 343, therefore, provides guidelines for the EIS process and 
EA process regarding: (a) Land reclassification, and (b) proposed 
actions or proposed land use changes on lands that are classified as 
conservation. HRS 343 does not trigger land reclassification as a 
result of critical habitat designation nor does it prohibit any actions 
or proposed land use changes in areas designated as critical habitat, 
whether or not these areas are in the conservation district.
    (51) Comment: One commenter stated that an area that is not 
inhabited by the species is not essential to the conservation of the 
species. However, another commenter supported the inclusion of areas no 
longer occupied by the endangered species, but which are critical for 
their recovery.
    Our Response: By definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species includes: (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 (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) which 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.
    In this final rule, the critical habitat designation is a 
combination of areas occupied by the species, as well as areas that are 
unoccupied (see below, ``Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian Plants,'' 
``Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds,'' and ``Recovery Strategy for 
Three Tree Snails''). For areas considered occupied, the best available 
scientific information suggests that these species occupied these areas 
at the time of listing. However, due to the small population sizes, few 
numbers of individuals, and reduced geographic range of each of the 125 
species for which we are designating critical habitat in this rule, we 
have determined that a designation limited to the known present range 
of each species would be inadequate to achieve the conservation of 
those species. The areas that may have been unoccupied at the time of 
listing have been determined to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of the species because they provide the physical or biological 
features necessary for the expansion of existing wild populations and 
reestablishment of wild populations within the historical range of the 
species.
    (52) Comment: Two commenters disputed the use of an ecosystem-based 
approach in our determination of primary constituent elements (PCEs) 
for each species and cited the regulations for determining critical 
habitat at 50 CFR 424.12 (b). In addition, one commenter cited Middle 
Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. N.M. 
2000) and argued that the proposed ecosystem critical habitat 
designations are overly generalized and, therefore, lack the necessary 
analysis and explanation required by the Act for each species.
    Our Response: Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we 
are required to identify the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the 135 species for which we proposed critical 
habitat. We identified the physical and biological features that 
support the successful functioning of the ecosystem(s) upon which each 
species individually depends, and that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Table 5 (see below) identifies the 
physical or biological features of a functioning ecosystem for each of 
the ecosystem types identified as essential to the conservation of the 
125 species for which we are designating critical habitat in this final 
rule (critical habitat is not designated for 10 species due to 
exclusions). These features provide the environmental conditions 
essential to meeting the fundamental requirements of each species. In 
many cases, due to our limited knowledge of specific life-history 
requirements for the species that are little-studied and occur in 
remote and inaccessible areas, the more general description of the 
physical and biological features that provide for the successful 
functioning of the ecosystem represents the best (and, in many cases, 
the only) scientific information available. Accordingly, the physical 
and biological features of a properly functioning ecosystem are, at 
least in part, the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the 125 species. In this final rule the PCEs for each 
species are defined based on those physical or biological features 
essential to support the life-history processes for each species within 
the ecosystems in which they occur, and reflects a distribution that we 
conclude is essential to the species' conservation needs within those 
ecosystems. The ecosystems' features include the appropriate 
microclimatic conditions for germination and growth of the plants 
(e.g., light availability, soil nutrients, hydrologic regime, and 
temperature) and space within the appropriate habitats for population 
growth and expansion, as well as to maintain the historical 
geographical and ecological distribution of each species. The features 
are defined by elevation, annual levels of precipitation, substrate 
type and slope, and the potential to maintain characteristic native 
plant genera in the canopy, subcanopy, and understory levels of the 
vegetative community. Where further information was available 
indicating additional, specific, life-history requirements for some 
species, the PCEs relating to these requirements are described 
separately; for example, we have identified bogs as a unique PCE for 
several species. The physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of these species are described in Table 5 of this final 
rule.
    (53) Comment: One commenter stated that proposed critical habitat 
designations based on the presence of one or few individuals of the 
native canopy, subcanopy, or understory species listed as physical or 
biological features for each ecosystem (associated native plant genera 
as identified in Table 5) do not achieve the ecosystem approach or 
satisfy the requirement of having the physical and biological features 
of that ecosystem.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (52), above, regarding 
the methods for identification of physical and biological features for 
each of the species for which occupied final critical habitat is 
designated. For the species that are the subject of this rule, the 
essential physical and biological features are described as the 
elevation, precipitation, and substrate required by the species, in 
combination with presence of one or more of the associated native 
plants that occur within that elevation, precipitation, and substrate 
range. We consider the presence of one or more of the identified native 
canopy, subcanopy, or understory species as indicative of the 
capability of that area to likewise support the threatened or 
endangered Maui Nui species that also depend on that habitat type.

[[Page 17831]]

    (54) Comment: One commenter stated that the primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) for a given species are non-determinable in areas that 
are unoccupied by the species.
    Our Response: Although the presence of the PCEs may make an area 
presently unoccupied by the species particularly desirable as a site 
for potential recovery, the Act does not require that areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed 
contain the PCEs; instead, unoccupied areas must be essential for the 
conservation of the species. The recovery guidelines published in our 
recovery plans for the Maui Nui species spell out the criteria (e.g., 
number of populations and number of individuals) necessary to recover 
or remove the species from protection under the Act. Due to the small 
numbers of individuals and low population sizes of the 125 Maui Nui 
species for which we are designating critical habitat in this final 
rule, suitable habitat and space for expansion of existing populations 
or reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels 
necessary for the conservation of these species. As explained in detail 
in the Methods section of this document (see ``Unoccupied Areas''), 
these areas are essential to achieving these goals. We carefully 
considered the historical distribution of each species, its specific 
habitat requirements, and its current population status relative to the 
goals set for recovery to determine those unoccupied areas that are 
essential to achieve the abundance and distribution of self-sustaining 
populations needed to attain the conservation of each species.
    (55) Comment: One commenter stated that the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) analysis in the proposed rule failed to 
take into account the activities associated with the Honuaula Partners, 
LLC (HP), development, and disagreed with the initial finding that the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the 135 species will not 
have a significant effect on a substantial number of entities. The 
commenter further stated that the construction and development 
activities envisioned by HP will likely require the services of 
numerous small businesses ranging from contractors and subcontractors 
to landscapers and suppliers of materials, engineers, architects, 
planners, and others. In addition, the commenter stated that the 
analysis is inaccurate because it relied upon earlier economic analyses 
in 2003 and 2008, which did not take into account the HP project.
    Our Response: Under the RFA, we are required to evaluate the 
potential impacts of critical habitat on small businesses, but this 
evaluation may be limited to impacts to directly regulated entities. 
The designation of critical habitat only has direct regulatory impact 
through section 7 of the Act, in which a Federal action agency is 
required to consult with us on any project that is implemented, funded, 
permitted, or otherwise authorized by that agency (that is, a ``Federal 
nexus'' exists) and that may affect designated critical habitat. 
Critical habitat has no regulatory effect under the Act on actions that 
do not have a Federal nexus. Since Federal action agencies are the only 
directly regulated entities as a result of the designation of critical 
habitat, the designation will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities. For a further discussion 
of this issue, please see below (Required Determinations) and our final 
economic analysis (IEc 2015, Appendix A).
    (56) Comment: Several commenters stated that the designation of 
critical habitat is a taking of property without just compensation.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not deny 
anyone economically viable use of their property. There are no 
automatic restrictions or prohibitions on uses of areas designated as 
critical habitat under the Act. The regulatory effect of the Act is the 
requirement under section 7(a)(2) that Federal agency actions avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
Furthermore, if in the course of a consultation with a Federal agency, 
the resulting biological opinion concludes that a proposed action is 
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives 
that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action, that can be implemented consistent with the 
scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, and 
that are economically and technologically feasible.
    (57) Comment: Two commenters stated that the takings analysis is 
inadequate and violates the letter and intent of Executive Order 12630 
(``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights''). Because a taking implications assessment 
(TIA) has not been published with the proposed rule, landowners are 
deprived of the ability to rationally or reasonably comment on the 
conclusion of the Service that the ``designation of critical habitat 
for each of these species does not pose significant takings 
implications within or affected by the proposed designation'' at 77 FR 
34464 (June 11, 2012).
    Our Response: Executive Order 12630 only requires that a taking 
implications assessment (TIA) be discussed in proposed and final 
rulemakings and be made available to the public if there are 
significant takings implications. If there are not significant takings 
implications, there is no requirement that this issue be addressed in a 
rulemaking. In our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012), we 
stated that we analyzed the potential takings implications of critical 
habitat designation for 135 species and found that this designation of 
critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for 
lands within or affected by the proposed designation. We have prepared 
a TIA for this final rulemaking and found that the designation of 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species does not pose significant 
takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
    (58) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not 
take into account the additional costs that will be imposed on State 
and county governments by the proposed critical habitat designation. 
The commenter suggested that the proposed designation of critical 
habitat on the Makena Property will delay the widening and extension of 
Piilani Highway. The ATC Makena Holdings (ATC), along with three other 
private landowners, plans to fund and construct the widening of Piilani 
Highway. The ATC is also considering plans to extend Piilani Highway 
onto the Makena property in order to provide an alternative access 
route to serve the Makena Resort. The proposed rule does not address 
the significant economic impacts that could be faced by the Hawaii 
Department of Transportation or the County of Maui if the planned 
roadway improvements are not constructed by private developers. The 
commenter suggested that in the absence of private funding, Federal, 
State, or county funds will be required.
    Our Response: The final economic analysis (FEA) incorporates 
additional discussion regarding the potential expansion of the Piilani 
Highway within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. Although the timing, nature, 
and location of the project is currently uncertain, we forecast costs 
associated with a formal section 7 consultation on the project in 2015. 
The Service has determined that the potential project area for the 
highway expansion overlaps with the probable range of the Blackburn's 
sphinx moth. Consultation on this project would be required due to the

[[Page 17832]]

presence of the Blackburn's sphinx moth regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated for the Maui Nui species. As discussed in section 
2.3 of the DEA, critical habitat designation for the Maui Nui species 
is not likely to generate additional conservation recommendations 
beyond what would be recommended due to the presence of the moth. 
Accordingly, it is unlikely that critical habitat for the Maui Nui 
species will generate substantial additional costs with respect to this 
highway project. However, we note in section 3.3 of the FEA that should 
the Service recommend that the project incorporate additional 
conservation efforts specifically in order to avoid adverse 
modification of critical habitat, these would be considered incremental 
impacts of the designation.
    (59) Comment: One commenter stated that most of Hawaii's farmers 
and ranchers are small entities and would be unfairly disadvantaged by 
this proposal. Critical habitat designation may adversely impact 
farmers and ranchers by placing potentially inappropriate restrictions 
on future use, adversely impacting the value and mortgageability of the 
land, and encouraging other land use regulators to further restrict 
these lands in the future.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns. We address 
these concerns below.
    Direct impacts to farmers and ranchers--According to the FEA, the 
direct impacts of critical habitat designation on grazing and farming 
(i.e., impacts generated by section 7 consultation and associated 
conservation recommendations) are expected to be minor (Section 5.3). 
The only section 7 consultations that occur on farming and grazing 
activities are associated with Federal assistance programs, such as the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) EQIP (Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program) and WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
Program) programs, which generally support ecologically beneficial 
projects. Outside of participation in these programs, we have not 
consulted on farming and grazing activities in Maui Nui over the last 
10 years since critical habitat was first designated for 107 plant and 
animal species in the Maui Nui islands. All of the consultations with 
NRCS were informal, were ecologically beneficial to listed species or 
designated critical habitat, and have not been time-intensive and have 
not resulted in modifications to projects or activities. According to 
the FEA, it is unlikely that critical habitat designation will result 
in modifications to farming and grazing activities through section 7 
consultation. Therefore, the direct effects of the designation are most 
likely to be limited to additional administrative effort (by the 
Federal agencies involved in the consultation) as part of future 
section 7 consultations (IEC 2015, Section 5.3.1). We cannot foresee 
any direct impacts to farmers and ranchers as a consequence of critical 
habitat designation. We note that the analysis under the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) in Appendix A of the FEA 
acknowledges the possibility of some indirect impacts on farmers and 
ranchers, however, such effects are not quantified due to the 
significant uncertainty surrounding the likelihood and potential 
magnitude of any such potential effects (IEC 2015, p. A-7).
    Impacts on the value and mortgageability of the land--We understand 
the commenter's concern that critical habitat designation may adversely 
impact the value and mortgageability of the land, and encourage other 
land use regulators to further restrict these lands in the future. The 
FEA (IEC 2015, Section 5.3.2) recognizes that these indirect effects of 
the critical habitat designation are of concern, but also found 
significant uncertainty regarding the potential for these economic 
impacts to occur. According to the FEA, no studies have evaluated the 
potential perceptional effect of critical habitat on land values in 
Hawaii (i.e., regardless of actual regulatory effects, potential 
buyers, lenders, and appraisers may perceive that critical habitat 
designation restricts land use and thus reduces the value of the land). 
However, there are studies that show that critical habitat has the 
potential to change behavior of the public outside of the regulatory 
changes associated with the designation. A 2009 California study showed 
that critical habitat designation within urban growth areas [emphasis 
ours] resulted in measurable reductions in land values. The study did 
not identify statistically significant effects of critical habitat 
designation on land values outside of urban growth areas [emphasis 
ours]. Approximately 0.10 percent (160 ac (65 ha)) of the total area 
designated as critical habitat in Maui Nui in this final rule is in the 
State's urban district. Therefore, while we acknowledge the concern 
regarding the potential perceptional effect of critical habitat on land 
values in Hawaii, we are unable to measure the cost of this indirect 
impact to a landowner, or state with certainty the probability of such 
an effect being realized.
    Future restrictions on these lands--According to the State's Office 
of Conservation and Coastal Lands and the State Office of Planning, 
critical habitat designation does not automatically generate a district 
reclassification, although it is one factor taken into consideration 
both during the 5-year boundary reviews and review of petitions for 
boundary amendments (IEC 2015, Section 5.3.2). See also our response to 
Comment (50), above.
    (60) Comment: One commenter stated a concern regarding the ability 
of farmers and ranchers to meet the food supply needs of residents and 
visitors with the proposed designation. The 1.3 million plus residents 
and over 7 million tourists per year are dependent upon food and energy 
imports for nearly all their needs.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concern. Section 5.3 of 
the FEA highlights the concern that critical habitat has the potential 
to hinder the State's food sustainability goal (IEC 2015, p. 5-16). As 
described in section 5.3, the designation is not likely to change how 
NRCS and the Service manage and regulate farming and grazing 
activities. Section 5.3.2 discusses the potential for critical habitat 
to result in indirect effects that hinder the State's goal to work 
toward food sustainability. As described in that section, the extent to 
which the designation will limit agricultural production occurring 
within the critical habitat area is uncertain. However, only a small 
fraction of the total State agricultural production overlaps the 
proposed critical habitat area.
    (61) Comment: One commenter stated that some of the proposed 
critical habitat areas are State-owned parcels that may be leased to 
farmers and ranchers. The commenter added that some also include 
irrigation infrastructure and are within irrigation water lease areas, 
raising serious concerns about diminished irrigation water 
availability, especially important to farmers and ranchers in this time 
of severe drought. According to this commenter, these areas should be 
excluded from designation.
    Our Response: When delineating critical habitat units, we made an 
effort to avoid developed areas such as towns, agricultural lands, and 
other lands with similar features that do not contain the primary 
constituent elements. Most of the area within critical habitat 
designated in this final rule is within the conservation district, with 
less than 10 percent of the critical habitat within the agricultural 
district. However, some species, such as Canavalia pubescens, 
Melanthera kamolensis, and Sesbania tomentosa, only occur in, and 
historically occurred in, low-elevation

[[Page 17833]]

areas where agriculture is most common. Habitat containing primary 
constituent elements or otherwise essential to the conservation of 
these species is not available in areas outside the agricultural 
district.
    We made every attempt to avoid including irrigation systems and 
their related developed structures to support irrigation within the 
critical habitat areas, as these systems and structures normally do not 
contain, and are not likely to develop, primary constituent elements 
and are not otherwise essential to the conservation of these species. 
Even if we have not been able to exclude every such development from 
these mapped units, they are not included in critical habitat pursuant 
to the text of this final rule because they are manmade features. Thus, 
unless the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems and related 
developed structures would indirectly affect critical habitat, these 
systems and structures should not be affected by section 7 of the Act. 
As for the areas surrounding these structures, in the absence of a 
Federal nexus (as described above; see response to Comment (55)), 
critical habitat will have no effect on the delivery of water for 
agriculture. In addition, none of the 125 species are entirely aquatic, 
although a few require bogs or seasonally wet habitats; however, we 
have no information to suggest that conservation activities for these 
species would cause a reduction in water diversion or irrigation water.
    (62) Comment: Three commenters provided information on a potential 
wind energy project that may be sited in or adjacent to proposed 
Molokai--Coastal--Unit 2. One commenter requested that the area 
proposed as critical habitat be modified to increase the distance of 
the critical habitat unit from the potential impact of an industrial-
scale wind energy project.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the 
commenters. Based on the information provided and information in our 
FEA (IEc 2015, pp. 4-7, 4-9--4-10, and A-6--A-7), Molokai Renewables, 
LLC, a joint venture between Pattern Energy Group LP and Bio-Logical 
Capital, LLC, plans to develop a wind energy farm on Molokai Ranch 
lands, near proposed Molokai--Coastal--Unit 1 and Molokai--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 1. Energy would be transmitted to Oahu via an undersea 
transmission cable that may potentially run through proposed Molokai--
Coastal--Unit 2. This proposed project is in the initial planning phase 
and information on the timing, scale, location, and likelihood of 
construction of an industrial scale wind energy project is not 
available. Molokai--Coastal--Unit 2 totals 977 ac (396 ha) on State and 
private land. This unit provides the physical and biological features 
for 12 endangered plants and for the maintenance and expansion of the 
existing wild occurrences of one of these species that occupies the 
unit, and provides the habitat for reestablishment of populations, 
within their historical range, for the other 11 plant species. Due to 
their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery. Lacking information 
on the location of the proposed wind farm, we are unable to modify 
Molokai--Coastal--Unit 2 to increase its distance from the proposed 
wind farm.
    (63) Comment: One commenter stated that many farmers participate in 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-NRCS and other Federal 
programs, and thus formal consultation with the Service will be 
triggered in order to determine whether the habitat will be adversely 
impacted (regardless of whether any endangered species are actually 
present). This consultation can result in costly delays and 
modifications to the project up to and including stopping the activity 
from proceeding altogether.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns. See our 
response to Comment (59), above.
    (64) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should 
reevaluate the ecosystem-based management units of possible habitat for 
Maui Nui species by focusing on only those areas that are essential for 
the conservation of the species and eliminating areas that do not 
currently contain the PCEs, especially grazing land. Courts have 
consistently held that such a generalization of critical habitat is 
unacceptable. See Home Builders of No. California, 616 F.3d 983, Cape 
Hatteras Access Pres. Alliance, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206 F. Supp.2d 1156 (D. N.M. 2000).
    Our Response: On the islands of Maui Nui (Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe), native species that occur in the same habitat types 
(ecosystems) depend on the same biological or physical features because 
they are dependent on the successful functioning of the ecosystem they 
have in common to survive. While we have used this methodology because 
it, along with species-specific habitat requirements, represents the 
best available scientific information, this approach may also provide 
efficiencies in identifying conservation actions at the ecosystem 
scale, to enhance or restore critical ecological processes and provide 
for long-term viability of those species in their native environment. 
Upon receipt of public comments from landowners and biologists, we have 
re-evaluated areas proposed as critical habitat, and have further 
refined the critical habitat units to remove areas where the land use 
has changed or the land has been otherwise modified so that it no 
longer contains the PCEs and therefore does not meet the definition of 
critical habitat (for areas occupied by the listed species). In all 
cases, we only designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. In cases where, based upon public comments from landowners and 
biologists, we found that some unoccupied areas initially proposed as 
critical habitat are not in fact essential for the conservation of the 
species, we have removed those areas from this final designation.
    (65) Comment: According to one commenter, the overly broad critical 
habitat designation effectively places the cost and burden of 
disproving the presence of critical habitat on the private landowner. 
In addition, the proposed rule does not analyze how land uses will or 
will not affect the protections that critical habitat is supposed to 
offer.
    Our Response: Critical habitat protections are only triggered if 
there is a Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out 
by a Federal agency). In cases where there is such a Federal nexus, it 
is not the duty of the private landowner to disprove the presence of 
critical habitat; rather, it is the duty of the Federal agency to 
ensure that it complies with section 7 of the Act. If, through the 
section 7 consultation process, it is determined that a Federal agency 
action may result in ``destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat'' (as those terms are used in section 7), we suggest those 
reasonable and prudent alternatives that can be taken by the Federal 
agency or applicant in implementing the agency action.
    (66) Comment: Several commenters stated that they, or others, are 
members of State watershed partnerships and participate in voluntary 
conservation actions. The designation of critical habitat on their 
lands will burden landowners and alienate the very group that can help 
the most with species and habitat conservation.
    Our Response: We fully support the voluntary watershed partnerships 
in the

[[Page 17834]]

State of Hawaii, including the four partnerships in Maui Nui (West Maui 
Mountains Watershed Partnership, East Maui Watershed Partnership, East 
Molokai Watershed Partnership, and Leeward Haleakala Watershed 
Restoration Partnership). These partnerships are voluntary alliances of 
public and private landowners ``committed to the common value of 
protecting forested watersheds for water recharge, conservation, and 
other ecosystem services through collaborative management'' (http://hawp.org/partnerships). Most of the ongoing conservation management 
actions undertaken by the watershed partnerships address threats to 
upland habitat from nonnative species (e.g., feral ungulates, nonnative 
plants) and may include fencing, ungulate removal, nonnative plant 
control, and outplanting of native (including rare native) species on 
lands within the partnership. Funding for the watershed partnerships is 
provided through a variety of State and Federal sources (including 
funding provided by the Service), public and private grants, and in-
kind services provided by the partners or volunteers. Landowner 
participation in the voluntary watershed partnerships in the State of 
Hawaii, resulting in many cases in significant conservation benefits to 
native and listed species, is an important consideration in our 
weighing of the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion in critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Secretary places great 
value on such partnerships; participation in the watershed partnerships 
of Maui, Molokai, or Lanai was one of the considerations in each of the 
exclusions from critical habitat in this final rule. At the same time, 
however, we are judicious in our exclusions, and we carefully 
considered whether we had evidence that each landowner is implementing 
conservation measures as a member of a voluntary watershed partnership 
that result in significant benefits to the listed species in our 
weighing of the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion. We did not 
exclude areas from critical habitat if the landowner is a member of a 
watershed partnership, but could not demonstrate a history of 
implementing conservation actions for the benefit of native or listed 
species.
    (67) Comment: Several commenters stated that designation of 
critical habitat would interfere with their ability to obtain Federal 
funding and cause delays associated with Act consultations over effects 
on critical habitat and the inflexible requirements that there be no 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Our Response: Both the Act and the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) direct the process and timing of how the Service conducts 
consultation (see sections 7(b)(1)and 7(2) of the Act, and 50 CFR 
402.14(e)). Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, Federal agencies 
must consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, 
funded, or carried out by such agency that may affect critical habitat 
is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. To avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat, the Federal agency may, during consultation, modify 
the proposed action to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to critical 
habitat. If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the likelihood of the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. In our experience, it is unusual for 
a project to proceed to this point; usually we can agree upon project 
modifications earlier in the process that address any concerns, thereby 
allowing the project to proceed. However, in those rare cases in which 
we do find that destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
is likely, we attempt to provide alternatives to avoid that outcome.
    Our FEA considers the direct impacts of critical habitat 
designation to stem from the consideration of the potential for 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat during section 
7 consultations. The administrative costs of conducting section 7 
consultation is a direct impact of a designation, as is the 
implementation of any conservation efforts that might be taken by the 
action agency in conjunction with section 7 consultation to avoid 
potential destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The 
total quantified incremental impacts of the critical habitat 
designation are estimated to be approximately $20,000 on an annualized 
basis over 10 years (IEc 2015, p. ES-7). The potential for time delays 
that may be associated with the need to reinitiate section 7 
consultation or compliance with other laws triggered by the designation 
are considered indirect impacts of the designation. Although the FEA 
highlights which projects or activities may be affected by critical 
habitat designation, significant uncertainty and data limitations 
largely preclude the quantification of indirect impacts (IEc 2015, p. 
ES-7).
    (68) Comment: Several commenters stated that designation of 
critical habitat would cause the Federal Government to dramatically 
reduce or cut off human access to water, or prevent the landowner from 
developing water resources. Subsequently, the State Water Commission 
would take steps to reduce off-stream water usage where it competes 
with water necessary to sustain endangered plants. This could affect 
ranches and entire communities.
    Our Response: None of the Maui Nui species addressed in this rule 
is entirely aquatic, and although some species do depend on bogs or 
seasonal wetland type habitats, there is no information to suggest that 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species would lead to a reduction in 
water diversion or prevent the development of water resources. Water 
infrastructure is considered a manmade feature, and, therefore, these 
features and structures do not contain, and are not likely to develop, 
any primary constituent elements. There is no expectation that ranches 
or communities will in any way be affected by a reduction in water 
supplies as a consequence of critical habitat.
    (69) Comment: Several commenters stated that designation of 
critical habitat would trigger rezoning procedures under State law to 
more restrictive zoning on private property. In addition, the 
commenters believe that other provisions of Hawaii State law would then 
burden the use of their property. For example, commenters believed that 
new projects on lands designated as critical habitat will require a 
conservation district use permit, and an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) instead of a less comprehensive environmental assessment (EA), 
and that development in, or a change in use of, coastal lands that are 
designated critical habitat will make it more difficult to obtain a 
special management permit, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
    Our Response: Regarding potential rezoning or restrictions on 
property use, please see above, our responses to Comments (50) and 
(59). Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), an applicant for a 
required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity

[[Page 17835]]

that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal 
zone must provide a certification that the proposed activity complies 
with policies of the State's approved coastal zone management program. 
Therefore, regardless of the designation of critical habitat, an 
applicant is required to obtain certification from the State that a 
proposed activity in the coastal zone complies with the State's coastal 
zone management program. The 1990 implementation plan for the State of 
Hawaii's coastal zone management program was last updated in 2006, and 
evaluation findings for 2004-2008 were completed in 2010 (NOAA 2010, 45 
pp), and there is no reference in these documents to the treatment of 
critical habitat for federally listed species (Hawaii Coastal Zone 
Management Program 1990, entire; Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan 
2013, entire). The 2013 management plan refers to the presence of, and 
concern for, endangered species in the marine environment and for 
endangered waterbirds and states that such species are of Statewide 
conservation concern (Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan 2013, p. 
16). The plan also discusses the importance of watershed management as 
watersheds affect water quantity and quality, ultimately affecting 
ocean water quality and reef systems (Hawaii Ocean Resources Management 
Plan 2013, p. 27). In sum, although the 2013 Hawaii Ocean Resources 
Management Plan states that balancing protection of endangered species 
with other priorities of ocean resource management is critical, the 
plan does not mandate or prohibit any actions with specific regard to 
critical habitat.
    (70) Comment: Some commenters stated that their lands were not 
included in studies or site inspections, or were apparently done 
without the owners' knowledge or consent. The commenters believe that 
if their lands were inspected, it would be determined that there were 
no primary constituent elements.
    Our Response: As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the 
best scientific data available in determining those areas that contain 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Maui Nui species by identifying the occurrence data for each 
species and determining the characteristics of the habitat types upon 
which they depend. The information we used is described in detail in 
our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and in this final rule 
(see Methods); also see our response to Comment (121) for a description 
of the information we used to derive the primary constituent elements.
    Both before and following publication of our June 11, 2012, 
proposed rule (77 FR 34464), the Service contacted many landowners. 
Some allowed site visits, and some did not reply to our requests, or 
did not state that they desired a site visit by Service biologists. 
Much of our identification of the physical or biological features can 
be achieved using remote sensing data; in no case did Service staff 
enter private lands without the express permission of the landowner. 
Based on comments and information provided during the public comment 
periods indicating that information in our proposed rule was in error, 
or there had been changes in land use that would preclude certain areas 
from supporting the primary constituent elements (occupied areas), or 
the areas in question were not essential to the conservation of the 
species (unoccupied areas), we have removed such areas from the final 
designation because they do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat. In addition, some areas were excluded from critical habitat 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All of these changes to areas 
proposed as critical habitat are described in the Summary of Changes 
from Proposed Rule, below.
    (71) Comment: One commenter stated that the regulatory flexibility 
analysis provided in the proposed rule was inadequate, as commercial 
activities are not limited to only three proposed critical habitat 
units. Commercial activities (specifically cattle ranching) also occur 
in proposed units Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, 
Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1, and Maui--Coastal--Unit 7. The commenter 
has applied for Federal funding previously, including NRCS funding from 
the EQIP program, and believes that, if critical habitat is designated, 
any future use of Federal funding would be subject to consultation 
under the Act. The commenter expressed concern over the potential 
negative economic impacts as a consequence of such consultation.
    Our Response: This comment was submitted prior to the release of 
the DEA, which included a complete regulatory flexibility analysis in 
Appendix A. The regulatory flexibility analysis in the economic 
analysis draws from the findings of the report with respect to the 
likelihood of projects or activities with a Federal nexus triggering 
section 7 consultation. The economic analysis identifies the commercial 
activities (agriculture and grazing) occurring within the units 
highlighted by the commenter. Section 5.3.1 of the economic analysis 
further recognizes that grazing and farming operations that have 
participated in Federal assistance programs, such as NRCS' EQIP and 
WHIP, have been subject to section 7 consultation considering potential 
effects on listed species and critical habitats. The NRCS has stated 
that, regardless of critical habitat designation, these programs only 
support projects that are ecologically beneficial. As a result, all 
previous consultations on NRCS-funded projects have been informal and 
have resulted in a not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination 
for listed species and critical habitats. The NRCS stated that these 
consultations have not been time-intensive and have not resulted in 
modifications to projects or activities. The NRCS and Service do not 
expect that critical habitat will affect the ability of projects funded 
through these programs to be implemented, as planned. In any case, for 
the reasons described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the ranch lands that 
were the focus of concern of this commenter, as a consequence of 
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (72) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service must prepare a 
NEPA analysis on the proposed rule to ensure that we make an informed 
decision regarding the impact of critical habitat designation on the 
environment. Unlike the Act, NEPA sets forth procedural requirements 
for all Federal government agencies. It requires that Federal agencies 
undertaking Federal actions undertake an extensive examination of all 
the environmental impacts (including cultural impacts as required under 
the National Historic Preservation Act) of its actions. Given the 
magnitude of the Service's critical habitat proposal, the large number 
of industries that it will likely affect, and its impact to the local 
and State economy, a thorough examination and disclosure of the 
proposal is needed with substantial opportunities for public input.
    Our Response: It is the Service's position that, outside the 
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Tenth 
Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by 
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical 
habitat under the Act. This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
    (73) Comment: Two commenters expressed their support for our

[[Page 17836]]

proposed designation of critical habitat in Maui County. Conservation 
is needed for Hawaiian endangered plants and animals and has been 
demonstrably successful in places like Waikamoi Preserve. One commenter 
was especially appreciative of being able to visit places that are 
being protected from invasive, nonnative species and evoke Hawaiian 
ecosystems that her ancestors frequented.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments.
    (74) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service designate 
critical habitat in 170 acres of land above the Wailea Emerald Golf 
Course because of the potential for development in this area. According 
to this commenter, this is the site of a functioning ecosystem that 
includes mature wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis) and the endangered 
awikiwiki (Canavalia pubescens).
    Our Response: The area referred to by this commenter was proposed 
as critical habitat in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464). 
In this final rule, we excluded 901 ac (365 ha) under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, below), and 
designate 188 ac (76 ha) of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 as critical 
habitat. The area referred to by the commenter was excluded as part of 
the Ulupalakua Ranch property (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors). However, we emphasize that exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act does not signal that an area is not essential for the 
conservation of the species, only that the Secretary has determined 
that the benefits of excluding that area outweigh the benefits of 
including it in critical habitat (and such exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species).
    (75) Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service work 
collaboratively with the community, including landowners and 
homeowners, to provide conservation measures for plants and animals so 
that critical habitat designation is not necessary. This same commenter 
stated that protecting habitat for native plants will also protect the 
coastal reefs and the ocean environment.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestions and fully support 
collaborative conservation planning and implementation with landowners 
and other interested parties. Time and resources permitting, we will 
continue to seek avenues of collaborative conservation efforts with 
private landowners in Maui Nui. See also our responses to Comments (25) 
and (66), above.
    (76) Comment: Several commenters remarked that there is no evidence 
to show that critical habitat designation will protect endangered 
species and that a more thorough job should be done with available 
resources on lands already dedicated to conservation.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments. In this final rule, we 
are designating critical habitat for 125 listed endangered or 
threatened species (122 plants, 1 tree snail, and 2 forest birds) on 
the islands of Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe using an ecosystem-based 
approach in identifying the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of these species, and unoccupied areas essential to 
their conservation, that we believe will ultimately provide for greater 
public understanding of the conservation and recovery needs for each of 
the species addressed in this final rule. The recovery criteria for 
these species include both conservation of existing populations of 
these species, as well as reestablishment of populations in suitable 
habitat within the species' historical range. We further note, as 
stated earlier, that the designation of critical habitat for listed 
species is a requirement under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and is not a 
discretionary action.
    We agree that more could be done to help ameliorate the threats to 
these 125 species and their habitats. Conservation efforts are 
challenged by the number of threats, the extent of these threats across 
the landscape, and the lack of sufficient resources (e.g., funding) to 
control or eradicate them from all areas where these 125 species occur 
now or occurred historically. In addition, not all of the habitat 
essential to the conservation and recovery of these species is 
contained within areas dedicated to conservation.
    (77) Comment: One commenter stated that he was denied the 
opportunity at the public hearing to poll the audience regarding their 
position on the proposed critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Per our guidelines (USFWS Endangered Species Act 
Public Hearings Handbook. N.D. 19 pp.), our public hearing officer 
respectfully informed the individual that he could question the 
audience when the public hearing was formally concluded but that he 
would not be recorded unless he was presenting testimony. The commenter 
then declined to provide testimony.
    (78) Comment: Several commenters questioned the lack of information 
regarding trespass and liability on private lands that are designated 
as critical habitat. They were concerned that no guidelines are 
provided regarding allowable activities on these lands. They also 
stated their concern regarding lawsuits by environmental organizations 
if critical habitat is harmed. There also is no process for third-party 
appeal.
    Our Response: State law provisions regarding trespass on privately 
owned lands are effective regardless of the designation of critical 
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not create a 
wilderness area, preserve, or wildlife refuge, nor does it open a 
privately owned area to human access or use. It does not alter State 
law with regard to trespass on privately owned lands.
    In response to the second concern, the designation of critical 
habitat on private lands would only affect current or ongoing land 
management practices when there is a Federal nexus. In our June 11, 
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and in this final rule (see 
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard, below), we state 
that activities funded, carried out, or authorized (e.g., issue a 
permit) by a Federal agency that may destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species include, but are not limited 
to:
    (1) Federal actions that would appreciably degrade or destroy the 
physical or biological features for the species including, but not 
limited to, the following: Overgrazing; maintaining or increasing feral 
ungulate levels; clearing or cutting native live trees and shrubs 
(e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing, construction, road building, mining, 
herbicide application); and taking actions that pose a risk of fire.
    (2) Federal actions that would alter watershed characteristics in 
ways that would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter 
natural, wetland, aquatic, or vegetative communities. Such actions 
include new water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, 
and manipulation of vegetation through activities such as the ones 
mentioned in (1), above.
    (3) Recreational activities that may appreciably degrade 
vegetation.
    (4) Mining sand or other minerals.
    (5) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant 
species.
    (6) Importing nonnative species for research, agriculture, and 
aquaculture, and releasing biological control agents.
    Our FEA acknowledges the potential for critical habitat designation 
to increase the vulnerability of private landowners to legal challenges 
regarding their operations (IEc 2015, pp. 5-20). Due to significant 
uncertainties regarding the extent to which the designation will 
increase the probability of legal challenges (over and above the

[[Page 17837]]

presence of the listed species or other critical habitat designations 
(e.g., Blackburn's sphinx moth critical habitat)), the direct costs of 
legal fees and time spent on lawsuits, and the potential outcome of 
lawsuits, the FEA does not estimate a monetary cost from potential 
third-party lawsuits.
    (79) Comment: Several commenters stated the following: (a) The 
proposed rule does not comply with legal requirements (i.e., it does 
not use the best scientific information available) because no public 
input in the collection and analysis of a broad range of information 
was used; (b) broad brush strokes were used, resulting in a far-
reaching designation on State, county, and private lands that will have 
a direct and negative impact on Maui County and its economic well-
being; (c) areas proposed for critical habitat do not have critical 
habitat; and (d) the Service has not addressed the comments in a manner 
that reflects or acknowledges their concerns.
    Our Response: See our responses to Comments (16) and (120). In this 
final rule, we address all comments we received on the proposed 
critical habitat designations described in the June 11, 2012, proposed 
rule (77 FR 34464) and the DEA. We are unable to address statement (c) 
above in the absence of additional details.
    (80) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the 
designation of critical habitat will reduce subsistence hunting and 
gathering.
    Our Response: Game mammal hunting is a recreational and cultural 
activity in Hawaii that is regulated by the Hawaii Department of Land 
and Natural Resources on State and private lands (Hawaii Department of 
Land and Natural Resources 2002). Critical habitat does not give the 
Federal Government authority to control or otherwise manage feral 
animals on non-Federal land. Absent Federal involvement, these land 
management decisions are not affected by the designation of critical 
habitat. It is well-known that game mammals affect listed plant and 
animal species in Hawaii. We believe it is important to develop and 
implement management programs that provide for the recovery of listed 
species and acknowledge the importance of continued ungulate hunting in 
game management areas when it is compatible with the recovery of 
endangered species. In general, the establishment of game management 
areas is not compatible with recovery in areas needed for recovery. We 
welcome opportunities to work closely with the State and other partners 
to ensure that game management programs are implemented in a manner 
consistent with both of these needs.
    Critical habitat does not give the Federal Government authority to 
control or otherwise manage gathering of plants on non-Federal land or 
in the absence of some other Federal action. However, the State of 
Hawaii regulates the gathering of plants that are State listed as 
endangered or threatened on both private and State lands (HRS 
(section195D-4(e), 4(f), and 4(g)). Gathering of native plants that are 
not State listed on private lands is not regulated by the State of 
Hawaii. Gathering of native plants that are not State listed on State 
lands is regulated by the State (Hawaii Administrative Rules--Title 
13).
    (81) Comment: Several commenters stated that this overly broad 
proposed rule is inconsistent with the State's New Day Initiative 
because it has the potential to remove farms and ranches that produce 
local products, including food, from production while providing no 
certainty that these critical habitat designations will result in 
benefit to the species.
    Our Response: Governor Abercrombie's 2010 New Day Initiative 
proposes many important agricultural goals for Hawaii, including, but 
not limited to, preserving and growing more food on Hawaii's 
agricultural lands, repairing old irrigation systems, assisting 
community-based farming entrepreneurial endeavors, raising the demand 
for local food, and developing educational programs to improve 
community and cultural understanding of growing food locally. 
Designation of critical habitat would not affect the ability of private 
landowners or lessees of publicly owned agricultural lands to conduct 
any of these or related agricultural activities, absent a Federal 
nexus. Even in the case of a Federal nexus, critical habitat would not 
prevent the use of agricultural lands, but could result in the 
consideration of potential project modifications or alternatives to 
avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat in 
the course of implementing the intended purpose of the action. See also 
our response to Comment (59), above.
    (82) Comment: One commenter requested that the area proposed as 
critical habitat for Newcomb's tree snail (Newcombia cumingi) on Puu 
Kukui Watershed Preserve be excluded because the landowner can 
accomplish the conservation goals for this tree snail without critical 
habitat designation. The request is based on the existence of a long-
term management plan for the preserve; a history of self-funding 
conservation actions on the preserve; past and current cooperative 
agreements with the Service, including a current agreement to protect 
and enhance habitat for this tree snail; and ongoing implementation of 
actions that benefit the conservation of endangered and threatened 
species.
    Our Response: We proposed critical habitat for Newcomb's tree snail 
on Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve because these lands support the only 
known population of this tree snail and contain the physical or 
biological features of its lowland wet ecosystem habitat and suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve population 
levels that could approach recovery. As described by the commenter, 
recently the Service and the private landowner entered into a 
cooperative agreement to protect and enhance habitat for this tree 
snail. For the reasons described below (see ``Exclusions Based on Other 
Relevant Factors''), we are excluding 8,931 ac (3,614 ha) of land on 
Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve from critical habitat, including the 
portion proposed for Newcomb's tree snail critical habitat.
    (83) Comment: Several commenters stated that they conduct 
conservation actions to control erosion and feral ungulates, and that 
designation of critical habitat may impede conservation actions in the 
future.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenters' concerns, and recognize 
that private landowners conduct voluntary conservation efforts, such as 
efforts to control erosion or soil loss, and fencing to exclude 
nonnative pigs, axis deer, and goats from private lands. It is unclear 
to us if the second part of the comment implies that the designation of 
critical habitat will impede the implementation of conservations 
actions or that the private landowners may not support voluntary 
conservation actions on their private lands in the future if those 
lands are designated critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat will not impede the implementation of conservation actions 
described by these commenters, and in all likelihood provide additional 
support for these habitat-enhancing actions that will also benefit 
listed species. We are concerned and deeply regret that some private 
landowners may not support voluntary conservation actions on their 
private lands in the future should critical habitat be designated on 
their lands. The purpose of designating critical habitat is to 
contribute to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and 
the ecosystems upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, 
triggering regulatory requirements for actions funded,

[[Page 17838]]

authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act, can sometimes appear to be a disincentive to conservation on 
non-Federal lands. Thus, the benefits of excluding areas that are 
covered by partnerships or voluntary conservation efforts can, in 
specific circumstances, be high. For the reasons described below (see 
``Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors''), we are excluding 
84,891 ac (34,354 ha) of private lands on Maui, Lanai, and Molokai from 
critical habitat. Again we note that in the absence of a Federal nexus, 
the designation of critical habitat has no direct regulatory impact on 
private landowners.
    (84) Comment: Several commenters stated that public notice of the 
proposed designation of private land as critical habitat has been 
inadequate. These commenters suggested conducting information meetings 
using a ``talk-story'' approach. That is, conduct informal meetings 
with the public, including landowners with lands within already 
designated critical habitat who can address questions such as the 
impact(s) of critical habitat on their land, including the impact on 
land values, and the benefits, if any, of critical habitat on their 
land, including getting grants for conservation projects such as fences 
to exclude nonnative animals.
    Our Response: We appreciate the concerns regarding our notification 
process of the proposed rule. See also our response, above, to Comment 
(16). We also appreciate the suggestions provided by these commenters 
regarding public information meetings. Although our ability to conduct 
one-one-one meetings with various interest groups throughout Hawaii 
(e.g., community associations, nonprofit interest groups, State and 
Federal agencies, aha mokus) is currently constrained by our resource 
limitations, we will seriously consider adopting a ``talk-story'' 
approach as part of our community outreach efforts as our limited staff 
and resources allow.
    (85) Comment: Several commenters stated that the designation of 
critical habitat would be devastating to an already struggling industry 
(i.e., ranching) due to the effects of the recent drought. In addition, 
a critical habitat designation will burden a private landowner with 
additional Federal, State and local regulations. Critical habitat 
designation could put an end to their livelihood.
    Our Response: See our responses to Comments (50), (55), (56), and 
(59), above. Absent a Federal nexus for a proposed action on private 
property, a critical habitat designation does not prevent or prohibit 
an activity such as ranching on private or State property. As described 
earlier, even in the case of a potential Federal nexus, critical 
habitat does not prevent a private landowner from using their lands for 
ranching or other activities, but requires the Federal action agency to 
ensure that their action does not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat, through potential project modifications or other measures to 
minimize and mitigate the effects of the action.
    (86) Comment: One commenter was concerned regarding a portion of an 
irrigation ditch system within Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 and requested 
that the Service adjust the boundary of the unit above the upper ditch 
system.
    Our Response: We have carefully examined the area of concern and 
have determined that changes in land use had occurred within the 
proposed critical habitat unit that would preclude the area identified 
by the commenter from supporting the primary constituent elements (for 
those species that occupy this unit) and further, the area in question 
is not essential to the conservation of any of the species (for those 
species for which this unit was proposed as unoccupied critical 
habitat). As a consequence, we have concluded that this area does not 
meet our definition of critical habitat and we have removed it from the 
final designation of Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1. See also Summary of 
Changes from Proposed Rule, below.
    (87) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must accord 
native Hawaiians with the same special considerations that are given to 
native Americans, that native Hawaiians have rights vested by law and 
are wards of the State, and that it is our fiduciary duty not to impose 
on those rights.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (35), above.
Public Comments on Proposed Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3
    Several commenters submitted comments regarding the designation of 
critical habitat in proposed Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, and we grouped 
similar comments together relating specifically to this unit below.
    (88) Comment: Four commenters supported designation of the lowland 
dry ecosystem and described Hawaiian lowland dry forests as the most 
critically endangered ecosystem in Hawaii, with less than 3 percent 
remaining Statewide and 5 percent remaining on Maui. Several commenters 
also strongly supported designation of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. 
Another commenter supported the revision (reevaluation) of critical 
habitat for the currently listed dry forest species using the ecosystem 
approach.
    Our Response: We appreciate these comments. Habitat loss and 
degradation of the lowland dry ecosystem is demonstrated by the current 
and ongoing threats of development and urbanization, introduced 
ungulates, nonnative plants, fire, and hurricanes to species and their 
habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (see The Present or Threatened 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in 
our final rule to list as endangered 38 species on the islands of Maui, 
Molokai, and Lanai (78 FR 32014; May 28, 2013)). In this final rule, we 
are designating critical habitat in six units (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
1 through Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 6) totaling 20,740 ac (8,392 ha) for 
30 species in the lowland dry ecosystem on Maui. Twelve of the plant 
species occur only on east Maui, 11 occur only on west Maui, and 7 
occur on both east and west Maui. These lowland dry units provide the 
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the 30 species and require special management 
considerations or protections (e.g., nonnative species control) 
(occupied habitat) or habitat that is essential to the conservation and 
recovery of the species (unoccupied habitat). Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
is particularly unique because, even though close to developed or 
otherwise badly degraded areas, it contains a high concentration of 
native plant species, many comprising the PCEs for species that occur 
within the lowland dry forest, including canopy trees such as Erythrina 
sandwicensis (wiliwili) and Myoporum sandwicense (naio), and subcanopy 
and understory plants such as Capparis sandwichiana (maiapilo), 
Chamaesyce celastroides (akoko), Dodonaea viscosa (aalii), Ipomoea sp. 
(koaliawa and moon flower), Plumbago zeylanica (iliee), Sicyos sp. 
(anunu), Sida fallax (ilima), and Waltheria indica (uhaloa). The very 
rough lava substrate in the area is apparently not preferred by feral 
ungulates, resulting in less herbivory of native plant species, thus 
threats are reduced in this unit and native plant species have a 
greater chance of survival. Due to the currently limited numbers of 
individuals and populations, the expansion or reestablishment of listed 
plant populations in unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation 
of the species and to meet recovery goals. Because of the uniqueness 
and rarity of

[[Page 17839]]

this area in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui, we conclude this 
unit is essential to the recovery of Canavalia pubescens and 16 other 
lowland dry plant species. See also our response to Comment (109), 
below.
    (89) Comment: Several commenters noted the threat of deer and goats 
to Canavalia pubescens throughout its range on Maui, with specific 
impacts to populations on the Palauea lava flow and Ahihi-Kinau. In 
addition, the large loss of C. pubescens individuals at Ahihi-Kinau 
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) illustrates the need for multiple viable 
habitats for this species and increases the significance for protection 
of other areas such as those found within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. 
The commenters also recommended that fenced areas and regular 
monitoring are necessary to protect this species from the threat of 
ungulates in these areas.
    Our Response: We agree that herbivory and habitat modification by 
deer and goats constitute threats to the lowland dry ecosystem in which 
Canavalia pubescens is known to occur on Maui (see The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range and Disease or Predation in our final rule to list as endangered 
38 species on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai (78 FR 32014; May 
28, 2013)). We also agree that recovery of this species will require 
multiple viable sites and that conservation efforts, such as fencing 
and regular monitoring, are necessary to address threats to C. 
pubescens and its habitat from ungulates. In this final rule, for the 
reasons described above (see our response to Comment (44) and (88)), we 
are designating critical habitat in a total of 16,841 ac (6,816 ha) in 
critical habitat units Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 through Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 4 for C. pubescens and 18 other lowland dry plant species. 
These lowland dry units provide the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and require special 
management considerations or protections (e.g., nonnative species 
control) (occupied habitat) or habitat that is essential to the 
conservation and recovery of the species (unoccupied habitat).
    (90) Comment: Several commenters recommended inclusion of 
additional areas to Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, such as the 22-ac 
Palauea Cultural Preserve, and portions of land owned by Makena 
Holdings (Tax Map Key (2) 2-1-008:90), based on the presence of lava 
flows of similar geologic age and origin. These commenters noted that 
the presence of Canavalia pubescens in the Palauea Cultural Preserve 
supports designation of this area as critical habitat. One commenter 
noted that a native plant restoration plan was created for the Palauea 
Cultural Preserve and that the preserve is currently being transferred 
to joint management by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the 
University of Hawaii.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information provided regarding the 
Palauea Cultural Preserve and Tax Map Key (2) 2-1-008:90. We carefully 
reviewed the areas proposed as critical habitat and the recovery needs 
(see Comment (44), (88), and (89)) of Canavalia pubescens on the island 
of Maui. In this final rule, we are designating critical habitat in 
four units in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 1 through Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4) totaling 16,841 ac 
(6,816 ha) for 19 species in the lowland dry ecosystem. A critical 
habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated 
area (e.g., the Palauea Cultural Preserve or portions of TMK (2) 2-1-
008:90) is unimportant or may not be needed for the recovery of the 
species. However, we do note that the Palauea Cultural Preserve is a 
cultivated garden setting, and that individuals of C. pubescens have 
been planted there. Although such an area supports individuals of this 
endangered species, these individual plants in a garden setting do not 
contribute to a self-sustaining occurrence in the wild. For recovery to 
occur, populations must be viable in the wild, where they have the 
potential to contribute further to population growth and expansion. To 
achieve population growth and expansion, there must be evidence that 
the plants are reproducing on their own, meaning that multiple 
generations are successfully produced. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of C. pubescens, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and (2) 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. These protections and management actions will 
continue to contribute to the conservation of this species. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome. We hope to work collaboratively in the future with 
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the University of Hawaii regarding 
the Palauea Cultural Preserve native plant restoration plan.
    (91) Comment: One commenter noted that the accessibility of 
proposed Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides a potential benefit to the 
species that would allow regular monitoring, as well as easy access for 
educational tours and community-based restoration efforts. The 
commenter also noted that the proximity of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 to 
schools, churches, and visitor populations is an ideal location to 
promote ongoing community involvement.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments and agree that 
accessibility may be an important component of the management required 
for the recovery of endangered species. In addition, critical habitat 
designation increases public awareness of the presence of listed 
species and the importance of habitat protection, and provides 
educational benefits resulting from identification of the features 
essential to the conservation of the 17 species for which critical 
habitat is designated in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 and the delineation 
of areas important for their recovery.
    (92) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat 
designation should benefit property owners who wish to develop 
ecotourism industries by increasing their ability to draw tourists to 
natural resource assets on their lands. In addition, the commenter 
stated that development projects adjacent to areas designated as 
critical habitat can also increase their property values by marketing 
pedestrian access to nature preserves. The commenter felt this was 
particularly applicable for Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3.
    Our Response: Section 6.3 of the DEA (also Section 6.3 of the FEA) 
describes the potential incremental benefits of conservation efforts 
for the Maui Nui species, including the potential for property value 
benefits that may result from open space or decreased density of 
development and increased potential for recreation or tourism. We thank 
the commenter for the statements, as the benefits of critical habitat 
are frequently not acknowledged. We are aware that not all property 
owners share the same views regarding beneficial impacts of critical 
habitat designation on their lands.

[[Page 17840]]

    (93) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service failed to 
provide documentation for the occurrence of the listed plant, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. The commenter provided the 
results of a botanical survey (Guinther 2012, pp. 7-8), which did not 
detect the presence of H. brackenridgei on the parcel owned by ATC 
Makena Holdings, LLC (TMK (2) 2-1-008: 108), located within Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3.
    Our Response: The best available information in our files indicates 
the occurrence of Hibiscus brackenridgei within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
3 as recently as 2011 (Oppenheimer 2010bb, in litt.; PEPP 2011, p. 
118). Documentation for this record was cited in our June 11, 2012, 
proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and in the references cited for this final 
rule and available at http://www.regulations.gov. The references cited 
in our proposed rule and in this final rule are available by contacting 
the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Although H. brackenridgei was not detected during 
the survey cited above on the parcel owned by ATC Makena Holdings, LLC, 
this species is present elsewhere in the proposed unit. In addition, we 
have determined that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, including the area in 
the ATC Makena Holdings, LLC, parcel, is essential for the conservation 
of H. brackenridgei and 16 other species for which it is designated 
critical habitat in this unit of the lowland dry ecosystem. Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains one or more of the physical and biological 
features of the lowland dry ecosystem (see also responses to Comment 
(88), (89), and (109), as well as Table 5). Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
is essential to the conservation of these species because it is one of 
the few remaining areas of the lowland dry ecosystem that provides 
multiple essential physical or biological features in the requisite 
combination of appropriate substrate, rainfall, and native plant 
components to potentially successfully support viable populations of 
these species. Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 additionally has the benefit 
of being geographically separated from Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2, and Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4, thus 
providing potential redundancy so that species that occur in this unit 
or are reestablished in this unit are more likely to survive and 
provide for the conservation of species dependent on the lowland dry 
ecosystem in case of catastrophic events such as drought and fire.
    Once known from the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, 
Hawaii, and possibly Kahoolawe, H. brackenridgei is now known only from 
Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. On Lanai, there are only two individuals of 
the species remaining. On Maui, two occurrences of the species are 
known, one in east Maui (about 10 individuals) and one in west Maui (a 
few individuals), both in the lowland dry ecosystem. The recovery 
guidelines for short-lived perennial plant species such as H. 
brackenridgei are 8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals per population 
sustained over a minimum of 5 years (Service 1999, pp. iv-v); this 
translates to a minimum recovery goal of approximately 2,400 to 3,000 
individuals in total, in 8 to 10 self-sustaining populations. To meet 
such a goal, areas of currently unoccupied but suitable habitat within 
the historical range of H. brackenridgei in the lowland dry ecosystem 
on east Maui are essential for the recovery of this species. With so 
few individuals left, extensive population growth and reestablishment 
of additional populations will be required in areas that are not 
currently occupied by H. brackenridgei or other of the Maui Nui 
species. Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides one of the best remaining 
examples of the lowland dry ecosystem type, with good potential to 
support the population growth, expansion, and reestablishment essential 
to achieve the conservation of H. brackenridgei and the 16 other 
species native to the lowland dry ecosystem on Maui for which critical 
habitat is designated in this unit (see also responses to Comment (88), 
(89), and (109) regarding the characteristics specific to Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3 that we conclude are essential to the conservation of the 
Maui Nui species).
    (94) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Alectryon macrococcus (mahoe) because 
this species is a dryland forest tree found above 1,200 ft elevation. 
The commenter stated that Wagner et al. (1990) attributed the decline 
of this species to seed predation by boring insects and rats. According 
to the commenter, neither of these threats could be easily controlled 
for this species within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 at Makena, so the 
proposed critical habitat unit is not suitable. In addition, the 
commenter implied that the few individuals known from the lowland dry 
environment likely occur in the exclosures at Auwahi above 3,300 ft, 
based on the references provided by the Service in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: Wagner et al. (1999, p. 1,225) describes the 
elevational range of Alectryon macrococcus as occurring between 1,200 
ft to 3,500 ft (360 to 1,070 m). Based on this information, and 
historical and current occurrence data in our files, Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3 may not be suitable for this species because the elevation 
of this unit, 320 to 1,200 ft (100 to 360 m), is below the elevational 
range described for A. macrococcus by Wagner et al. (1999, p. 1,225). 
Despite the lack of more comprehensive survey data and the possibility 
for the discovery of new and unknown populations of native plant 
species, the best available scientific data on current and historical 
occurrences for this species does not support the designation of 
critical habitat in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 for A. macrococcus. 
Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for A. macrococcus 
(var. auwahiensis) in critical habitat unit Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
at this time.
    (95) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Bonamia menziesii because only a few 
individuals are known from the lowland dry ecosystem (at Puu o Kali, 
Kaloi, and Kanaio), and cited the information on page 77 FR 34515 in 
our proposed rule published on June 11, 2012. The commenter added that 
this species is possibly not an endemic species (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 
550).
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not suitable for Bonamia menziesii for the 
following reasons: The occurrence of only a few individuals within a 
particular area does not necessarily indicate that the area is 
unsuitable. This species was historically wide-ranging in the lowland 
dry areas of east Maui, and has since declined in numbers (HBMP 2010). 
The locations cited by the commenter where B. menziesii currently 
occurs (within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 and Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2) 
contain one or more of the physical and biological features that are 
present within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. Also, since publication of 
our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464) and during the public 
comment periods, we received information that additional individuals of 
B. menziesii have been found in the lowland dry ecosystem of east Maui 
(on State lands in Maui--Lowland Dry-- Unit 1; Higashino 2013, pers. 
comm.), adding to the number of individuals of the species known from 
the lowland dry ecosystem. The recovery guidelines for short-lived 
perennial plant species such as B.

[[Page 17841]]

menziesii are 8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals per population, 
sustained over a minimum of 5 years (Service 1999, pp. iv-v). 
Therefore, areas of suitable habitat within the historical range of B. 
menziesii in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui are essential for 
the conservation of this species, as significant growth and 
reestablishment of B. menziesii populations in areas not currently 
occupied by the species will be required to achieve these goals. Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains one or more of the physical and biological 
features of the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5), similar to those 
at the locations cited by the commenter; it also provides a site with 
particularly good potential for supporting future populations, due to 
the combination of essential features that occur there (see our 
responses to Comment (88), (89), and (93), above, and (109), below). 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides the physical or biological features 
essential for the reestablishment of wild populations of the species. 
Due to the currently limited numbers of individuals and populations, 
the expansion or reestablishment of populations in unoccupied areas are 
essential to the conservation of the species and to meet recovery 
goals.
    We believe the commenter's second point regarding the endemism of 
B. menziesii incorrectly interprets Austin's discussion in Wagner et 
al. (1999, p. 550). In the Manual of Flowering Plants of Hawaii, Austin 
(1999, p. 550) questioned the origin of the genus, not the species. 
Austin concluded that ``Bonamia menziesii apparently has close 
affinities with taxa of northwestern South and Central America,'' which 
we interpret as suggesting a possible origin of the Hawaiian species, 
and not a suggestion that there is a lack of distinction between the 
Hawaiian and potential Central and South American members of this genus 
at the species level.
    (96) Comment: One commenter stated that Colubrina oppositifolia is 
easy to propagate in lowland dry to mesic areas and easily incorporated 
into landscaping in these ecosystems, which suggests Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3 is not critical to its recovery. The commenter also 
appeared to question the suitability of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 due 
to the recent discovery (1995) of C. oppositifolia in the lowland mesic 
ecosystem on west Maui, and unpublished reports of its historical 
occurrence in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui, citing 
information at 77 FR 34516 in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule.
    Our Response: The historical occurrence of Colubrina oppositifolia 
on east Maui in the lowland dry ecosystem (HBMP 2010) and its ``recent 
discovery on west Maui in 1995'' in the lowland mesic ecosystem 
indicates the need for critical habitat on both east and west Maui in 
those respective ecosystems. In fact, the commenter's statement that C. 
oppositifolia is easy to propagate and easily incorporated into 
landscaping in the lowland dry and mesic ecosystems also suggests that 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains suitable habitat for this species. 
Remaining areas of suitable habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem are 
essential to the conservation of the species, as evidenced by the wide 
gap between the recovery goals for a species such as C. oppositifolia 
and its current status. The recovery guidelines for long-lived 
perennial plant species such as C. oppositifolia are 8 to 10 
populations of 100 individuals per population, sustained over a minimum 
of 5 years (Service 1996, p. iv), or approximately 800 to 1,000 
individuals in total in 8 to 10 self-sustaining populations. Currently, 
in Maui Nui, this species is known only from about five individuals in 
two locations on west Maui, and from one possible individual on east 
Maui that has not been relocated in over 20 years. Therefore, areas of 
suitable habitat within the historical range of C. oppositifolia 
(including lowland dry and lowland mesic ecosystems) on both east and 
west Maui are essential to achieve the increase in numbers of 
individuals and occurrences of this species to provide for its 
conservation and recovery. Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides the 
physical or biological features essential for the reestablishment of 
wild populations of the species, and is a site with particularly good 
potential for supporting future populations, due to the combination of 
essential features that occur there (see also our responses to Comment 
(88), (89), and (93), above, and (109), below).
    (97) Comment: One commenter questioned the suitability of Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 for Ctenitis squamigera based on Palmer's (2003) 
description of the habitat of this species as the mesic forest floor 
above 590 ft on all the main Hawaiian Islands except Hawaii Island and 
possibly Kauai. The commenter also suggested that the occurrence 
records for this species cited at 77 FR 34516 in our June 11, 2012, 
proposed rule lack specificity, but tend to support the Palmer 
description.
    Our Response: The information provided by the commenter regarding 
the geographic range and elevation at which Ctenitis squamigera may 
occur is accurate. Historically, this species was found on Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii. Currently, there are 12 occurrences, 
totaling approximately 100 individuals, on the islands of Lanai, 
Molokai, and Maui. Data in our files indicate that C. squamigera is 
known from the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (HBMP 2010). Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by C. squamigera, but 
contains one or more of the physical and biological features of the 
lowland dry ecosystem (see Comment (88), (89), (93), (109), and Table 
5), including the appropriate native plant species, rainfall, and 
substrate to support the species, and also includes the elevation cited 
by the commenter. The recovery guidelines for short-lived perennial 
plant species such as C. squamigera are 8 to 10 populations of 300 
individuals per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years 
(Service 1998, p. iv), or an objective of a minimum of approximately 
2,400 to 3,000 individuals. Areas of suitable habitat in the lowland 
dry ecosystem are limited within the historical range of this species. 
Because of the low number of individuals at known locations of this 
species (100 individuals across 12 scattered occurrences, and recalling 
that an occurrence is not equivalent to a self-sustaining population), 
areas of unoccupied suitable habitat including Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
3 are essential for the reestablishment of populations that will be 
required to achieve the conservation and recovery of C. squamigera. See 
also our response to Comment (109), below.
    (98) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Flueggea neowawraea. The commenter 
acknowledged that individuals of this species are reported at 820 ft 
elevation and above, in the lowland dry ecosystem at Auwahi. However, 
according to the commenter, the environment in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
3 is far too dry in contrast to the Auwahi exclosures, where this 
species is currently found, and which are located above 3,100 
elevation, receive regular fog drip, and are able to support kikuyu 
(Pennisetum clandestinum), a widespread nonnative pasture grass and 
dominant ground cover.
    Our Response: The information provided by the commenter regarding 
the elevation and occurrence of Flueggea neowawraea in the Auwahi 
exclosures is accurate. Data in our files indicate that F. neowawraea 
is known from the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (HBMP 2010). 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains one or more of the

[[Page 17842]]

physical and biological features of the lowland dry ecosystem (see 
Table 5), including the elevational range cited by the commenter. The 
recovery guidelines for long-lived perennial plant species such as F. 
neowawraea are 8 to 10 populations of 100 individuals per population, 
sustained over a minimum of 5 years (Service 1999, pp. iv-v), for an 
objective of roughly 800 to 1,000 individuals total in these multiple 
populations. Historically, F. neowawraea was known from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, there are 5 occurrences on Kauai 
(26 individuals), 1 occurrence on Oahu (1 individual), 2 individuals on 
Maui, 4 occurrences on Hawaii (8 individuals), and no known occurrences 
on Molokai (PEPP 2009, p. 25; PEPP 2012). Although there are multiple 
occurrences of F. neowawraea, most are of only 1 or a few individuals, 
for a total of fewer than 40 plants known. The species is far from 
meeting the recovery objective of 800 to 1,000 individuals in 8 to 10 
self-sustaining populations of at least 100 individuals each. 
Therefore, areas of suitable habitat within the historical range of F. 
neowawraea in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui are essential for 
the recovery of this species. Although areas of suitable habitat in the 
lowland dry ecosystem are now limited, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
provides one of the few remaining areas that includes several of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
plant species that depend upon this habitat type, including appropriate 
elevation, substrate, rainfall, and associated native plant species 
(see Comment (88), (89), and (93), above, and (109), below, for 
additional information on the characteristics specific to this unit 
that we have determined are essential for the conservation of the Maui 
Nui species). Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 also provides unoccupied 
habitat separated from Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Lowland Dry--
Unit 2, and Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4, so that, in case of catastrophic 
events such as drought and fire, one or more occurrences of this 
species could persist and provide for its conservation.
    (99) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Melanthera kamolensis. The reason 
provided by the commenter was that this species is ``extremely rare; 
known only from a small population in Kamole Gulch, southeastern Maui 
(Wagner et al. 1990, p. 337).''
    Our Response: The information provided by the commenter regarding 
the known location of Melanthera kamolensis is accurate. However, M. 
kamolensis is known historically from three collections in an area 
extending approximately 1 mile (1,000 m) on east Maui (Wagner et al. 
1999, p. 337), and currently known only from a single occurrence with 
30 to 40 individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (HBMP 
2010, Medeiros 2010, in litt.). Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains one 
or more of the physical and biological features of the lowland dry 
ecosystem (Table 5), similar to those at the location cited by the 
commenter. The recovery guidelines for short-lived perennial plant 
species such as M. kamolensis are 8 to 10 populations of 300 
individuals per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years 
(Service 1997, pp. iv-v), for a total of 2,400 to 3,000 individuals in 
8 to 10 self-sustaining populations. With a single known occurrence of 
only 30 to 40 individuals at present, population growth will be 
essential to the conservation of the species, as will the 
reestablishment of multiple new populations in areas of currently 
unoccupied lowland dry habitat. Therefore, additional areas of suitable 
habitat within the historical range of M. kamolensis in the lowland dry 
ecosystem on east Maui are essential for the recovery of this species. 
Although areas of suitable habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem are now 
limited, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides one of the few remaining 
areas that includes several of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the plant species that depend upon 
this habitat type, including appropriate elevation, substrate, 
rainfall, and associated native plant species. Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
3 provides unoccupied habitat separated from Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2, and Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4, so that, in 
case of catastrophic events such as drought and fire, an occurrence of 
this species could persist. See also responses to Comment (88), (89), 
(93), and (109) for additional details of the characteristics specific 
to this unit that we have determined are essential to the conservation 
of the Maui Nui species.
    (100) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Melicope adscendens. The primary reason 
provided by the commenter was that this species is ``known only from 
mesic forest at Auwahi (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 1,183).'' In addition, 
the commenter argued that the environment in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
is far too dry in contrast to the Auwahi exclosures, which are situated 
above 3,100 ft, receive regular fog drip, and are able to support 
kikuyu, the widespread nonnative pasture grass, as the dominant ground 
cover.
    Our Response: The information provided by the commenter from Wagner 
et al. (1990, p. 1,183) regarding the geographic range of Melicope 
adscendens in mesic forest on east Maui is accurate, although Wagner et 
al. do not give an elevational range for this species. The elevation of 
the Auwahi exclosures range from 3,200 to 4,400 ft (980 to 1,340 m) in 
the dry and mesic forest ecosystems on east Maui (TNC 2007; LHWRP 2010, 
pp. 1-4). We have determined, based on the best available scientific 
data for this species, that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 does not provide 
the physical or biological feature of elevation that is considered 
essential for the conservation of M. adscendens, and that this 
unoccupied area is not essential to the conservation of the species. 
Currently, there are areas within the required elevational range of the 
species within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 that provide habitat for this 
species' conservation. Therefore, based on the best scientific data 
available at this time, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not designated as 
critical habitat for M. adscendens in this final rule as it does not 
meet the definition of critical habitat for this species (see Summary 
of Changes from Proposed Rule, below).
    (101) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Melicope mucronulata. The primary 
reason provided by the commenter was a statement cited in Wagner et al. 
(1990, p. 1,196) that this species was ``not seen on Maui in recent 
time, but previously collected from the south slope of east Maui 
mountain.'' The commenter also cited our June 11, 2012, proposed rule 
(77 FR 34464) that this species is ``not known to be an inhabitant of 
the lowland dry ecosystem.''
    Our Response: The tree species Melicope mucronulata currently 
occurs only on the island of Molokai, where a total of four individuals 
are known to occur, three in one location, and one in another. Its 
current status on Maui is not known, although on east Maui, M. 
mucronulata is known historically from one occurrence in the lowland 
dry ecosystem, and from one occurrence in the montane dry ecosystem 
(TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The recovery guidelines for long-lived perennial 
plant species such as M. mucronulata are 8 to 10 populations of 100 
individuals per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years and 
within its historical range (Service 1997, pp. iv-v). This translates

[[Page 17843]]

to a total of at least 800 to 1,000 individuals in 8 to 10 populations 
across its historical range. Significant population growth and the 
reestablishment of populations in suitable habitat across its 
historical range will be required to achieve the conservation of this 
species. Areas of suitable habitat within the historical range of M. 
mucronulata include the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui (TNC 2007; 
HBMP 2010). Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 contains one or more of the 
physical and biological features of the lowland dry ecosystem (see 
Comment (88), (89), (93), (109), and Table 5). This unit is considered 
particularly important for the recovery and conservation of M. 
mucronulata because the last known location of an individual of this 
species was located in or near Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. We therefore 
consider Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 essential to the conservation of 
this species, as the last known occurrence of the species there 
indicates this specific area has a high likelihood of either supporting 
unknown remaining representatives of the species, or at least the 
potential to support the species in response to recovery efforts. We 
are unable to find the statement cited by the commenter that M. 
mucronulata is ``not known to be an inhabitant of the lowland dry 
ecosystem.'' Our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (see 77 FR 34521) states, 
``The occurrence status of M. mucronulata in the lowland dry and 
montane dry ecosystems on east Maui is unknown.''
    (102) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Neraudia sericea. The primary reason 
provided by the commenter was that this species is ``found above 2,200 
ft in mesic to dry forest (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 1,304).'' The 
commenter also cited information in our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 
77 FR 34464) that ``on east Maui, (this species) is now known only from 
Kahikinui, and not observed in lowland dry ecosystem since 1900.''
    Our Response: On east Maui, Neraudia sericea is known historically 
from the lowland dry and montane dry ecosystem, and currently from 
multiple occurrences in the montane dry ecosystem (TNC 2007; HBMP 
2010). Historical information for N. sericea indicates it was once 
wide-ranging on east Maui and well within the lowland dry ecosystem, 
and at elevations as low as 900 ft (270 m) (HBMP 2010), and also was 
known from Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe (Wagner et al. 1999cc, p. 
1,304). The recovery guidelines for short-lived perennial plant species 
such as N. sericea are 8 to 10 populations of 300 individuals per 
population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years and within its 
historical range (Service 1999, pp. iv-v). The conservation of this 
species will therefore require attaining a total of 2,400 to 3,000 
individuals in 8 to 10 self-sustaining populations across its 
historical range. Currently, this species is known from a total of five 
individuals at a single location, at Kahikinui on east Maui (HBMP 2010; 
Medeiros 2010, in litt.). Significant population growth, expansion and 
reestablishment in suitable habitat across its historical range will be 
essential to the conservation of this species. Although areas of 
suitable habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem are now limited, Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 provides one of the few remaining areas that 
includes several of the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the plant species that depend upon this habitat 
type, including appropriate elevation, substrate, rainfall, and 
associated native plant species (see also Comment (88), (89), (93), and 
(109)). Areas of suitable habitat within the historical range of N. 
sericea include the lowland dry ecosystem on east Maui. Considering all 
of this information, we have determined that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
is within the historical range of this species, contains one or more of 
the physical and biological features of the lowland dry ecosystem (see 
Table 5), and is essential to its conservation to attain the recovery 
goals as stated above.
    (103) Comment: One commenter stated that Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 
may not be suitable habitat for Solanum incompletum. The primary reason 
provided by the commenter was that this species is ``found above 2,200 
ft in mesic to dry forest (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 1,271).'' The 
commenter also cited information in our June 11, 2012, proposed rule 
(77 FR 34464) that this species is ``apparently no longer extant on 
Maui.''
    Our Response: According to Symon (in Wagner et al. 1999, p. 1,271), 
Solanum incompletum occurs in dry to mesic forest, diverse mesic 
forest, and subalpine forest, from 2,000 to 6,600 ft (600 to 2,020 m) 
on Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii Island. The broad 
elevational range and distribution among islands suggests that S. 
incompletum may occupy a broad range of ecosystems. Although this 
species no longer occurs on Maui, historically it was reported from the 
lowland dry ecosystem in the area of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 on east 
Maui (TNC 2007; HBMP 2010). The recovery guidelines for short-lived 
perennial plant species such as S. incompletum are 8 to 10 populations 
of 300 individuals per population, sustained over a minimum of 5 years 
and within its historical range (Service 1999, pp. iv-v). The 
conservation of this species will therefore require a total of 
approximately 2,400 to 3,000 individuals in 8 to 10 self-sustaining 
populations across its historical range, which formerly included five 
islands. Currently, this species is known from 3 occurrences totaling 
14 individuals on the single island of Hawaii (PEPP 2009, p. 26). 
Significant population growth, expansion, and reestablishment in 
suitable habitat across its historical range will be essential to the 
conservation of this species. Areas of suitable habitat within the 
historical range of S. incompletum include the lowland dry ecosystem on 
east Maui. Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is in the area where S. 
incompletum was once found on east Maui, and is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides one of the few 
remaining areas that includes several of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the plant species that depend 
upon this habitat type, including appropriate elevation, substrate, 
rainfall, and associated native plant species (see responses to Comment 
(88), (89), and (93), as well as (109)). We therefore conclude that 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is essential to the conservation of the 
species in order to attain the recovery goals for this species.
    (104) Comment: Several commenters noted the occurrence of the 
endangered plant Canavalia pubescens (awikiwiki) on lands owned by 
Honuaula Partners and the threat of development posed by the proposed 
Honuaula (also known as Wailea 670) development within Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3. The commenters supported Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 as 
proposed, and likewise did not support the developer's proposal to set 
aside an area less than the maximum acreage specified by County zoning 
conditions. One commenter recommended extending the northern boundary 
of the unit to include the historic rock wall ``that demarcates the 
remnant dry forest habitat from the deep soil habitat which is devoid 
of native plant species.'' The commenters also did not support the 
conservation measures included in the developer's draft State and 
Federal habitat conservation plan (HCP).
    Our Response: We are aware that Canavalia pubescens occurs on lands 
owned by Honuaula Partners and appreciate the commenters' support for 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. We note

[[Page 17844]]

the suggestion to extend the northern boundary of the unit but were 
provided no supporting information to justify this change in the unit 
boundary. Honuaula Partners, LLC, has been working with the State 
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and the Service to 
develop a State and Federal HCP that addresses impacts to the 
endangered Blackburn's sphinx moth, the endangered plant C. pubescens, 
and other listed plant species and their habitat. A draft of this plan 
has been released for public comment by the Hawaii Department of Land 
and Natural Resources. The HCP applicant is revising the draft HCP and 
we anticipate a request for public comments based on the updated draft. 
As this HCP is being considered in a separate regulatory process that 
is not yet completed, it is inappropriate for us to respond to the 
statements regarding the land acreage set aside and County zoning 
conditions, and the conservation measures included in the draft HCP in 
this rule.
    (105) Comment: One commenter stated that all remaining habitat for 
Canavalia pubescens is essential to its conservation, and exclusion of 
habitat in the Wailea 670 (Honuaula Partners, LLC) development would 
very likely contribute to the extinction of the species.
    Our Response: We carefully reviewed the areas proposed as critical 
habitat and the recovery needs of Canavalia pubescens in the lowland 
dry and coastal ecosystems on the islands of Maui and Lanai, 
respectively (77 FR 34464). In this final rule, for the reasons 
described above (see our response to Comment (44), (74), (88), (89), 
(93), and (109)), critical habitat is designated for C. pubescens and 
18 other plants in four lowland dry critical habitat units (Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 1 through Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4). Proposed 
critical habitat on Lanai is excluded from final designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors, below).
    (106) Comment: One commenter requested that the land owned by 
Honuaula Partners, LLC, in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 be excluded from 
critical habitat designation pursuant to the criteria under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act and on the basis of the draft habitat conservation 
plan under development. The commenter also added that Honuaula 
Partners, LLC, wishes to use its lands in a way that would actively 
help conserve and assist in the recovery of endangered and threatened 
species, and added that Honuaula Partners, LLC, looks forward to 
partnering with the Service and Hawaii DLNR to create mitigation 
measures that will benefit many other species as well. The commenter 
stated that designation of critical habitat on land owned by Honuaula 
Partners, LLC, will constrain their ability to develop their property 
to generate income to support conservation actions, and be less 
beneficial to the species.
    Our Response: The draft Federal HCP is being developed and is under 
revision. Therefore, at this time, we are not excluding lands owned by 
Honuaula Partners, LLC in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. See also our responses to Comment (105) and (107).
    (107) Comment: One commenter stated that the Honuaula project will 
provide significant economic benefits to Maui and the Kihei-Makena 
region over the coming 2 decades.
    Our Response: The Service does not anticipate loss of economic 
benefits of this project to Maui. The Honuaula project, a master 
planned community with residential, commercial, and recreational uses, 
has been in development for many years, and the developer, Honuaula 
Partners, LLC, has been working with the Service to develop an HCP as 
part of its application for an incidental take permit. The draft HCP 
considers the impacts of the project on Blackburn's sphinx moth and the 
nene (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis), as well as the Maui Nui 
species. The draft HCP includes a variety of conservation measures, 
including a 40-acre on-site conservation easement and 354 acres of off-
site conservation easements. In response to the proposed critical 
habitat rule for the Maui Nui species, the Service made some additional 
conservation recommendations to Honuaula Partners. In response to these 
recommendations, Honuaula Partners elected to provide $125,000 to 
contribute to a fencing project in lowland dry habitat, perform fence 
maintenance, and to include an additional nine plant species in their 
outplanting efforts. Because these measures were not planned prior to 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Maui Nui species, 
our FEA considers this cost to be an incremental impact of the 
designation (IEc 2015, p. 3-16-3-17). There may additional 
administrative costs associated with section 7 consultation as well, 
estimated at $4,000 (these costs, however, would be borne primarily if 
not entirely by the Service). Finally, there are unquantified impacts 
associated with project delays to allow for revision of the draft HCP, 
and there may be some additional costs associated with any additional 
measures that may be recommended by the Service to avoid adverse 
effects to critical habitat. Such costs are, however, only potential 
and uncertain at this time (IEc 2015, p. 3-17). The roughly $130,000 
cost of additional conservation measures and administrative effort is a 
low end estimate of the incremental impacts of critical habitat 
designation on this project. However, it is important to note that the 
purpose of these conservation recommendations is to allow the Honuaula 
project to move forward; there is no information to suggest that the 
anticipated economic benefits to this area will not be realized. See 
also our response to Comment (106).
    (108) Comment: One commenter stated that the Makena Property in 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not occupied by any of the current or 
proposed endangered species and, unless the Service determines that the 
area is necessary for the conservation of the species, is not necessary 
for the conservation of any of the listed species (50 CFR 
424.02(d)(2)).
    Our Response: See our responses to Comment (44), (74), (88), (89), 
(93), (95) through (99), (101) through (103), and (109). For the 
reasons described in this rule, we have determined that the area within 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is occupied by Canavalia pubescens and 
provides the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of this and 16 other species, and these features require 
special management considerations or protections. We have also 
determined that the unit is essential for the recovery and conservation 
of 16 listed lowland dry plant species as unoccupied habitat. Please 
see the Methods section of this document for a detailed discussion of 
how we determined that the area currently occupied by each of these 
species is inadequate to provide for their conservation, and that 
unoccupied habitat is essential for the conservation of the Maui Nui 
plant species. In addition, our responses to the comments referenced 
above underscore the habitat characteristics specific to Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3 that makes this particular unit essential to the 
conservation of all of these 17 plant species.
    (109) Comment: One commenter stated the Makena Property in Maui--
Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not a suitable environment for many of the 
listed species, and that the June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) 
ignores the impact on this property from drought, invasive plants, 
deer, stock grazing, insect predators, agriculture, and miscellaneous 
land disturbances.
    Our Response: See our responses to Comment (44), (74) (88), (89), 
(93), (95)

[[Page 17845]]

through (99), and (101) through 103). Although Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 
3 is within an area affected by invasive plants and other disturbances, 
this unit has the capability to be functionally restored to support the 
physical and biological features and provide essential habitat for the 
17 species for which it is designated critical habitat. Due to its 
relative accessibility, the lowland dry ecosystem is one of the most 
negatively affected native habitats on the island of Maui, experiencing 
current and ongoing threats of development and urbanization, introduced 
ungulates, nonnative plants, fire, and hurricanes. As a result, there 
are no areas of lowland dry habitat that remain in pristine condition 
or are unaffected to some degree by these various deleterious agents. 
For this reason, an area such as Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 that still 
maintains relatively high potential for restoration is particularly 
valuable for the recovery of the Maui Nui species that depend on this 
habitat, and is therefore considered essential to their conservation. 
See also the Methods section regarding ``Unoccupied Areas'' for 
additional details on the essential nature of unoccupied areas with the 
inherent potential for restoration to support reintroduced populations.
    (110) Comment: One commenter stated that the cost of reintroduction 
would be tremendous because the Makena Property in Maui--Lowland Dry--
Unit 3 is not occupied by any of the current or proposed endangered 
species.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the Makena Property is not 
currently known to be occupied by any of the 17 species for which 
Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is designated as critical habitat; however, 
other areas of the unit are occupied by Canavalia pubescens with some 
individuals within 220 ft (68 m) of the Makena Property boundary. In 
addition, due to the small population sizes, few numbers of 
individuals, and reduced geographic range of each of the 17 species for 
which critical habitat is here designated, we have determined that a 
designation limited to the known present range of each species would be 
inadequate to achieve the conservation of those species. For the 
reasons described above, and reiterated in our response to Comment 
(109), all of Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, whether occupied or 
unoccupied, is considered essential to the conservation of the 17 
species for which it is designated. The areas believed to be 
unoccupied, and that may have been unoccupied at the time of listing, 
which includes the Makena Property, have been determined to be 
essential for the conservation of the species because they provide the 
physical or biological features necessary for the expansion of existing 
wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations within the 
historical range of the species (see Comment (44), (74) (88), (89), 
(93), (95) through (99), (101) through 103) and (109)). We recognize 
that species recovery actions will require substantial resources. 
However, critical habitat designation does not obligate the land owner 
to undertake any conservation measures.
    (111) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule fails to 
acknowledge that the boundaries of the proposed unit Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 3 includes their property.
    Our Response: Our June 11, 2012, proposed rule does not identify 
landownership for individual parcels, nor is it possible to do so given 
the constraints on resolution for maps published in the Federal 
Register. However, we endeavored to reach all landowners whose property 
was within proposed critical habitat by letter following publication of 
the June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) and following 
publication of our January 31, 2013, document reopening the comment 
period on the proposed rule (78 FR 6785) (see our response to Comment 
(45), above).
    (112) Comment: Some commenters questioned the criteria used to 
determine the proposed unit boundaries for Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3. 
The commenters stated that the ``boundary lines do not correspond to 
existing property boundaries, geological features, soil types or 
vegetation,'' and, therefore, the commenters suggested that the 
``process was broad brush and driven, at least partly, by 
considerations other than those mandated by law'' and that the 
designation is likely to be considered arbitrary and capricious.
    Our Response: As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used 
the best scientific data available in determining those areas that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Maui Nui species, by identifying the occurrence 
data for each species and determining the primary constituent elements 
based on the ecosystems upon which they depend, as well as other 
relevant factors. The information we used is described in our June 11, 
2012, proposed rule and in this final rule (see Methods). The criteria 
used to identify critical habitat boundaries, including the boundaries 
for Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, are described in our proposed rule (77 
FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and in this final rule (see below, Criteria 
Used to Identify Critical Habitat). Boundaries for this unit in 
particular were determined using current and historical species 
locations and the presence of the physical and biological features 
based on rainfall data, soil type data and observations from on-site 
surveys including locations and distribution of the endangered 
Canavalia pubescens, along with the distribution other native lowland 
dry plant species. As defined in section (3)(5)(C) of the Act, critical 
habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be 
occupied by the threatened or endangered species.
    (113) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule fails to 
adequately explain the portion of the 6,537 ac (2,645 ha) owned by 
Ulupalakua Ranch under consideration for exclusion from critical 
habitat designation in Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3.
    Our Response: Our June 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464) 
identified some of the specific landowners under consideration for 
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In that proposed rule, we 
indicated that we were considering excluding 6,537 ac (2,645 ha) of 
land owned by Ulupalakua Ranch under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we 
presented a discussion of our rationale in Conservation Partnerships on 
Non-Federal Lands. In addition, Figure 5--Ulupalakua Ranch (see 77 FR 
34464; June 11, 2012) presented the specific area owned by Ulupalakua 
Ranch under consideration for exclusion. In this final rule, we have 
excluded 6,537 ac (2,645 ha) of land on Ulupalakua Ranch from critical 
habitat (see below, Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, and 
Figure 5--Ulupalakua Ranch, in the document ``Supplementary Information 
for the Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species,'' available on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071).
Public Comments Specific to the Island of Lanai
    (114) Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to the 
designation of critical habitat on private lands on Lanai because the 
commenter believes the designation will negatively impact the rights of 
private landowners, will serve as a disincentive for landowners to 
participate in voluntary conservation efforts, and will have negative 
consequences for Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, who had committed 
substantial resources and efforts towards implementing a 2002 
memorandum of agreement with the

[[Page 17846]]

Service. This commenter stated that the designation of additional 
critical habitat is unnecessary in light of the already ongoing 
conservation management activities benefiting endangered species on the 
island and will result in little if any additional benefit to the 
species, and that any limited regulatory, educational, or recovery 
benefits that might arise from the designation are greatly outweighed 
by the benefits of encouraging and acknowledging voluntary conservation 
efforts by other private landowners.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes the importance of landowner 
cooperation for recovery of listed species. This is especially true for 
the island of Lanai, which is almost entirely under private ownership 
by two entities (Castle and Cooke Properties, Inc., and Lanai Resorts, 
LLC, now known as Pulama Lanai). Conservation of rare species on Lanai 
requires control of threats from alien plant and animal species, fire, 
and proactive propagation and translocation of species into their 
historical range where they no longer occur. Castle and Cooke 
Properties, Inc., and Pulama Lanai cooperate with the Service, the 
State of Hawaii, and other organizations to implement voluntary 
conservation activities on their lands that result in conservation 
benefits to the species and their habitat. We agree with the commenter 
that listed species can realize significant benefits as a result of 
conservation partnerships with private landowners; because the majority 
of endangered or threatened species are found on private lands, the 
Secretary places great value on such partnerships. For the reasons 
described below (see ``Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors''), 
the Secretary has determined that the benefit of excluding the areas 
proposed for critical habitat on Lanai outweighs the benefits of 
including them in the designation; therefore we have excluded all lands 
on Lanai from critical habitat in this final rule under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (115) Comment: One commenter opposed the overlap of proposed 
critical habitat on Lanai with water utility infrastructure (i.e., 
pipelines, tanks, reservoirs, etc.), communications infrastructure 
(i.e., antennae, roadways, etc.), existing electric utility 
infrastructure owned by Maui Electric Company, Ltd. (MECO), family 
housing, parks, golf courses, the Lanai Cemetery, and the Lanai Pine 
Sporting Clays and Archery Range (Sporting Clay Range), located along 
Keomuku Road. The commenter stated that these areas do not contain the 
PCEs and should not be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct that structures and 
urbanized landscape areas such as those mentioned above are considered 
manmade features and therefore would not be considered critical habitat 
pursuant to this final rule, because these features and structures 
normally do not contain, and are not likely to develop, any primary 
constituent elements and do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat. Thus, unless the operation and maintenance of such facilities 
would indirectly affect critical habitat, the facilities would not be 
affected by section 7 of the Act. Furthermore, operation and 
maintenance of existing manmade features and structures adjacent to and 
within critical habitat are not subject to section 7 consultation, 
unless they involve Federal funding or permitting and they affect the 
critical habitat or the species. We removed the area containing the 
existing water utility infrastructure owned by MECO for the reasons 
described above (see response to Comment (40)), because these lands are 
modified by the infrastructure and do not contain the physical or 
biological features required by the species, are not likely to develop 
the primary constituent elements, and are not otherwise essential to 
the conservation of these species.
    (116) Comment: One commenter objected to the overlap of proposed 
Lanai--Dry Cliff--Unit 1 with the Experience Golf Course at Koele.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct that structures and 
urbanized landscape areas such as golf courses are considered manmade 
features and therefore are not considered critical habitat pursuant to 
this final rule, because these features do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat.
    (117) Comment: The proposed Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 includes a 
portion of the planned Lanai wind farm to be located on approximately 
7,000 acres in the northwest portion of the island of Lanai. Meetings 
or coordination with several local, State, and Federal agencies have 
been conducted to identify the potential permits or authorizations that 
may be required for various parts of the proposed project. These 
Federal permits and any Federal funds used as part of the Lanai wind 
project will trigger a burdensome and costly obligation for 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. The wind project is not 
presently subject to this consultation obligation, and current project 
budgets do not anticipate this additional expense, nor should the 
project have to incur this expense.
    Our Response: For the reasons described below (see ``Exclusions 
Based on Other Relevant Factors''), critical habitat is not designated 
on the island of Lanai in this final rule, as a consequence of 
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we wish to point 
out that exclusion from critical habitat does not relieve the planned 
Lanai wind farm from required Federal permits and consultations with 
the Service, due to the impacts of the construction, running, and 
maintenance of the wind farm on Federal and State listed species 
present in the project area (for example, there are listed seabirds 
present, in addition to the relevant Maui Nui species addressed in this 
final rule). The protections of section 9 of the Act still apply, and 
consultation is still required under section 7 if listed species may be 
affected; exclusion from critical habitat removes only the requirement 
to consult with the Service on effects to critical habitat. Therefore, 
it is incorrect to state that the wind farm project ``is not presently 
subject to this consultation obligation.''
    (118) Comment: One commenter noted the discussion in our proposed 
rule at 77 FR 34496 (June 11, 2012) regarding the potential effects of 
changes in environmental conditions that may result from global climate 
change on the 38 species proposed for listing and the Maui Nui 
ecosystems. This commenter noted our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1)(ii), which state that critical habitat designation is not 
prudent if such designation ``would not be beneficial to the species.'' 
According to the commenter, designation of critical habitat on Lanai 
will adversely affect the development of the proposed wind farm, a 
renewable energy project intended to have a positive impact on climate 
change. Therefore, the benefits to these species will be lost, and 
critical habitat designation is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of the 
Service's discretion, and not in accordance with law.
    Our Response: We share the commenter's concern for minimizing and 
ameliorating climate change and its effects upon Hawaii's endangered 
and threatened plants and animals. In our proposed rule, in the absence 
of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase 
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat 
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted (see Prudency 
Determination for 44 Maui Nui Species, at 77 FR 34511; June 11, 2012). 
The potential benefits to the 44 species include: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act for actions in which it would 
not otherwise occur; (2)

[[Page 17847]]

focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and 
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing 
inadvertent harm to the species. While the commenter states that ``the 
benefits to these species will be lost'' from positive impacts to 
climate change due to critical habitat designation on Lanai, for the 
reasons given at 77 FR 34512 (June 11, 2012), we found designation of 
critical habitat to be prudent for these 44 species. Prudency 
determinations for the other 91 species were made in previous 
rulemakings (see above, Previous Federal Actions). In addition, for the 
reasons described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the island of Lanai in 
this final rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (119) Comment: One commenter stated that the areas where the 
proposed critical habitat designation overlaps the proposed Lanai wind 
farm are devoid of the plant species for which the designation is 
proposed. The commenter also stated that extensive erosion is not 
identified in the proposed rule and that the cost of any habitat 
restoration in these extremely eroded areas would be prohibitive.
    Our Response: The commenter is referring to proposed Lanai--Lowland 
Mesic--Unit 1, a proposed critical habitat unit totaling 11,172 ac 
(4,521 ha) that overlaps the jeep road area, east of and including the 
``Garden of the Gods'' area. The jeep road would be used to access the 
wind tower project area. Based on our understanding of existing wind 
projects in Hawaii and elsewhere, the actual footprint of wind tower 
facilities is quite small, and on Lanai it is anticipated that the 
existing jeep road will be used for access to the wind tower project. 
Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 was proposed as critical habitat for a 
total of 13 plant species, and is occupied by 5 species and unoccupied 
by 8 species. This critical habitat unit provides the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
requires special management considerations or protections (e.g., feral 
ungulate control) (occupied habitat) or habitat that is essential to 
the conservation and recovery of the species (unoccupied habitat). Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for the recovery of the species. 
There are seven fenced units (TNC's Kanepuu units) spaced along 
approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) of the summit ridge. To protect these 
fenced units, provide enough landscape-scale ecosystem habitat for 
recovery of the 13 lowland mesic species, and to prevent ``edge 
effects,'' Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 was delineated in the proposed 
rule to provide an essential area of habitat up to 1,000 ft (400 m) 
from the current fencelines. Removal of ungulates (axis deer and 
mouflon) from within this unit would allow regrowth of vegetation and 
prevent the ultimate progression of erosion into the fenced units 
(Laurance et al. 2002 in Miller 2009, in litt.). This is an effective 
and relatively inexpensive approach to begin restoration efforts in 
this area, and has been demonstrated in other restoration areas on east 
Maui at Auwahi and Nuu Mauka, and on the island of Kahoolawe, 
especially if ungulates are controlled and the seed bank is established 
through seed-scattering (Medeiros 1999, 14 pp.). In any case, for the 
reasons described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the island of Lanai in 
this final rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (120) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule applies 
broad-brush designations on Lanai that cover vast territory with 
entirely disparate ecosystems, elevations, and terrain such that 
designation is without an adequate scientific basis. According to this 
commenter, the Service did not establish any rational basis for 
concluding that each designated ecosystem unit has all of the necessary 
primary constituent elements (PCEs). Throughout the proposed rule, 
boundaries for units are drawn without regard for the actual unit 
definitions and PCEs, including vastly disparate terrain and ecological 
conditions. Indeed, areas described in the proposed rule as having 
certain topography, rainfall, and other ``essential'' elements do not 
have those conditions at all. Often, even correct descriptions are so 
generalized as to be almost meaningless in the context of assessing 
whether areas are critical for survival of a species. The result of 
drawing boundaries without particular regard to the unit definition 
compels the conclusion that either the PCEs are, in fact, unimportant 
or the environment is not critical for specific species recovery.
    Our Response: When determining critical habitat we used the best 
available scientific information, including TNC's High Island Ecoregion 
Plan, along with the accompanying GIS ecosystem data. When we found 
inconsistencies with regard to data from more recent botanical surveys, 
geological and vegetation databases, and other resources, we conducted 
an analysis to determine which ecosystem characteristics best 
represented the area and the species' needs at a large landscape scale. 
However, for the reasons described below (see Exclusions Based on Other 
Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the island of 
Lanai in this final rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (121) Comment: One commenter disputed our characterizations of 
ecosystem type and definitions of PCEs within several proposed critical 
habitat units on Lanai including Lanai--Coastal Unit--1, Lanai--
Coastal--Unit 2, Lanai--Coastal Unit--3, Lanai--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, 
Lanai--Lowland Dry--Unit 2, Lanai--Lowland Mesic--1, and Lanai--Dry 
Cliff--1. The commenter stated that characterizations of ecosystem type 
and the described PCEs for these units were either incorrect or 
contradictory or both.
    Our Response: We disagree. We consider the PCEs as described for 
each unit and for each species to be the specific compositional 
elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of those species. Our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 
2012) identified the PCEs that support the life-history processes for 
each species within the ecosystems in which they occur, and reflects a 
distribution that we believe achieves the species' recovery needs. The 
described ecosystems' features include the appropriate microclimatic 
conditions for germination and growth of the plants (e.g., light 
availability, soil nutrients, hydrologic regime, and temperature, and 
space within the appropriate habitats for population growth and 
expansion). The PCEs are defined by elevation, annual levels of 
precipitation, locally influenced fog-drip, substrate type and slope, 
and the characteristic native plant genera in the canopy, subcanopy, or 
understory levels of the vegetative community. The physical or 
biological features for each of the described ecosystems were presented 
in Table 5 of our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012) and were 
derived from several sources, including:
    (a) The Nature Conservancy's Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian 
High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps (2007);
    (b) Natural Resources Conservation Service's soil type analysis 
data layer for GIS mapping;
    (c) Ecosystem community analyses by Gagne and Cuddihy (1999, pp. 
45-114);

[[Page 17848]]

    (d) Geographic information system maps of habitat essential to the 
recovery of Hawaiian plants (Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery 
Coordinating Committee 1998);
    (e) GAP (geographic analysis program) vegetation data (GAP 2005);
    (f) Projections of geographic ranges of plant species in the 
Hawaiian Islands, including climate data, substrate data, topography, 
soils, and disturbance, Price et al. 2012 (34 pp. + appendices);
    (g) Final critical habitat designations for the island of Lanai (68 
FR 1220; January 9, 2003); and
    (h) Recent biological surveys, site visits, and scientific reports 
regarding species and their habitats.
    (122) Comment: One commenter stated that the area of proposed 
critical habitat for the Lanai tree snails (Partulina semicarinata and 
P. variabilis) was excessive and too extensive based upon the known 
biology of these species and was therefore unlawful.
    Our Response: We disagree. The extent and range of habitat required 
by these species (lowland wet, montane wet, wet cliff) is well-
documented. Both species were once widely distributed on Lanai. 
Historically, Partulina semicarinata was found in wet and mesic 
Metrosideros polymorpha forests on Lanai. In 1993, 105 individuals of 
P. semicarinata were found during surveys conducted in its historical 
range. Subsequent surveys in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2005 documented this 
species in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in 
central Lanai (Hadfield 2005, pp. 3-5; TNC 2007). Partulina variabilis 
was found historically in wet and mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forests 
on Lanai. In 1993, 111 individuals of P. variabilis were found during 
surveys conducted in its historical range. Subsequent surveys in 1994, 
2000, 2001, and 2005 documented this species in the lowland wet, 
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems in central Lanai (Hadfield 2005, 
pp. 3-5; TNC 2007).
    For each tree snail, Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis, we 
proposed critical habitat in the habitat types and in the amount and 
distribution we concluded is essential to the conservation of these 
species. Under the Act's sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) and our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14, we are to designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. The best scientific 
data available include the surveys conducted over the past 20 years and 
unpublished reports cited above, which indicated that the areas 
proposed as critical habitat for the Lanai tree snails are essential 
for the conservation of the species. Regardless, for the reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors), we 
have excluded all lands on Lanai under section 4(b)(2), including the 
lands that we proposed for critical habitat for these two tree snails, 
from critical habitat designation in this final rule. We again note 
that exclusion from critical habitat does not indicate that these areas 
are not essential for the conservation of the species, only that the 
Secretary has determined that the benefits of excluding these areas 
outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat (and that 
the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species).
    (123) According to one commenter, the proposed rule violates the 
Act, Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II), 
various Executive Orders, and the 2002 memorandum of agreement between 
the Service and Castle and Cooke Resorts.
    Our Response: We disagree. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides 
the Secretary with the responsibility to designate critical habitat for 
endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary (acting 
through the Service) to designate critical habitat on the basis of the 
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impact of the designation. The Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) governs the process by which Federal agencies develop and issue 
regulations. It requires the Federal agency to publish notices of 
proposed and final rulemaking in the Federal Register, and to provide 
opportunities for public comment. In our June 11, 2012, proposed rule 
(77 FR 34464) and in this final rule we used the best scientific data 
available (see Methods, below). Following publication of our proposed 
rule, we had 135 days of public comment and held a public information 
meeting and public hearing. We determined that the proposed rule would 
have no impact on national security, but as a result of considering 
other relevant impacts, we evaluated and determined that the benefits 
of excluding several areas from designation outweighed the benefits of 
inclusion, and will not lead to the extinction of the species. The 2002 
MOA referenced by the commenter has been replaced by the 2015 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). As a result of the conservation 
benefits provided by this 2015 MOU, in part, in this final rule, all 
areas proposed as critical habitat on Lanai are excluded from 
designation (see below, Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors).
    (124) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule failed 
to provide sufficiently detailed narrative descriptions of the proposed 
units on Lanai to allow fair comment. Additionally, the commenter 
stated that the proposed rule contained only generalized maps to 
indicate the areas proposed for designation, and this failure to 
provide sufficient maps and information to allow fully informed public 
review and comment was not in accordance with law.
    Our Response: A description of each critical habitat unit is found 
in Descriptions of Proposed Critical Habitat Units in the June 11, 
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 34464). In the Proposed Regulation 
Promulgation section of our proposed rule, we used a placeholder, 
``[Reserved for textual description of . . . ],'' to refer to the UTMs 
(mapping vertices) for unit delineation using GIS, which, until 
recently, were identified and published in the Federal Register in 
final rulemakings. However, on May 1, 2012, the Service published a 
final rule (77 FR 25611) revising the regulations for requirements to 
publish textual descriptions of final critical habitat boundaries in 
the Federal Register. As of May 31, 2012 (the effective date of that 
final rule), the Service no longer publishes the coordinates for 
critical habitat boundaries in the Federal Register. The coordinates on 
which each map is based are available to the public at the Federal 
eRulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov) using the docket number 
for the rulemaking (in this case, FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071), and at the Web 
site of the field office responsible for the final critical habitat for 
125 Maui Nui species (http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands). The maps 
provided in the proposed rule identify the areas proposed for critical 
habitat designation. We believe these maps are adequate for regulatory 
purposes. The proposed rule also directs reviewers to contact the 
Service for further clarification on any part of the proposed rule, and 
provides contact information (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). Although we 
did not include parcel-specific maps in our proposed rule (77 FR 34464; 
June 11, 2012), we did provide maps of this specificity to every 
landowner who contacted us and requested them following publication of 
the proposed rule.
    (125) Comment: The Service did not respond to the Castle and Cooke 
Resorts, LLC, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in a timely 
manner to

[[Page 17849]]

allow meaningful comment on the proposed rule.
    Our Response: The rule proposing listing 38 species and critical 
habitat for 135 species on Maui Nui was published June 11, 2012 (77 FR 
34464), with an initial 60-day public comment period that ran through 
August 10, 2012. We received a FOIA request dated July 9, 2012, from 
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, on July 10, 2012. The letter requested 
the Service to withdraw the proposed designation of critical habitat on 
the island of Lanai and the proposed listing, as endangered, of species 
for which critical habitat is proposed on Lanai, or as an alternative, 
extend the comment period to February 2013, for the proposed 
designation. On August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47587), we extended the comment 
period for an additional 30 days, through September 10, 2012, for a 
total initial comment period 90 days in length. We also notified the 
commenter that we would again be reopening the comment period for the 
forthcoming draft economic analysis, which would provide the 
opportunity for further comments. On January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), we 
announced the reopening of the comment period for the proposed rule and 
the draft economic analysis for an additional 30 days, through March 4, 
2013. We also announced a public information meeting and public hearing 
to be held on Maui on February 21, 2013. On June 10, 2015 (80 FR 
32922), we reopened the comment period for another 15 days. We believe 
the commenter had sufficient time to prepare comments on the proposed 
rule during these open comment periods, which totaled 135 days in 
length and extended over more than 3 years.
    (126) Comment: The proposed rule states that ``The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs [(OIRA)] has determined that this 
rule is not significant'' (77 FR 34586). However, this is contradicted 
by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The proposed rule encompasses 
areas slated for development, including a proposed wind farm on Lanai 
that will be the largest in the State. The investment in the project, 
including its undersea cable, is estimated to total over $1 billion. 
The critical habitat designation may seriously impede the wind farm's 
construction or operation. Adverse impacts on the project from the 
critical habitat designation could jeopardize or greatly impede the 
project, resulting in an enormous economic effect. Executive Order 
12866 requires agencies to consider not only the dollar figure 
associated with the proposed rule's impact, but also the effect on 
State and local communities. The proposed rule would negatively impact 
the State's policies, laws, goals, and commitments to reduce its 
dependence on fossil fuels. Similarly, delays or other negative impacts 
on the proposed wind farm could affect the jobs that the project would 
create, as well as substantial tax revenues and community benefits 
related to the development and operation of the wind farm. If the wind 
farm is not constructed, the State's heavy reliance on fossil fuels 
will continue, contributing to global warming, which will have a 
deleterious effect on the plant and snail species for which the 
designation is made. Given the potential effects, economic and 
otherwise, the proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
should be treated as such.
    Our Response: Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 
rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that 
our proposed rule published on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464) is not a 
significant rule. As defined by Executive Order 12866, a rule is 
determined to be significant if it may:
     Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
     Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
     Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
     Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive order.
    Like the proposed rule, this final rule does not meet any of these 
criteria, and OIRA does not consider it to be a significant regulatory 
action.
    (127) Comment: One commenter disagreed that the proposed rule does 
not ``significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use'' 
because proposed critical habitat includes areas that are part of the 
planned Lanai wind farm, which will be ``an enormous step towards 
reducing Hawaii's dependence on fossil fuels.'' According to this 
commenter, the process required by the Federal agencies to receive a 
``special exemption'' under 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) to authorize, fund, or 
carry out any action likely to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat will present enormous barriers to 
Hawaii's transition to sustainable energy. Finally, the commenter 
stated that the Service must prepare a Statement of Energy Effects that 
addresses the planned Lanai wind farm.
    Our Response: According to information in our files, the proposed 
critical habitat overlaps with an existing agricultural road that will 
be upgraded to provide access to lands identified for a planned Lanai 
wind farm. The commenter assumes that upgrading the agricultural road 
will result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, 
and would prohibit Federal agencies from authorizing or funding the 
project. As stated elsewhere in this final rule, manmade features, 
including roads, are not considered critical habitat pursuant to this 
rule, because these features and structures normally do not contain, 
and are not likely to develop, any primary constituent elements and do 
not meet the definition of critical habitat. Moreover, the Service 
excluded this critical habitat unit from the final designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for the reasons described below. We note, 
however, that consultation on any Federal permits needed may be 
required due to potential effects on listed species. If no Federal 
agency is involved with the project, but the project may take federally 
listed species, the applicant should apply for an incidental take 
permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We do not need to submit a summary of the potential effects of this 
designation on the supply, distribution, or use of energy (Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211), because our 
regulatory action would not result in a ``significant adverse effect'' 
as defined by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memoranda 01-27 
(Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211) (July 13, 2001).
Public Comments on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between Lanai 
Resorts, LLC, (Doing Business as Pulama Lanai), Castle & Cooke 
Properties, Inc. (CCPI), and the Service
    (128) Comment: Two commenters stated that, through the MOU, the 
landowner acknowledges the importance of commitment to habitat 
management and that the interests of preservation and conservation are 
often better served through mutual agreements between landowners and 
the Service.
    Our response: We agree. Continued support of management actions for 
Lanai's natural resources is important to

[[Page 17850]]

the landowner and to the threatened and endangered species known from 
Lanai.
    (129) Comment: Five commenters oppose the MOU between the Service, 
Pulama Lanai, and CCPI, and the exclusion of critical habitat on Lanai. 
Three of these commenters believe that the Service would allow the 
landowner ``free rein'' over Lanai's environment, removing all 
regulatory controls and all private responsibilities of land 
stewardship. Two of these commenters believe the MOU would be used for 
personal gain by the landowner and the Service. One commenter states 
that the MOU will not contribute to the long-term conservation of the 
Maui Nui species.
    Our response: The MOU promotes cooperative conservation efforts 
that benefit the covered species, including preparation and 
implementation of the Lanai Natural Resources Plan (LNRP). Any funding 
for conservation measures and implementation will be used for such, and 
certainly not for personal gain. The MOU does not limit or diminish the 
legal obligations and responsibilities to engage in consultation as 
required under section 7 of the Act for listed species occurring on 
Lanai. The MOU does not place the Service in a position to advocate for 
activities counter to its mission. We believe that there is a higher 
likelihood of beneficial conservation activities occurring on Lanai 
with the MOU between Pulama Lanai, CCPI, and the Service. Designation 
of critical habitat ensures that, if there is a Federal nexus, the 
Federal action agency must consult with the Service on actions that may 
affect the critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. However, designation of critical habitat 
does not result in preparation of land management plans by a landowner 
or require a landowner to manage land areas, or to undertake specific 
steps toward recovery of a species. The Service therefore believes that 
the value of the MOU lessens the benefits of possible section 7 
consultations related to critical habitat, allows for a positive 
working relationship between all parties involved, and will result in 
long-term benefits for species and their habitats. Our rationale for 
concluding that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
including this area as critical habitat is discussed in detail in the 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors section, below.
    (130) Comment: One commenter stated that the MOU does not provide 
enough specific information regarding conservation measures.
    Our response: The MOU is not a management plan, it is a document 
that initiates the cooperative conservation efforts between the Service 
and the Pulama Lanai. As outlined in the MOU, the Service will provide 
technical assistance to Pulama Lanai in the development and 
implementation of the LNRP.
    (131) Comment: Eight commenters stated that preparation and 
implementation of the MOU and the LNRP lacks community input and 
approvals.
    Our response: The Lanai MOU is an agreement specifically between 
the landowner and the Service. The Service published a notice in the 
Federal Register on June 10, 2015(80 FR 32922), reopening the comment 
period on the proposed rule from that day through June 25, 2015, to 
allow the public the opportunity to provide further input on the 
proposed exclusions and the conservation benefits provided by continued 
landowner partnerships for Maui Nui. We have incorporated our responses 
to those comments in this final rule. The LNRP is currently being 
developed by Pulama Lanai with technical assistance from the Service.
    (132) Comment: Three commenters state that Pulama Lanai has 
attempted to disband the Lanai Water Advisory Committee and the Lanai 
Forest and Watershed Partnership, and based on this action, the Service 
should not establish a partnership with Pulama Lanai.
    Our response: Participation in Hawaii Watershed Partnerships are 
voluntary and are only one of many ways in which the Service may engage 
and cooperate with a private landowner on conservation actions. The Act 
allows the Secretary of the Interior to exclude areas when the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, unless the Secretary 
determines that such exclusion will result in the extinction of the 
species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The Service, Pulama Lanai, and CCPI, 
have worked in partnership to execute an MOU that is intended to 
benefit the covered species on the island of Lanai. For reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors), no 
critical habitat is designated on the island of Lanai in this final 
rule as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (133) Comment: Six commenters oppose the development of a wind 
power facility on Lanai and believe the MOU between Pulama Lanai, CCPI, 
and the Service facilitates such development.
    Our response: The Lanai MOU and exclusion from critical habitat 
does not preclude the need for CCPI to avoid the incidental take of 
listed species and it is our expectation that CCPI will consult with 
the Service and DOFAW regarding the impacts of wind development to such 
species. This activity would likely require the development of a 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that appropriately avoids, minimizes, 
and mitigates potential project impacts on listed species. If so, the 
Service would evaluate impact of issuing an Incidental Take Permit for 
the HCP under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conduct 
a section 7 consultation. While we believe that Pulama Lanai's 
voluntary participation in conducting conservation measures lessens the 
conservation benefits of critical habitat, making exclusion from this 
designation warranted, nothing in the MOU supersedes the requirements 
of the Act.
    (134) Comment: Five commenters stated that an annual commitment of 
$210,000 annually, as included in the MOU, is not enough funding to 
support management actions.
    Our response: An MOU does not obligate a landowner to any set 
amount of funding for conservation actions in covered areas. Landowner 
participation in an MOU is voluntary. An MOU sets goals for 
conservation measures, including preparation and implementation of 
management plans. Within the Lanai MOU, the landowner has committed to 
contribute a minimum of $210,000 annually for implementation of 
activities described in the MOU and the LNRP, based on priorities 
identified in the LNRP. LNRP funds shall not be inclusive of costs of 
mitigation actions for management activities in No Development Areas 
(as outlined in Exhibit H of the MOU).
    (135) Comment: Four commenters stated that oversight of 
implementation of the MOU and the LNRP would be inadequate. One 
commenter also stated that the fencing project begun in 2002 was not 
completed.
    Our response: The current landowner has indicated interest in being 
a good steward of Lanai's natural resources, and has entered into the 
MOU agreement with the Service with that understanding, and has also 
expanded resources management capabilities. The LNRP, resulting from 
the MOU, will describe in more detail conservation measures and 
timelines, including how adaptive management measures will be 
addressed. Fencing projects are expensive and often larger projects are 
broken into increments to allow for the complexities of construction 
and management. The first and second increments of the planned fencing

[[Page 17851]]

project, beginning with the MOU in 2002, were completed. Other fencing 
activities will be covered in the LNRP. See also our response to 
Comment (140).
    (136) Comment: Five commenters objected to statements in the MOU 
regarding the permit process and stated that the Service oversteps its 
bounds.
    Our response: Under the MOU, the Service agreed to cooperate with 
Pulama Lanai and CCPI to process in a timely manner any necessary 
recovery permits that may be required to implement objectives of the 
LNRP. This would allow completion of conservation measures in a timely 
manner to meet specified timelines as outlined in the LNRP. However, 
any permit would have to comply with normal permitting requirements and 
procedures. Permits for wind farm and other projects would be obtained 
by the landowner independently from the MOU agreement, and may include 
the development of an HCP, and associated NEPA evaluation and section 7 
consultation, as described above.
    (137) Comment: Five commenters object to exclusion of The Nature 
Conservancy's Kanepuu management unit of Kanepuu Preserve from critical 
habitat, and also state that widening of the road in that area would 
contribute to negative impacts to habitat.
    Our response: As stated in the MOU, both the landowner and the 
Service recognize the importance of habitat within Kanepuu. We believe 
that the benefits of exclusion this area from critical habitat outweigh 
the benefits of including this area in critical habitat. Both the 
landowner and the Service support identification and implementation of 
conservation measures for the habitat and any listed species. 
Improvement or widening of the existing access roadway through or 
around Kanepuu may occur as long as such activities: (1) Have the 
consent of The Nature Conservancy (who holds a permanent easement of 
the area) or its successor, (2) have the consent of Pulama Lanai, and 
(3) mitigation measures by CCPI are reasonably agreed to by the Service 
in order to mitigate any adverse effects on native vegetation. However, 
nothing in the MOU supersedes the requirements of the Act and all 
activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU must be in compliance with 
all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Currently, the 
Service has not received a project proposal for a wind farm on Lanai; 
however, as discussed above, it would likely entail a Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) process, including NEPA and section 7 
consultation, to assess and mitigate for environmental impacts.
    (138) Comment: One commenter suggested that the uau, or Hawaiian 
petrel, be considered as part of the LNRP.
    Our response: The LNRP is a comprehensive resource management plan 
and will include conservation actions for this species.
    (139) Comment: One commenter stated that the MOU and any future 
LNRP do not provide sufficient information to determine if a specific 
exclusion may result in extinction of a species.
    Our response: The determination of whether an exclusion will result 
in the extinction of a listed species is not provided in the MOU or the 
LNRP, but is provided in this final rule. Here, at the conclusion of 
the section titled ``Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors,'' we 
detail our assessment of whether the exclusion of any particular areas 
would result in the extinction of the listed species that occur within 
that area (see ``Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the 
Species''). We have carefully considered the status of each species 
within each of the areas excluded, and evaluated whether the exclusion 
would result in the extinction of each listed species on a case by case 
basis. We paid particular attention to several of the Lanai species, as 
some of these species occur only within the areas excluded from the 
final designation of critical habitat (i.e., the two Lanai tree snails, 
and the plants Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea gibsonii, Kadua cordata 
ssp. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Pleomele fernaldii, 
Viola lanaiensis). As described in this final rule, in the case of each 
exclusion from this final designation of critical habitat, we conclude 
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, for 
the reasons detailed below, and further conclude that the failure to 
designate such areas as critical habitat will not result in the 
extinction of the listed species concerned. Each exclusion made in this 
final rule is based upon the strength of existing conservation actions, 
commitments, and partnerships, which will maintain, restore, or enhance 
habitat for the Maui Nui species, above and beyond the benefits that 
would accrue from the designation of critical habitat. Based on the 
management plans and agreements in place, and the proven track record 
of our conservation partners, we reasonably assume these positive 
actions will continue into the future. For all of these reasons, we 
conclude not only that exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
any of the Maui Nui species, but we expect that exclusion will result 
in the improvement of the status of each species in question, due to 
the positive conservation efforts taking place in those areas excluded. 
See, for example, our response to Comment (140), below, for an 
accounting of the positive conservation benefits demonstrated to date 
for the Lanai species as a result of the actions of our conservation 
partners and the management plans and agreements in place on that 
island, and the further benefits that are expected to accrue to those 
species as a result of future efforts as well.
    (140) Comment: One commenter stated that, based on previous failure 
to complete the Lanaihale fencing project, the current MOU would also 
result in failure to complete conservation measures or management 
actions.
    Our response: The first two phases of an ungulate exclusion fence, 
described by the commenter as the Lanaihale fencing project, were 
completed under a MOU and partnership with Lanai's previous landowner. 
We anticipate the completion of the fence and other conservation 
measures under the Lanai Natural Resources Plan (LNRP), which is 
currently under development as a consequence of the MOU with the new 
landowners, recently signed by the Service, Lanai Resorts, LLC (dba 
Pulama Lanai), and Castle and Cooke Properties, Inc., on January 26, 
2015. Since that time, the parties have worked diligently to implement 
the actions described in the MOU. Beginning in February, 2015, Pulama 
Lanai has convened meetings with their planning team, including the 
Service, for the development of the comprehensive LNRP that will 
address priorities and actionable items necessary for the conservation 
of species and habitats on the island. While this effort is ongoing, 
Pulama Lanai has begun to implement specific conservation measures for 
priority species and areas. The MOU also calls for the landowner to 
identify conservation measures for some of the rarest plants that would 
be implemented in the near term, even before the LNRP is completed. 
Specifically, to date Pulama Lanai has: (1) Worked with the Service and 
the Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) regarding 
necessary permits to conduct listed plant species conservation work; 
(2) designated an additional 220 ac (89 ha) to be added to the 
Lanaihale No Development Area; (3) developed and implemented a fence 
maintenance plan for all existing conservation fences; (4) conducted 
monitoring for ungulates within existing conservation fences and 
implemented ungulate removal; (5) communicated with The Nature

[[Page 17852]]

Conservancy regarding ungulate management and fence maintenance at 
Kanepuu Preserve; (6) installed deer proof fencing for Hibiscus 
brackenridgei along Keomuku Road and have plans to do the same for the 
populations of Tetramalopium remyi and Abutilon menziesii (also 
referred to as the ``Core Rare Plant Clusters'') within the 24-month 
time frame set forth in the MOU; (7) identified other rare plant 
species for conservation actions and protection in coordination with 
the Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP); and (8) implemented 
advanced technology and additional measures to improve bio-security on 
the island to reduce the incursion of invasive species. Additionally, 
Pulama Lanai has coordinated closely with the Service on the location 
of a protective listed tree snail enclosure, which will be constructed 
following a ranking of potential sites by the State's snail experts. 
Further coordination is occurring on the conservation of listed 
Hawaiian petrels on Lanaihale. While not part of the MOU, Pulama Lanai 
and the Service are working on plans to implement conservation 
activities starting in 2016. Most recently, Pulama Lanai has hired a 
lead wildlife biologist to assist with the planning and implementation 
of conservation actions across the island. Developing and maintaining 
public and private partnerships for species conservation is important 
and we believe that the steps this landowner has already taken to 
implement the MOU and the significant conservation benefits that have 
already been realized as a result indicate that this conservation 
partnership will provide significant benefits to the listed species 
that occur on Lanai. These benefits lessen the incremental benefit of 
critical habitat.
    (141) Comment: One commenter stated that the selection of no more 
than 215 additional acres to the ``no development area'' is 
inexplicable and unexplained.
    Our response: The addition of 215 acres to the No Development Area 
was in response to possible disturbance of habitat resulting from 
development of a wellhead within Increment 1 fencing (see Exhibit J, 
and section 4.3.2(1) of the MOU), if it occurs. Development of a new 
water well would be subject to conditions as outlined in the MOU, 
including botanical surveys, restoration, and mitigation of other 
impacts (and consistent with applicable provisions of Exhibit H of the 
MOU).
Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
    Comments From the State of Hawaii Agencies on the DEA
    (142) Comment: The Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) is 
concerned that incremental impacts of critical habitat designation are 
not sufficiently quantified in the DEA and the DEA uses probable or 
possible ranges of other listed species to discount the economic 
impacts of proposed critical habitat. The HDOA believes that baseline 
protection costs should include only already designated critical 
habitat that is occupied by listed species and subject to existing 
conservation measures.
    Our Response: The presence of a listed species provides extensive 
baseline protections under sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, regardless 
of the designation of critical habitat; therefore we do not limit our 
consideration of baseline protections to those areas that are already 
designated as critical habitat. As described in chapter 2 of the draft 
EA, section 7 of the Act in particular requires Federal agencies to 
consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, 
or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of 
any endangered or threatened species, even absent critical habitat 
designation. In this case, the presence of the listed Blackburn's 
sphinx moth would trigger protections under the jeopardy standard that 
would by extension provide baseline protections to the Maui Nui species 
in areas within the probable range of the moth (see paragraphs 71 
through 73 of the final EA). Because these protections are in place 
regardless of designated critical habitat, they are appropriately 
considered as part of the baseline for this analysis.
    (143) Comment: The HDOA and two other commenters stated that the 
Service has already designated critical habitat in a significant amount 
of area in Hawaii and should use the costs of these designations on 
agricultural landowners to monetize some of the indirect impacts in the 
current DEA.
    Our Response: The DEA does consider how previous critical habitat 
designations may have indirectly affected agricultural landowners and 
therefore no changes were made in the FEA in response to this comment. 
This analysis involved outreach to agricultural landowners and 
organizations to gather information on experience with previous 
critical habitat designations in Hawaii. The information gathered 
supports the qualitative analysis of potential indirect impacts of 
critical habitat designation on grazing and farming in Exhibit 5-8, 
including descriptions of potential change in management of land by the 
State and county; perceptional effects on land values; limitations on 
ability of ranch owners to diversify; increased potential for legal 
actions; and obstacle to statewide food sustainability. However, we 
could identify no specific historical studies or examples of critical 
habitat designation precipitating these types of impacts in Hawaii. For 
each of the potential indirect impacts, Exhibit 5-8 accordingly 
describes the uncertainties that preclude their monetization but 
highlights their potential for consideration alongside the quantified 
impacts in the analysis.

Comments From the Public on the DEA

    (144) Comment: The Association of Universities for Research in 
Astronomy (AURA) disagreed with the conclusions of the draft economic 
analysis (DEA). According to AURA, the DEA doesn't take into 
consideration the lengthy and costly consultations that have already 
taken place regarding the University of Hawaii's Haleakala High 
Altitude Observatory Site (also known as the Advanced Technology Solar 
Telescope (ATST) project) and it does not consider more than $1.5 
million in funds committed to wildlife protection in the 328-acre 
mitigation area.
    Our Response: Our DEA was designed to look at the potential 
economic impacts stemming specifically from the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species; it was not intended to 
address any and all costs that may have been incurred as a consequence 
of other actions (for example, prior consultations that may have 
occurred related to the presence of listed species at the ATST site). 
The FEA concluded that construction of the ATST facilities, which falls 
within proposed critical habitat unit Maui--Alpine--Unit 1, was likely 
to result in land disturbance of less than 1 acre (IEc 2015, p. 3-12). 
The FEA also acknowledges that the Service conducted a formal 
consultation on the proposed construction and issued a biological 
opinion on June 15, 2011 (IEc 2015, p. 3-13). The Service indicated 
that they would likely not recommend any further project modifications 
beyond the mitigation already planned, and that any further incremental 
costs would be limited to additional administrative costs, estimated to 
be $4,000 borne by the Service, Federal action agency, and the project 
proponent (IEc 2015, p. 3-13). However, in this final rule, we also re-
evaluated proposed critical habitat for two

[[Page 17853]]

proposed units within or bordering the project area (Maui--Subalpine--
Unit 1 and Maui--Alpine--Unit 1) and removed areas that no longer 
contained the physical or biological features that could support and 
provide for species' recovery, or that we determined was otherwise not 
essential for the conservation of the species (see our response at 
Comment (36), above). As a result of this evaluation, the University of 
Hawaii's Haleakala High Altitude Observatory Site has been removed from 
the final designation because it does not meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species.
    (145) Comment: The DEA contains no mention of the Makena Resort or 
Makena property, and fails to consider the economic impact of 
designation on the ATC Makena property. ATC Makena was not contacted 
during preparation of the DEA regarding the proposed designation or for 
additional information on their property.
    Our Response: The final economic analysis (FEA) incorporates 
additional discussion regarding the potential expansion of the Piilani 
Highway within Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 (IEc 2015, p. 3-18). Although 
the timing, nature, and location of the project is currently uncertain, 
we forecast costs associated with a formal section 7 consultation on 
the project. The Service has determined that the potential project area 
for the highway expansion overlaps with the probable range of the 
Blackburn's sphinx moth (see pp. 2-11--2-13 of our FEA (IEc 2015) for a 
detailed discussion of the baseline protections associated with the 
Blackburn's sphinx moth, as well as an explanation of the term 
``probable range'' as applied here; see also our response to Comment 
(149), below). As described in our FEA, consultation on this project 
would be required due to the presence of the Blackburn's sphinx moth 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated for the Maui Nui 
species (IEc 2015, pp. 2-11--2-13). As discussed in Section 2.3.2 of 
the FEA, critical habitat designation for the Maui Nui species is not 
likely to generate additional conservation recommendations beyond what 
would be recommended due to the presence of the moth. Accordingly, we 
conclude that the incremental impacts of critical habitat on the 
Piilani Highway project would be limited to the administrative costs of 
considering critical habitat as part of the forecast section 7 
consultation, estimated at approximately $4,000 (IEc 2015, p. 3-18). 
Such costs are generally borne primarily by the Service and the Federal 
action agency, with some costs occasionally accrued by the project 
proponent.
    (146) Comment: Several commenters stated that: (1) The estimated 
costs of $115,000 to $125,000 over the next 10 years for Maui, Molokai, 
Lanai, and Kahoolawe, combined, were not credible; (2) an analysis of 
the total cost of designation (as in the DEA) does not help to 
determine which parcels should be included in the critical habitat area 
and which should be excluded; and (3) consultations in Hawaii require 
more effort than elsewhere.
    Our Response: As stated in the FEA, quantified incremental impacts 
of the proposed critical habitat designation are estimated at $100,000 
for areas proposed for critical habitat designation, and $5,000 for 
areas considered for exclusion (2014-2023, 7 percent discount rate) 
(IEc 2015, p. 1-7). The derivation of these costs are presented at the 
proposed critical habitat unit level throughout the FEA, are detailed 
in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the FEA, and are also summarized in the 
Executive Summary Exhibit ES-3. As stated in Section 2.3.2 of the FEA, 
the administrative costs of consultation applied in the analysis are 
based on data from the Federal Government Schedule Rates, Office of 
Personnel Management, and a review of consultation records from several 
Service field offices across the country, as described in the notes to 
Exhibit 2-2 (IEc 2015, p. 2-18). The costs are intended to provide a 
representative order of magnitude for administrative costs associated 
with consultation. To the extent that consultations occurring in the 
areas proposed for critical habitat designation require a greater 
amount of effort, the FEA may underestimate consultation costs; this 
limitation is acknowledged throughout the FEA (IEc 2015, Exhibits 3-11, 
4-5, and 5-9). The administrative cost estimates and associated 
implications on the findings of the analysis are described in Section 
2.3.2 of the FEA.
    (147) Comment: The impact of critical habitat designation on 13,700 
acres of private lands on Maui may range up to $50 million or more. 
Impacts from the designation on the per acre land value range from $975 
to $45,000. For the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, the total 
impact from the designation will be $56.5 million or more, with an 
average of up to $3,900 or more, per acre.
    Our Response: We are uncertain as to the source of the commenter's 
information; no documentation was provided to support the costs 
claimed. The FEA quantified the impacts of designation of critical 
habitat on Maui to be approximately $100,000 over 10 years, and 
annualized impacts of $20,000, based on our consideration of the 
potential impacts of critical habitat on development projects, energy 
projects, and grazing and farming activities, as documented and 
described in detail in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the FEA (IEc 2015). We 
did consider the potential for loss in land value associated with 
foregone potential future uses, based on an average ``asset value'' for 
agricultural land (including buildings) of $8,201 per acre in 2007. 
This average asset value is based on County level information from the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (IEc 2015, p. 5-19).
    (148) Comment: One commenter, citing the DEAs for critical habitat 
designation for three Willamette species and 124 Oahu species, stated 
that the loss of land value in those analyses ranged from 73 to 100 
percent, with devaluation of property by as much as $65 million.
    Our Response: The findings of the two studies referenced in the 
comment are not transferable to this analysis for multiple reasons. 
First, the three Willamette species analysis applied a different 
framework for evaluating impacts (Northwest Economic Associates 2006). 
Specifically, the analysis quantified all impacts of species 
conservation regardless of whether they were incremental effects of the 
critical habitat designation. Thus the results should not be 
interpreted as impacts of critical habitat designation. Furthermore, 
the analysis acknowledges that it is uncertain whether the quantified 
impacts would occur at all, explaining: ``The estimates of economic 
loss in this section are overstated. As stated in the introduction, the 
impact of species and habitat conservation on future development 
projects is uncertain. Absent specific information on how development 
projects would mitigate for impacts to Fender's blue butterfly, 
Kincaid's lupine, and Willamette Daisy, the economic analysis presents 
the value derived from potential future development on private lands 
within the proposed critical habitat designation. To the extent that 
development is excluded from the proposed critical habitat designation, 
the estimated impacts accurately represent the non-agriculture 
component of land value lost by private landowners. To the extent that 
development is allowed within the proposed critical habitat designation 
the estimated impacts are overstated (Northwest Economic Associates 
2006, pp. 39-41).''

[[Page 17854]]

    In the case of Oahu, the commenter has overstated the range of 
potential impacts to land values estimated in the DEA (IEc 2013). 
Potential effects to land values were forecast only in the context of 
one particular critical habitat unit that was slated for development, 
Lowland Dry 8. In that case, we stated ``The Service believes that a 
realistic lower-bound estimate of the potential economic impacts to the 
landowners in Lowland Dry 8 is no impact at all. The Service cannot 
identify any realistic Federal nexus on the types of future uses 
identified. Critical habitat designations have no effect on private 
actions on private property absent a Federal nexus that would allow the 
Service to consult on the activity with its Federal partner.'' The 
possible decrease in land value cited by the commenter refers to the 
``worst case scenario'' contemplated in the DEA that no future 
development would proceed on the property at all; this scenario was 
included to be conservative, but is described as ``extremely unlikely 
to occur'' (IEc 2013, p. 74). The designation of critical habitat does 
not prevent development from occurring; it requires Federal agencies to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Even if 
such a finding is made, we will attempt to recommend reasonable and 
prudent alternatives. Therefore, we have no basis to assume that 
development would be prohibited.
    (149) Comment: Four commenters stated that the incremental impacts 
are not sufficiently quantified or monetized. The commenters are 
concerned that the DEA is using probable or possible ranges of other 
listed species, such as the Blackburn's sphinx moth, to discount 
economic impacts of proposed critical habitat. The commenters believe 
that only prior critical habitat designations where protected species 
occupy the land and are subject to existing conservation measures under 
the Act should be used as baseline protection costs. One commenter 
stated that it was inappropriate to use the probable range of 
Blackburn's sphinx moth to minimize the impacts of the proposed 
designation. In addition, no maps of historical or probable range of 
the moth are provided in the proposed rule or DEA.
    Our Response: See our responses to Comment (142) and (145). The 
probable range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth is an important 
consideration in this analysis, because due to the significant overlap 
between the essential physical or biological features for the moth and 
those of the Maui Nui species, consultations under the jeopardy 
standard (and associated conservation recommendations) within the 
probable range of the moth afford extensive baseline protections to the 
Maui Nui species within the area of overlap and limits the potential 
impact of critical habitat (see Section 2.3.2 of the FEA). Exhibit ES-5 
of the DEA showed the relevant map of unoccupied units that do not 
overlap with the probable range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth (and 
hence have the potential for relatively greater incremental impacts); 
however, we have updated this figure in the FEA to show the entirety of 
the Blackburn's sphinx moth's probable range. As detailed on p. 2-12 of 
the FEA, the term ``probable range'' is used because the precise 
location of the present range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth is not 
well known; therefore, the Service recommends consultation in areas 
within the historical range of the moth because the species may be 
present. Within that range, the Service suggests surveys to determine 
whether there is suitable habitat for the moth within the proposed 
project area. If there is suitable habitat within the project area, the 
Service recommends that project proponents survey within these areas to 
determine presence or absence of the moth. Because the majority of the 
moth's lifespan is spent underground in a pupal stage, and only moth 
larvae and adults transit the landscape, it may not be feasible to 
confirm absence of the moth from the proposed project area. Due to the 
difficulty in confirmation of moth absence, many project proponents opt 
to assume the moth is present in suitable habitat. Because of the 
significant overlap between the essential physical or biological 
features for the moth and those of the Maui Nui species, the Service 
has assumed for purposes of this analysis that within the probable 
range of the moth, there will be significant overlap between those 
areas that provide suitable habitat for the moth and the areas 
identified as critical habitat for the Maui Nui species.
    (150) Comment: One commenter stated that because the legal 
standards for determination of jeopardy and adverse modification are 
not the same, the Service cannot assume that the outcomes of jeopardy 
and adverse modification analyses for the designation will be closely 
linked.
    Our Response: We agree that the standards for determination of 
jeopardy and adverse modification are not the same, nor did we intend 
to give the impression that we consider them to be so. Section 7 of the 
Act (7)(a)(2) states that ``each Federal agency shall, in consultation 
with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of habitat of such species . . .'' If jeopardy or adverse modification 
is determined, reasonable and prudent alternatives are recommended. 
These recommendations focus on minimizing impacts so as to avoid 
jeopardy or adverse modification (IEc 2015, p. 2-15). In some cases, 
such as for the Maui Nui species considered here, project modifications 
recommended to avoid jeopardy may be similar to those recommended to 
avoid adverse modification of habitat, such as ``avoid destruction of 
individual listed plants,'' ``control feral ungulates,'' and 
``propagate and outplant'' (IEc 2015, pp. D-11--D-12). However, the FEA 
recognizes that the analyses for jeopardy and those for adverse 
modification can differ. The economic impacts of conservation measures 
undertaken to avoid jeopardy to the species are considered baseline 
impacts in the FEA, as they are not generated by the critical habitat 
designation. Baseline conservation measures and associated economic 
impacts are not affected by decisions related to critical habitat 
designation for the species (IEc 2015, pp. 2-7--2-9).
    (151) Comment: Some commenters stated that the incremental 
administrative consultation costs estimated by the Service are too low. 
Environmental activist groups have sued landowners to force them to 
undertake conservation activities. Note the palila case, in which the 
State was sued for allowing destruction of habitat by uncontrolled 
feral ungulates. Given that ungulates are identified as one of the 
primary threats to endangered species, there is a possibility of 
landowners being forced to undertake costly ungulate control on their 
land as a result of critical habitat designation. A baseline cost for 
mitigation is $6,000,000 for every 120 acres of disturbed habitat, 
which is the cost of mitigation for the Saddle Road-Palila project on 
the Big Island.
    Our Response: The Palila case was based on section 9 of the Act, 
which makes it a crime for anyone to ``take'' (defined as harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt 
any of these actions) an endangered species. This provision of the Act 
can be asserted by private citizens or by the Federal government. In 
Palila, private non-profit organizations claimed that the State's 
Department of Land and Natural Resources was taking the palila by 
maintaining populations of feral sheep

[[Page 17855]]

and goats in the bird's habitat. The fact that it was designated 
critical habitat had no legal relevance to this allegation; the 
designation played only an informational role in identifying habitat 
important to the species.
    In contrast to section 9, which sets forth protections that apply 
to individuals of the listed species, critical habitat receives 
protection under section 7 of the Act. The requirements of section 7 
apply to Federal agencies and requires that these agencies ensure, in 
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 7 requirements do not apply 
to non-Federal landowners absent a Federal nexus. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. The 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands, and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or 
enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply, but even in the event 
of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the 
Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover 
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    We do acknowledge that in some highly unusual cases, wherein a 
landowner undertakes an action with a Federal nexus, and that action is 
so significant to the critical habitat as a whole as to be considered 
potential adverse modification, some reasonable and prudent 
alternatives may result in significant costs. We recognize this 
possibility in our FEA, which underscores that such a situation may 
have a potentially major effect on the economic impacts as estimated in 
our analysis. Specifically, the FEA clarifies that while we anticipate 
that the most likely change in conservation recommendations, if any, 
would be the additional specification that habitat offsets occur within 
the affected critical habitat unit, or within critical habitat of the 
same type (based on our past experience with consultation), nonetheless 
``final recommendations to avoid adverse effects on critical habitat 
will depend upon the specific nature of the proposed project and will 
be made as part of future consultation on the project'' (IEc 2015, p. 
3-21). Because of the significant uncertainties surrounding the 
probability of such a situation arising, and the entirely speculative 
nature of what reasonable and prudent alternatives might be called for 
in such a hypothetical, it is not possible to quantify such potential 
impacts. We therefore acknowledge in our FEA that our assumptions 
regarding the effect of critical habitat designation on potential 
conservation recommendations may result in an underestimate of costs 
(IEc 2015, p. 3-21).
    (152) Comment: One commenter stated that, of the 25,413 acres 
proposed for designation on Lanai, 99.99 percent (25,408 acres) are 
privately owned by Lanai Resorts. This is in contrast to the entire 
proposed designation, which is reported [in the DEA] to only overlap 
private lands by 42 percent. Lanai Resorts suffers a disproportionate 
burden resulting from the proposed designation on Lanai and the DEA 
fails to recognize this disproportionate burden. Another commenter 
stated that the DEA fails to quantify impacts to existing and proposed 
development (e.g., Manele Project, Koele Project, water utility 
infrastructure, electric utility infrastructure, Lanai wind project) on 
Lanai.
    Our Response: Forty-two percent of the proposed critical habitat on 
the four islands of Maui, Kahoolawe, Molokai, and Lanai overlapped 
private lands. The DEA analyzed the effects of critical habitat 
designation on those areas with known or possible development pressure. 
At the time of the writing of the DEA, the level of uncertainty 
regarding the nature of future development, as well as how the 
designation of critical habitat may affect projects, precluded the 
quantification of impacts of critical habitat on future development in 
three proposed Lanai critical habitat units (Lanai--Coastal--1, Lanai--
Dry Cliff--Unit 1, and Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1). As a result, the 
DEA qualitatively described the likely incremental impacts to potential 
future development activities in these units. However, for the reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, 
below), critical habitat is not designated on the island of Lanai in 
this final rule, as a consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (153) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA is flawed and does 
not meet the requirements to support the designation. Specifically, the 
commenter stated that the designation must be limited geographically to 
what is essential to the conservation of the species, and that the 
Service cannot arbitrarily proposed to designate ``acres upon acres of 
areas already developed or proposed for development'' without first 
identifying the elements essential for the survival of the species. The 
commenter further stated that the determination must consider the 
probable economic and other impacts of the designation upon proposed or 
ongoing activities, and implied that the Service failed to clearly 
identify accurate and relevant facts to support its economic analysis. 
The commenter cited several court cases to support this statement and 
concludes that the DEA contained several errors that biased the 
analysis in a single direction, producing lower estimates of the costs 
resulting from critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: First, our process for identifying those areas 
proposed as critical habitat is not arbitrary, and is clearly detailed 
in the Methods section of this document. As required by the Act, we 
used the best scientific data available to first determine the physical 
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species, and 
to identify those specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species that provide those essential features, which may require 
special management considerations or protection. In addition, we 
identified some specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the species upon a determination that such areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species.
    Second, the purpose of the DEA is not to ``support the 
designation,'' but to inform the Secretary for the purpose of 
considering the potential economic impacts of the designation, as 
required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specifically, the information 
contained in the DEA is intended to assist the Secretary in determining 
whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation 
outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation. Our 
DEA, and subsequent FEA, analyzed the potential for both direct and 
indirect incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation; this 
analysis is thoroughly detailed and documented, and clearly identifies 
the source of all relevant facts and figures utilized (IEc 2015, 
entire). The FEA incorporates consideration of all reasonably 
foreseeable potential economic impacts, including some that were not 
initially recognized but that were identified during the public comment 
periods; this includes consideration of the potential impacts of the 
designation on ongoing or proposed development projects, energy 
projects,

[[Page 17856]]

and grazing and farming activities. Although the FEA quantifies the 
potential direct and indirect impacts of the designation wherever 
possible, in some cases of significant uncertainty, such quantification 
was not possible. However, the FEA is explicit in acknowledging all 
assumptions and limitations of the analysis, including the 
identification of those areas where the potential impacts may be 
underestimated (e.g., Exhibits 3-11, 4-5, and 5-9).
    (154) Comment: One commenter states the Honuaula project is not 
being held up by consultations with State and Federal wildlife 
officials, but because the developer has failed to complete an accurate 
archeological review, as required for Phase II Project District 
approval.
    Our Response: Section 3.3.1 of the FEA describes that the Honuaula 
project has been subject to delays related to the revision of the HCP 
following the proposed critical habitat designation (IEc 2015, p. 3-
17). The analysis does not address delays that may be associated with 
State Historic Preservation Division's processes, as these are 
unrelated to the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (155) Comment: Many of the areas proposed for designation are not 
currently inhabited by any of the listed species. Thus, the 
``baseline'' for evaluating the economic impact of designation of these 
areas is ``zero'' because there is no present duty to consult with the 
Service. The Service must consider the full economic impact of the 
proposed habitat designation, rather than just looking at the 
incremental increase in cost.
    Our Response: We agree that areas not presently occupied by any 
listed species and therefore not already subject to consultation with 
the Service have the potential for greater economic impacts. We 
explicitly acknowledged this situation in the DEA, stating ``Where 
critical habitat is both unoccupied by the Maui Nui species and outside 
of the probable range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth, the incremental 
impact of critical habitat designation would be greater than in units 
occupied by the Maui Nui species or the moth. This is because impacts 
of critical habitat in these units would include all administrative 
costs of consultation and all costs associated with implementing 
conservation measures for the Maui Nui species'' (IEc 2013, p. 2-12). 
Recognizing that economic activities in these units are the most likely 
to be subject to recommendations for incremental conservation measures 
to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat, and therefore 
experience incremental economic impacts, the DEA (and subsequent FEA) 
focused the analysis specifically on these units (IEc 2015, p. ES-10, 
Exhibit ES-7). The potential economic impact of the designation 
reported in the DEA (and subsequent FEA) therefore directly 
incorporates this consideration into its estimate, and the costs 
presented are those that are fully attributable to the proposed 
critical habitat.
    (156) Comment: A key finding of the DEA is that ``The presence of 
the Maui Nui species provides extensive baseline protection that 
includes offsetting habitat loss. . .'' This statement is erroneous in 
that it assumes that each proposed unit claimed to be occupied by the 
species is entirely occupied. This is not the case. This is because the 
Service has a unique and unprecedented ``ecosystem'' approach to this 
proposed designation.
    Our Response: As described in the FEA (pp. ES-10--ES-13, 2-11), a 
number of the proposed critical habitat units are not considered to be 
occupied by the Maui Nui species. In addition, within the occupied 
units for the plant species, we clearly acknowledge that the plants are 
not necessarily identified throughout the unit but may occur 
intermittently throughout the unit (IEc 2015, p. 2-11). Where the 
species are not present at a project or activity site, section 7 
consultations may not focus on the effects to the species but will 
consider the potential for adverse modification of critical habitat. 
With this in mind, the FEA identified ongoing and currently planned 
projects within the proposed critical habitat units and determined 
whether and how the designation would affect the projects. As stated in 
the FEA, for most of the ongoing and currently planned projects 
identified, project modifications, including habitat offsets, have been 
implemented or are currently being planned within the critical habitat 
unit even absent the proposed designation (IEc 2015, p. ES-4). 
Therefore, for these projects, incremental impacts are expected to be 
limited to the costs of additional administrative effort in section 7 
consultations. However, the FEA also states that ``critical habitat 
designation may generate the additional specification that offsets be 
located within the affected critical habitat unit, or within critical 
habitat of the same type'' (IEc 2015, p. ES-4). The FEA identified one 
project for which this was the case (the Honuaula project) and presents 
both quantified and unquantified incremental effects of critical 
habitat in Chapter 3 of the FEA.
    The ``ecosystem approach'' used in this rule is not unprecedented, 
but has been used in similar rulemakings for species in the Hawaiian 
islands as an organizational tool due to many of the characteristics 
shared by the listed species (for example, 48 Species on Kauai; 75 FR 
18959, April 13, 2010). These characteristics include common threats to 
the essential physical or biological features (e.g., introduced 
ungulates, nonnative plants) and a shared dependence on similar habitat 
types or ecosystems. In addition, in many cases the species in question 
are extremely rare or have been extirpated from the wild, therefore 
data to inform us as to the essential physical or biological features 
for each species is extremely limited. In such cases, the 
identification of indicator species or other characteristics of the 
specific ecosystems known to have historically supported the species in 
question represent the best scientific data available to help us 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of these species (occupied areas), as well as the specific 
areas essential to the conservation of these species (unoccupied 
areas). This approach and our application of it to each of the species 
addressed in the final rule is detailed in the Methods section of this 
document.
    (157) Comment: Based on a single telephone call with an 
unidentified staff person at the DLNR Office of Conservation and 
Coastal Lands, the DEA concludes that the proposed critical habitat 
designation will have no effect on conservation district boundary 
amendments. There is no opinion from a Hawaii court, attorney general, 
or the chair of DLNR to that effect. Without substantial legal 
authority to the contrary, the appropriate assumption for the DEA is 
that all land designated as critical habitat will be included within 
conservation district boundaries by DLNR. It must be assumed that 
agencies will dutifully encourage protection of areas designated as 
critical habitat, meaning that permits, entitlements, or rezoning 
sought for such lands will either be denied, or extremely expensive 
mitigation or offsetting will be required. These assumptions must be 
applied even to areas presently unoccupied by any species for which 
they are designated. In addition, the comments note that because 
critical habitat triggers reclassification of land to the conservation 
district under Hawaii law, this will lower property values, making it 
difficult to sell property in the future, cause project delays, lead to 
EIS

[[Page 17857]]

requirements, and cause costly lawsuits, and therefore constitutes a 
``taking.''
    Our Response: As described in Section 3.1 of the FEA, the analysis 
integrates the best available information regarding the potential 
effects of critical habitat on State and county land management based 
on interviews with staff from the Department of Land and Natural 
Resources (DLNR)'s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and 
the State Office of Planning, as well as the County of Maui's 
Department of Planning. According to the State Office of Planning, 
critical habitat is taken into consideration during the redistricting 
process, but does not itself generate a redistricting of lands to the 
Conservation District. According to the County Department of Planning, 
the presence of critical habitat is one of many factors under 
consideration during the rezoning process. Representatives from OCCL, 
the State, and the county were unable to identify an instance in which 
the presence of critical habitat specifically drove decisions related 
to redistricting or rezoning. As such, it has not been the State's 
practice thus far to redistrict critical habitat areas as conservation 
district lands. The FEA does, however, describe uncertainty with regard 
to the future State and county management of these lands in Section 
3.4. In addition, Section 5.3.2 of the FEA describes the potential 
indirect effects of critical habitat designation, including concern 
that the designation may result in lawsuits. Uncertainty exists 
regarding the potential for as well as the number, timing, and outcome 
of such lawsuits, thus associated impacts are not monetized in the 
economic analysis. Please also see our responses to Comment (22), (50), 
and (59), concerning critical habitat and rezoning issues, above.
    (158) Comment: No attribution to the Service or agreement by the 
Service is offered in the DEA for the conclusion that the expectation 
that ``the effects of critical habitat [on the Lanai wind project] will 
be limited to incremental administrative effort as part of a future 
formal section 7 consultation.'' and that ``it is unlikely however, 
that the project will be subject to additional conservation . . . ''. 
Three factors are listed as the basis for the conclusion that 
additional conservation is unlikely to be required: (1) The project 
will have a limited physical footprint and only affect poor quality 
habitat; (2) the level of ground disturbance as access roads will be 
located on existing roadways; and (3) the project is already subject to 
considerable conservation measures as identified by the Hawaii Clean 
Energy PEIS. There is no indication that the Service is in agreement 
with these reasons.
    Our Response: The FEA provides explanation for each of these 
conclusions, with attribution, in section 4.3.1 (IEc 2015, pp. 4-10--4-
11). We agree with the statements in the DEA (and subsequent FEA) cited 
by the commenter, as well as the ultimate conclusion that the effects 
of critical habitat will be limited to incremental administrative 
effort as part of a future formal section 7 consultation on the Lanai 
wind project. We note that for the reasons described below (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, below), critical habitat is 
not designated on the island of Lanai in this final rule, as a 
consequence of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (159) Comment: The DEA should be revised to include the new 
development plans that encompass grazing and farming on Lanai.
    Our Response: The level of uncertainty regarding the nature of 
future development, as well as how the designation of critical habitat 
may result in project modifications, precluded the quantification of 
impacts of critical habitat on future development in the FEA (IEc 2015, 
p. 3-2). However, for the reasons described below (see Exclusions Based 
on Other Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the 
island of Lanai in this final rule as a consequence of exclusion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (160) Comment: The DEA fails to adequately quantify the impacts of 
critical habitat designation on Kaupo Ranch operations. The DEA does 
not acknowledge that the designation of critical habitat on ranch lands 
will result in the removal of 756 acres from production.
    Our Response: We do not anticipate that critical habitat would 
result in Kaupo Ranch's land being taken out of production. As 
described in Section 5.3 of the FEA, the designation is not likely to 
change how NRCS and the Service manage and regulate farming and grazing 
activities. Chapter 5 of the analysis also notes the potential fire 
break benefit of cattle grazing; however, absent changes in management 
of grazing activity, we do not expect critical habitat to affect this 
potential benefit. In any case, for the reasons described below (see 
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors) Kaupo Ranch lands have been 
excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this 
final rule.
    (161) Comment: One commenter requested that an analysis of the 
interplay of grazing activities, critical habitat designation and 
``harm'' under Hawaii's endangered species State law be conducted by 
experts familiar with State law and included in the final economic 
analysis.
    Our Response: As described in Section 3.1 of the FEA, several State 
agencies were contacted to inform the discussion and evaluation of the 
interplay between critical habitat designation and land use in Hawaii, 
including the potential for critical habitat to result in redistricting 
to the Conservation District. State agencies contacted include the 
State Office of Planning, the Department of Land and Natural Resources' 
Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, the State Department of Fish 
and Wildlife, the State Land Use Commission, and the Department of 
Hawaiian Homelands. The Maui County Planning Department's Zoning 
Administration and Enforcement Division was also contacted regarding 
the issue of critical habitat affecting how the county implements 
zoning changes. However, although critical habitat may be an 
educational tool to identify habitat where a species may occur, it does 
not increase or decrease a landowner's liability for take of a listed 
species under either State or Federal law.
    (162) Comment: The incremental approach to evaluating economic 
impacts has been misapplied in the DEA and the incremental impacts are 
likely underestimated. As much as 70 to 80 percent of the critical 
habitat could be expected to be unoccupied habitat where 
recommendations for habitat offsets for habitat disturbance would not 
be baseline recommendations, and therefore, the incremental costs of 
critical habitat designation could be significant. The DEA contends 
that approximately 42 percent of unoccupied critical habitat overlaps 
with the probable range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth. The basis for 
this assumption is unclear and it is unclear why the probable range of 
the moth is the regulatory equivalent of occupied habitat.
    Our Response: We have provided further detail regarding our 
rationale for the baseline protections provided within the probable 
range of the Blackburn's sphinx moth in paragraphs 71 through 75 of the 
FEA. See also our responses to Comment (142) and (149), above.
    (163) Comment: The DEA does not adequately consider costs 
associated with indirect impacts of critical habitat designation. 
Failure to quantify these impacts renders them meaningless in terms of 
the overall economic impact

[[Page 17858]]

estimated for the proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: Both the DEA and subsequent FEA consider the 
potential for both direct and indirect incremental impacts of the 
designation. The FEA provides an extensive discussion on the potential 
indirect impacts of the designation, including the entirety of Sections 
2.3.2 (IEc 2015, pp. 2-19--2-21) and section 5.3.2 of the FEA (IEc 
2015, pp. 5-16--5-22); Exhibit 5.8 is entirely devoted to potential 
indirect effects of the proposed critical habitat. Chapter 5, in 
particular, includes an extensive discussion on the potential indirect 
impacts of the designation, and considers information provided by 
stakeholders indicating particular concerns with the potential for 
changes in the way the State or county may manage lands, possible 
reductions in land values due to changes in land management, and 
perceptional effects on land values. These concerns are all presented 
and discussed, but the potential indirect impacts cannot be quantified 
due to their speculative nature. There is substantial uncertainty 
regarding whether they will occur, and, if they do, the potential 
magnitude of any effect. For example, although many landowners 
expressed concern that their land would use value as a result of 
redistricting or rezoning in response to critical habitat, the 
assumption that this would occur and result in limiting development is 
speculative, based on information provided to us by State and county 
agencies (IEc 2015, pp. 3-3--3-4; see our response to Comment (148), 
above). According to the Department of Planning's Zoning Administration 
and Enforcement Division, there has never been an instance when an area 
of land was rezoned due to the presence of critical habitat (IEc 2015, 
p. 3-7). The FEA presents a discussion that specifically addresses the 
uncertainty surrounding the potential indirect impacts of critical 
habitat that preclude quantification in this particular instance, but 
acknowledges that such uncertainties may result in an underestimate of 
the quantified impacts of the designation reported in the analysis (IEc 
2015, pp. 5-22--5-23).
    (164) Comment: The economic analysis needs to include specific cost 
estimates or ranges of potential costs for a variety of other potential 
impacts from critical habitat designation. These costs include: Impacts 
on credit availability, lawsuits, limitations on ability to diversify 
land uses, project delays, environmental compliance, and reduction in 
food production. In addition, the economic analysis should quantify 
these types of incremental costs: $100,000 per acre to acquire 
mitigation land to offset impacts to critical habitat (these are costs 
above and beyond the costs of offsetting impacts to listed species), 
impacts of administrative consultation, project modifications and 
delays, section 7 consultations, and completion of an EIS.
    Our Response: The quantified impacts presented in the analysis 
include costs associated with section 7 consultations, as well as costs 
of additional conservation measures for the Honuaula development 
project resulting from the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
analysis also identifies areas in which projects or activities may be 
affected by critical habitat designation but significant uncertainty 
and data limitations preclude quantification of impacts--these impacts 
are referred to in the analysis as ``unquantified impacts.'' Section 
5.3.2 of the FEA addresses stakeholders' concerns that critical habitat 
designation will change the way the State or county manages and permits 
current and future activities on designated lands; results in 
perceptional effects on land values; limits the ability of land owners 
to diversify current land uses; generates costly lawsuits; and hinders 
the State's goal to work toward food sustainability. While uncertainty 
regarding the likelihood of such outcomes and magnitude of associated 
impacts precludes quantification, the Service considers all potential 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat, regardless of whether they 
are direct or indirect, or quantified or unquantified. See also our 
response to Comment (151), above.
    (165) Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
critical habitat will negatively affect hunting, for example by causing 
areas to be fenced and thus limiting land available for hunting.
    Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not affect 
activities, including human access, on State or private lands unless 
some kind of Federal permit, license, or funding is involved (there is 
a Federal nexus) and the activities may affect the species. 
Recreational, commercial, and subsistence activities, including 
hunting, on non-Federal lands are not regulated by critical habitat 
designation, and may be impacted only where there is Federal 
involvement in the action and the action is likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. As noted in our FEA, the Service 
coordinates with the State in managing hunting areas. The State does 
not fence critical habitat areas and the Service does not anticipate 
recommending to the State that the Maui Nui critical habitat area be 
fenced. Critical habitat is accordingly not expected to limit land 
available for hunting (IEc 2015, p. 1-5).

V. Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public on the proposed critical habitat designation 
for 135 Maui Nui species. This final rule incorporates the following 
substantive changes to our proposed designation, based on the comments 
we received:
    (1) In the Methods section of our June 11, 2012 proposed rule (77 
FR 34464), we explained that we used the recovery areas delineated in 
the Service's 2006 Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds to 
assist us in our identification of proposed critical habitat. In 
response to public comments, in this final rule we have expanded our 
discussion of how we used the information in that plan, which we 
consider to be the best scientific data available, to explain the need 
to designate critical habitat in unoccupied areas for the akohekohe and 
kiwikiu. In addition, we have outlined the goals and necessary 
management actions to ensure the conservation of these two endangered 
forest birds within their existing occupied habitat and those 
unoccupied habitats identified as necessary for their conservation (see 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries and Special 
Management Considerations or Protections, below), based on peer review 
comments.
    (2) We have included additional information on disease and disease 
vectors in our discussion of Hawaiian forest birds (see ``Disease and 
Disease Vectors'' in Special Management Considerations or Protections, 
below), based on peer review comments.
    (3) In response to public comments, we have included additional 
information from the Service's recovery plans for one or more of the 
Maui Nui plants to further clarify why it is essential to the 
conservation of each species to designate critical habitat in 
unoccupied areas and to include area for the expansion or augmentation 
of existing populations. In addition, although we had explained in our 
proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464) that we had relied, in part, 
on maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian plants, as 
determined by the HPPRCC (1998, 32 pp. + appendices), in response to 
public comments received, in this final rule we have provided further 
clarifying information on the overall recovery goals and objectives for 
Hawaiian plants (see ``Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian

[[Page 17859]]

Plants,'' below) that we used to help guide the areas identified as 
critical habitat for those species lacking recovery plans. Where 
specific recovery plans were lacking, we relied on all species 
information in our files, including the recovery guidelines provided by 
the HPPRCC (1998) and other reports such as the recently developed 
plant species range maps (Price et al. 2012, 34 pp.), if available for 
the species. In this final rule, we further clarify why it is essential 
to the conservation of each species to designate critical habitat in 
unoccupied areas, and to include area for the expansion or augmentation 
of existing populations.
    (4) We have included additional information on current recovery 
delisting objectives for the three tree snails included in this final 
rule (see ``Recovery Strategy for Three Tree Snails,'' below), to 
further clarify the habitat needs of these species in response to 
public comments.
    (5) We have included additional information on the threat posed by 
the predatory rosy wolf snail (Euglandina rosea) to the Newcomb's tree 
snail (see ``Predation by the Nonnative Rosy Wolf Snail,'' in Special 
Management Considerations or Protections, below).
    (6) We made revisions to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) 
for eight plants, based on comments we received. Because of these PCE 
revisions, we removed Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis and 
Melicope adscendens from the list of plants in Maui--Lowland Dry--Units 
3 and 4 because the elevation of these units is too low to have the 
ability to provide habitat for these species. We added Dry Cliff as an 
ecosystem for Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, and Geranium multiflorum on east Maui in 
Maui--Dry Cliff--Units 1 through 4, added Lowland Wet and Montane Wet 
as ecosystems for Phyllostegia haliakalae on east Maui (Maui--Lowland 
Wet--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Wet--Units 1-4), added Lowland Dry as an 
ecosystem for Hibiscus brackenridgei on Molokai (Molokai--Lowland Dry--
Units 1 and 2), and we removed Maui--Subalpine--Units 1 and 2 for 
Solanum incompletum on east Maui, in response to comments received from 
biologists regarding critical habitat and habitat requirements for 
these species. We also revised Tables 5 and 6 to reflect these changes.
    (7) We had specifically described in the text of the proposed rule 
(June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464) that space within the appropriate habitats 
for population growth and expansion, as well as to maintain the 
historical geographical and ecological distribution of each species, is 
an essential physical or biological feature for each of the Maui Nui 
species. In this final rule, in response to public comment, we have 
expanded that discussion to further clarify why additional suitable 
habitat in areas that are currently unoccupied, or that may have been 
unoccupied at the time of listing, is essential for the conservation of 
each of the Maui Nui species.
    (8) We have modified Table 5, Physical or Biological Features in 
Each Ecosystem, so that the heading for canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory plants reads ``Supporting one or more of these associated 
native plant genera'' instead of ``Capable of supporting one or more of 
these associated native plant genera,'' to make it clear that the 
presence of one or more of the associated native plant genera 
identified is a physical or biological feature for the listed species 
in each ecosystem.
    (9) We are removing the entry for ``Family Rhamnaceae: Gouania 
hillebrandii'' from 50 CFR 17.96(a). With this rule, the critical 
habitat designation for Gouania hillebrandii is set forth at 50 CFR 
17.99.
    (10) We revised the unit boundaries proposed for Molokai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe, based on comments indicating that changes in land use had 
occurred within the proposed critical habitat units that would preclude 
certain occupied areas from supporting the primary constituent 
elements, or that the unoccupied areas in question were not essential 
to the conservation of the species. Such areas do not meet the 
statutory definition of critical habitat, therefore we removed them 
from the final designation. In addition, portions of some units were 
excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (as 
described in the section Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors, 
below). These removals and exclusions resulted in acreage reductions in 
several units on Maui, Molokai, and Kahoolawe. In addition, four units 
on Maui (Dry Cliff--Unit 7, Montane Wet--Unit 8, Montane Mesic--Unit 6, 
Wet Cliff--Unit 5) and all units on Lanai are removed entirely as 
critical habitat as a result of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act. Table 3, A through E, provides details for all units that have 
changed as a result of these removals and exclusions between the 
proposed and final rules.
    Table 3. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule--Critical Habitat 
Units With Changes to Area (Note: Units that are unchanged are not 
shown in this table, hence final acreages do not sum up to equal the 
total final critical habitat). All changes are reductions unless 
otherwise noted; values denoted with a plus sign (+) are additions to 
units. In many cases, additions reflect acres that were initially 
misclassified into a different ecosystem unit and were simply moved 
from one unit to another (thus those acres are reflected as a reduction 
in a different unit under the Boundary Adjustment column).

                                                                Table 
3-A--Island of Maui
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Proposed critical
                           Boundary                             Final 
critical
                     Maui units                          habitat acres  
   Removed \*\ acres    adjustments \*\     Excluded acres       habitat
 acres
                                                          (hectares)    
      (hectares)       acres (hectares)       (hectares)          
(hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal--Unit
 2.....................................             68 (28)             
43 (17)  ..................  ..................             25 (10)
Coastal--Unit 3.....................................             54 (22)
             43 (17)  ..................  ..................            
  10 (4)
Coastal--Unit 4.....................................            243 (98)
            169 (68)  ..................  ..................            
 74 (30)
Coastal--Unit 5.....................................             27 (11)
               1 (0)  ..................  ..................            
 26 (11)
Coastal--Unit 7.....................................            187 (76)
             71 (29)  ..................             71 (29)            
 46 (19)
Coastal--Unit 8.....................................           597 (242)
            104 (42)  ..................  ..................           
493 (200)
Coastal--Unit 9.....................................           393 (159)
              19 (8)  ..................            205 (83)            
170 (69)
Coastal--Unit 10....................................           434 (176)
           261 (106)  ..................  ..................            
173 (70)
Lowland Dry--Unit 1.................................      22,196 (8,983)
         1,607 (650)  ..................       7,053 (2,854)      13,537
 (5,478)
Lowland Dry--Unit 2.................................       2,612 (1,057)
             30 (12)  ..................           732 (296)         
1,851 (749)
Lowland Dry--Unit 3.................................         1,089 (441)
  ..................  ..................           901 (365)            
188 (76)
Lowland Dry--Unit 4.................................         1,283 (519)
              17 (7)  ..................  ..................         
1,266 (512)
Lowland Dry--Unit 5.................................       5,448 (2,205)
             99 (40)  ..................         1,690 (685)       3,658
 (1,480)
Lowland Dry--Unit 6.................................           579 (234)
            156 (63)  ..................            184 (74)            
240 (97)

[[Page 17860]]

 
Lowland Mesic--Unit 1...............................         1,930 (781)
             43 (17)  ..................               6 (2)         
1,882 (762)
Lowland Mesic--Unit 2...............................       3,424 (1,386)
           549 (222)  ..................         1,729 (700)         
1,147 (464)
Lowland Wet--Unit 1.................................     26,703 (10,807)
       9,822 (3,975)  ..................           802 (325)      16,079
 (6,507)
Lowland Wet--Unit 2.................................       5,066 (2,050)
               5 (2)  ..................       4,997 (2,022)            
 65 (26)
Lowland Wet--Unit 3.................................         1,427 (577)
  ..................  ..................            180 (73)         
1,247 (505)
Lowland Wet--Unit 4.................................         1,165 (472)
  ..................  ..................           301 (122)           
864 (350)
Lowland Wet--Unit 5.................................         2,112 (855)
  ..................  ..................         2,082 (843)            
 30 (12)
Lowland Wet--Unit 6.................................           639 (259)
  ..................  ..................           503 (204)            
136 (55)
Montane Wet--Unit 1.................................       7,815 (3,162)
             46 (19)         +282 (+114)       5,940 (2,404)         
2,110 (854)
Montane Wet--Unit 2.................................      16,687 (6,753)
  ..................  ..................         2,104 (851)      14,583
 (5,901)
Montane Wet--Unit 6.................................       3,964 (1,604)
  ..................  ..................       2,565 (1,038)         
1,399 (566)
Montane Wet--Unit 7.................................           608 (246)
  ..................  ..................           528 (214)            
 80 (32)
Montane Wet--Unit 8.................................             46 (19)
  ..................  ..................             46 (18)            
   0 (0)
Montane Mesic--Unit 1...............................      20,972 (8,487)
         2,449 (991)         -282 (-114)       7,269 (2,942)      10,972
 (4,440)
Montane Mesic--Unit 2...............................           366 (148)
  ..................  ..................            242 (98)            
124 (50)
Montane Mesic--Unit 3...............................            218 (88)
  ..................  ..................             44 (18)            
174 (70)
Montane Mesic--Unit 5...............................           304 (123)
  ..................  ..................            134 (54)            
170 (69)
Montane Mesic--Unit 6...............................             94 (38)
  ..................  ..................             94 (38)            
   0 (0)
Montane Dry--Unit 1.................................       4,988 (2,019)
  ..................  ..................         1,464 (592)       3,524
 (1,426)
Subalpine--Unit 1...................................      19,401 (7,851)
         1,215 (492)  ..................         2,211 (895)      15,975
 (6,465)
Subalpine--Unit 2...................................      10,931 (4,424)
  ..................  ..................         1,045 (423)       9,886
 (4,001)
Alpine--Unit 1......................................         2,107 (853)
           295 (119)  ..................              15 (6)         
1,797 (727)
Dry Cliff--Unit 1...................................         1,018 (412)
  ..................  ..................           264 (107)           
755 (305)
Dry Cliff--Unit 3...................................           293 (119)
  ..................  ..................             93 (38)            
200 (81)
Dry Cliff--Unit 5...................................         1,536 (622)
  ..................  ..................            238 (97)         
1,298 (525)
Dry Cliff--Unit 7...................................           808 (327)
  ..................  ..................           808 (327)            
   0 (0)
Wet Cliff--Unit 1...................................           460 (186)
  ..................  ..................            170 (69)           
290 (117)
Wet Cliff--Unit 5...................................         2,048 (829)
             52 (21)  ..................         1,996 (808)            
   0 (0)
Wet Cliff--Unit 6...................................       9,103 (3,684)
  ..................  ..................       6,993 (2,830)         
2,110 (854)
Wet Cliff--Unit 7...................................           781 (316)
  ..................  ..................            222 (90)           
557 (225)
                                                     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................    182,225 (73,744)
      17,094 (6,918)               0 (0)     55,921 (22,631)    109,210 
(44,196)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
 Refinement in unit areas made in response to public comments and 
additional field visits; includes reclassification from one ecosystem 
type to
  another.


                                                              Table 
3-B--Island of Molokai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Proposed critical
                           Boundary                             Final 
critical
               Critical habitat units                    habitat acres  
    Removed * acres      adjustments *      Excluded acres       habitat
 acres
                                                          (hectares)    
      (hectares)       acres (hectares)       (hectares)          
(hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal--Unit
 1.....................................           250 (101)            
126 (51)  ..................  ..................            125 (50)
Coastal--Unit 2.....................................       3,544 (1,434)
         1,642 (664)  ..................           924 (374)           
977 (396)
Coastal--Unit 3.....................................           862 (349)
             60 (24)  ..................  ..................           
803 (325)
Coastal--Unit 6.....................................         1,913 (774)
             29 (12)  ..................  ..................         
1,884 (762)
Coastal--Unit 7.....................................           306 (124)
           257 (104)            +10 (+4)  ..................            
 49 (20)
Lowland Dry--Unit 1.................................             70 (28)
             46 (19)  ..................  ..................            
 24 (10)
Lowland Dry--Unit 2.................................       3,201 (1,295)
       2,608 (1,055)             -4 (-2)  ..................           
589 (238)
Lowland Mesic--Unit 1...............................      10,330 (4,180)
         1,199 (485)           +27 (+11)           388 (157)       8,770
 (3,549)
Lowland Wet--Unit 1.................................       3,628 (1,468)
           679 (275)  ..................  ..................       2,949
 (1,193)
Lowland Wet--Unit 2.................................         1,952 (790)
               5 (2)             +3 (+1)  ..................         
1,950 (789)
Lowland Wet--Unit 3.................................       8,074 (3,267)
       4,832 (1,955)            -23 (-9)  ..................       3,219
 (1,303)
Montane Wet--Unit 1.................................       4,818 (1,950)
               3 (1)          +0.5 (+ 0)         1,419 (574)       3,397
 (1,375)
Montane Mesic--Unit 1...............................         1,629 (659)
  ..................  ..................           813 (329)           
816 (330)
Wet Cliff--Unit 1...................................         1,888 (764)
           281 (114)  ..................  ..................         
1,607 (651)
Wet Cliff--Unit 2...................................         1,280 (518)
  ..................  ..................              12 (5)         
1,268 (513)
                                                     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................     43,746 (17,703)
      11,766 (4,761)            +14 (+5)       3,557 (1,440)     28,434 
(11,507)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
 Refinement in unit areas made in response to public comments and 
additional field visits; includes reclassification from one ecosystem 
type to
  another.


                                         Table 3-C--Island of Kahoolawe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Proposed critical                    
                        Final critical
     Critical habitat units          habitat acres      Removed * acres 
    Excluded acres       habitat acres
                                      (hectares)          (hectares)    
      (hectares)          (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal--Unit
 3.................           339 (137)            151 (61)  
..................          * 189 (76)

[[Page 17861]]

 
Lowland Dry--Unit 1.............         1,380 (559)            160 (65)
  ..................         1,220 (494)
                                 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         1,719 (696)           311 (126)
  ..................         1,409 (570)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
 Reflects adjustment for original unit acreage, which mistakenly 
overlapped with Lowland Dry 1.


                                           Table 3-D--Island of Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Proposed critical
                        Final critical
               Critical habitat units                    habitat acres  
    Excluded acres       habitat acres
                                                          (hectares)    
      (hectares)          (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal--Unit
 1.....................................           373 (151)           
373 (151)               0 (0)
Coastal--Unit 2.....................................               2 (1)
               2 (1)               0 (0)
Coastal--Unit 3.....................................           509 (206)
           509 (206)               0 (0)
Lowland Dry--Unit 1.................................       9,766 (3,952)
       9,766 (3,952)               0 (0)
Lowland Dry--Unit 2.................................           939 (380)
           939 (380)               0 (0)
Lowland Mesic--Unit 1...............................      11,172 (4,521)
      11,172 (4,521)               0 (0)
Lowland Wet--Unit 1.................................           374 (152)
           374 (152)               0 (0)
Lowland Wet--Unit 2.................................            232 (94)
            232 (94)               0 (0)
Montane Wet--Unit 1.................................           248 (101)
           248 (101)               0 (0)
Dry Cliff--Unit 1...................................             83 (34)
             83 (34)               0 (0)
Dry Cliff--Unit 2...................................           354 (143)
           354 (143)               0 (0)
Dry Cliff--Unit 3...................................           398 (161)
           398 (161)               0 (0)
Wet Cliff--Unit 1...................................           731 (296)
           731 (296)               0 (0)
Wet Cliff--Unit 2...................................            230 (93)
            230 (93)               0 (0)
                                                     
-----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................     25,413 (10,284)
     25,413 (10,284)               0 (0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 3-E--Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
 in Terms of Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Proposed critical                    
                        Final critical
                                     habitat acres      Removed * acres 
    Excluded acres       habitat acres
                                      (hectares)          (hectares)    
      (hectares)          (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maui............................
    192,362 (77,852)      17,094 (6,918)     55,921 (22,631)    119,349 
(48,299)
Molokai.........................     46,831 (18,949)    * 11,752 (4,755)
       3,557 (1,440)     31,523 (12,757)
Kahoolawe.......................       6,451 (2,611)           311 (126)
               0 (0)       6,142 (2,486)
Lanai...........................     25,413 (10,284)               0 (0)
     25,413 (10,284)               0 (0)
                                 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................   271,062 (109,695)   * 29,157 (11,799)
     84,891 (34,354)    157,014 (63,541)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
 Net acres removed, adjusted to reflect 13 ac (5 ha) added in course of 
boundary adjustments, as detailed in
  Table 3B.

VI. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) 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) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) 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 to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided 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, transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. 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 the government or public access to private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a 
landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for 
an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, 
but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, 
the Federal action agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to 
restore or recover the species, but to

[[Page 17862]]

implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) that may require special management 
considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 
and commercial data available, those physical or biological features 
that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, 
food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or 
biological features within an area, we focus on the principal 
biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent 
elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water 
quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of 
the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include 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 dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine to be necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be 
required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination for 44 Maui Nui Species

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that designation of critical habitat is 
not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The 
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species; or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
40 Maui Nui Species
    On May 28, 2013, we published the final rule to list as endangered 
38 Maui Nui species (35 plants and 3 tree snails) and reaffirm the 
listing as endangered of two endemic Hawaii plants (78 FR 32014). These 
40 species include 3 tree snails and 37 plants, as follows: Newcomb's 
tree snail (Newcombia cumingi) and the two Lanai tree snails (Partulina 
semicarinata and P. variabilis); the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Bidens conjuncta, 
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, 
Cyanea duvalliorum, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea horrida, 
Cyanea kunthiana, Cyanea magnicalyx, Cyanea maritae, Cyanea mauiensis, 
Cyanea munroi, Cyanea obtusa, Cyanea profuga, Cyanea solanacea, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Cyrtandra filipes, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, Geranium hillebrandii, Mucuna sloanei 
var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, Phyllostegia pilosa, 
Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Schiedea laui, Schiedea salicaria, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa. There is currently no 
documentation that the 37 listed endangered or threatened plants are 
threatened by taking or other human activity. Overcollection is a 
potential serious threat to the three listed endangered tree snails 
(Newcombia cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and P. variabilis) (see 
``B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes,'' at 78 FR 32050; May 28, 2013). Europeans and 
others collected

[[Page 17863]]

Hawaiian tree snails starting in the 1800s and into the early 20th 
century. Even today, there are Internet Web sites that sell Hawaiian 
tree snail shells, including other species of the Hawaiian Partulina. 
It is unknown if the shells offered for sale are from historical 
collections or recent collections from the wild. However, we do not 
believe the designated critical habitat will increase the threat of 
overcollection of N. cumingi, P. semicarinata, and P. variabilis 
because our approach to critical habitat designation is based on the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and does not identify the locations of individuals of the three 
tree snails. In addition, the critical habitat unit maps are published 
at a scale that does not pinpoint the locations of the three snail 
species to the extent that individuals of these three tree snail 
species can be located on the private lands on which they occur.
Four Previously Listed Maui Nui Species
    We listed the akohekohe or crested honeycreeper and the kiwikiu or 
Maui parrotbill as endangered species in 1967 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 
1967), under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (precursor 
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973). Critical habitat was not 
determined at that time because it was not required under the Act until 
1978. Neither the akohekohe nor the kiwikiu is threatened by taking or 
other human activity (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967; USFWS 2006, pp. 2-81 
to 2-82, 2-142).
    At the time we listed the plant Kokia cookei (Cooke's kokia) as 
endangered in 1979, we found that designation of critical habitat was 
not prudent because this species had been extirpated from its natural 
range on Molokai and was known only from a single specimen in 
cultivation and tissue culture maintained in a laboratory, therefore at 
that time we concluded that the species would not benefit from the 
designation of critical habitat (44 FR 62470; October 30, 1979). Kokia 
cookei is not threatened by vandalism, collecting, or other human 
activities, and we believe there is a benefit to a critical habitat 
designation for this species (see discussion below).
    We listed the plant Acaena exigua (liliwai), known from Kauai and 
Maui, as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 20772; May 15, 1992). At that time, 
the species had not been seen since 1973. In 1997, botanists 
rediscovered A. exigua in the Puu Kukui Preserve on west Maui, but it 
has not been seen at this location since 2000 (68 FR 25934; May 14, 
2003). We determined that critical habitat was not prudent for Acaena 
exigua at the time of listing (1992) and again at the time we 
reevaluated prudency determinations for many listed plants in the 
Hawaiian Islands because at that time we believed A. exigua was most 
likely extinct, and therefore would not benefit from a critical habitat 
designation (2003) (57 FR 20772, May 15, 1992; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 
2003, p. 9185). Acaena exigua is not threatened by vandalism, 
collecting, or other human activities, and we believe there is a 
benefit to a critical habitat designation for this species (see 
discussion below). Although the reasons for the disappearance of this 
species on west Maui are not known, botanists believe it may be 
rediscovered in the same area where it was last seen in 2000, with 
sustained searching.
    We reviewed the information available for the 39 endangered plants, 
3 tree snails, and the 2 endangered birds (akohekohe and kiwikiu) 
pertaining to the biological needs of these 44 species and 
characteristics of their last known habitats. In the absence of finding 
that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a 
species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, 
then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits to the 39 
endangered plants, the 3 tree snails, and the 2 endangered birds 
(akohekohe and kiwikiu) include: (1) Triggering consultation under 
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a 
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, 
it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) 
focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and 
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing 
inadvertent harm to the species.
    There are two plant species, Kokia cookei and Acaena exigua, for 
which we now find that the designation of critical habitat is prudent, 
which is a change from earlier determinations that critical habitat was 
not prudent for these species, neither of which is known to occur in 
the wild. At the time the K. cookei was listed (October 30, 1979; 44 FR 
62470) we determined that the designation of critical habitat was not 
prudent, because K. cookei had been extirpated from its natural range; 
however, the rule noted that critical habitat may be determined at a 
future date in connection with efforts to reintroduce the species. 
Currently, there is a single individual of K. cookei in cultivation on 
Oahu, and there are propagules in captive propagation, with two 
individuals outplanted on Molokai in a living gardens collection. 
Acaena exigua was listed as endangered in 1992, at which time it was 
determined that critical habitat was not prudent as it would not 
provide a benefit to the species (May 15, 1992; 47 FR 20772). When we 
reconsidered not prudent findings as required by Conservation Council 
for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998) we found (65 
FR 79192, December 18, 2000) that critical habitat for A. exigua was 
not prudent because it had not been seen in the wild, and no genetic 
material of the species was known to exist. However, as described in 
our proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 74 FR 34464,), we have reconsidered 
these findings and now conclude that designation of critical habitat is 
prudent for these two species. Recovery of these two plants, K. cookei 
and A. exigua, neither of which are currently known to occur as wild 
individuals (A. exigua was briefly rediscovered in 1997, and survived 
until 2000), will require in-situ conservation and protection of wild 
individuals, if rediscovered; enhancement of existing populations with 
outplantings; and establishment of new populations through outplanting 
of propagated individuals into potentially suitable habitat within 
their historical ranges (USFWS 1997, p. 11; USFWS 1998a, pp. 22-23; Orr 
2007, in litt., p. 8; Seidman 2007, in litt.). The conservation of 
these species cannot be achieved unless individuals are reintroduced 
and eventually populations are reestablished in the wild. Therefore, 
for the reasons described above, we have determined that critical 
habitat is prudent and will be of benefit to these species, as suitable 
habitat within their historical range is essential to their 
conservation to provide for the reintroduction and reestablishment of 
the species in the wild.
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any 
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. We find 
that the designation of critical habitat for each of the 44 endangered 
species identified above will benefit it by serving to focus 
conservation efforts on the restoration and maintenance of ecosystem 
functions that are essential for attaining its recovery and long-term 
viability. In addition, the designation of critical habitat serves to 
inform management and conservation decisions by identifying any 
additional physical or biological features of the ecosystem that

[[Page 17864]]

may be essential for the conservation of certain species, such as the 
availability of bogs for Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Geranium hanaense, 
and G. hillebrandii. Therefore, as we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of 
threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find 
that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the following 44 
species, as critical habitat would be beneficial and there is no 
evidence that the designation of critical habitat would result in an 
increased threat from taking or other human activity for these species:
    (1) Plants--Acaena exigua, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, Cyanea 
duvalliorum, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea horrida, Cyanea 
kunthiana, Cyanea magnicalyx, Cyanea maritae, Cyanea mauiensis, Cyanea 
munroi, Cyanea obtusa, Cyanea profuga, Cyanea solanacea, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, Cyrtandra filipes, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Festuca 
molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, Geranium hillebrandii, Kokia cookei, 
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Peperomia 
subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, Phyllostegia haliakalae, 
Phyllostegia pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Schiedea laui, 
Schiedea salicaria, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa;
    (2) Animals--birds: akohekohe and kiwikiu; snails: Newcombia 
cumingi, Partulina semicarinata, and Partulina variabilis.

Critical Habitat Determinability for the Listed Plant Species Cyanea 
mauiensis and Phyllostegia hispida

    As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing 
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable 
when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    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 those 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species that may require special management considerations or 
protection. The primary constituent elements of critical habitat 
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, rearing (or development) of 
offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We are currently unable to identify the physical and biological 
features that are considered essential to the conservation of the plant 
Cyanea mauiensis, one of the recently listed species on Maui, because 
information necessary to understand the life-history needs of the 
species is not available at this time. Key features of the life history 
of this plant species, such as flowering cycles, pollination vectors, 
specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors, remain 
unknown. Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of, or native 
species associated with, this species on the island of Maui. Cyanea 
mauiensis was last observed on Maui over 100 years ago, and its habitat 
has been modified and altered by nonnative ungulates and plants, fire, 
and stochastic events (e.g., hurricanes, landslides). In addition, 
predation by nonnative rats, and herbivory by nonnative ungulates and 
invertebrates, likely led to the extirpation of this species from Maui. 
Because a century has elapsed since C. mauiensis was last observed, the 
optimal conditions that provide the biological or ecological requisites 
of this species are not known. As described above, we can surmise that 
habitat degradation from a variety of factors and predation by a number 
of nonnative species has contributed to the decline of this species on 
Maui; however, we do not know the physical or biological features that 
are essential for C. mauiensis. As we are unable to identify the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of this 
species, we are unable to identify areas on Maui that contain these 
features.
    Although we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for the plant Cyanea mauiensis, the biological needs 
of this species are not sufficiently well known to permit 
identification of the physical or biological features that may be 
essential for the conservation of the species, or those areas that 
provide the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. Therefore, we find that critical habitat 
for C. mauiensis is not determinable at this time. We intend to 
continue gathering information regarding the essential life-history 
requirements of this plant species to facilitate the identification of 
those physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of C. mauiensis. We recognize that in the case of a ``not 
determinable'' finding the Act provides 1 year from the date of the 
proposed rule in which such a finding is made to propose critical 
habitat. As such a proposal would further delay the finalization of 
critical habitat for the other 135 Maui Nui species addressed in this 
rule, we will be proposing critical habitat for C. mauiensis in a 
separate rulemaking in the near future.
    We listed the plant Phyllostegia hispida (NCN), known only from the 
island of Molokai, as an endangered species on March 17, 2009 (74 FR 
11319). At the time of listing, we determined that critical habitat was 
prudent but not determinable for this species, but acknowledged that 
for the future designation of critical habitat we would evaluate the 
needs of P. hispida within the ecological context of the ecosystem in 
which it occurs. We are now designating critical habitat for P. 
hispida, based on the identification of the physical and biological 
features that contribute to the successful functioning of the ecosystem 
upon which it depends.
Critical Habitat Designation for 50 Species and Revision of Critical 
Habitat Designation for 85 Species on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe
    In this section, we discuss the designation of critical habitat for 
50 listed plants and animals on the islands of Maui Nui (39 of the 40 
species discussed above in our listing proposal and reevaluation, for 
which we concluded that critical habitat was both prudent and 
determinable; 2 listed bird species (akohekohe or crested honeycreeper 
and kiwikiu or Maui parrotbill); and 9 listed plants Abutilon 
eremitopetalum, Acaena exigua, Cyanea gibsonii, Kadua cordata ssp. 
remyi, Kokia cookei, Labordia tinifolia var.

[[Page 17865]]

lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Phyllostegia hispida, and Viola 
lanaiensis. This section also discusses the currently designated 
critical habitat for 85 species of plants on the islands of Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, which is being revised here based on new 
information. This information represents the best current scientific 
information available.
Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian Plants
    The lack of detailed scientific data on the life history of the 130 
plant species in this final rule makes it impossible for us to develop 
a robust quantitative model (e.g., population viability analysis 
(National Research Council 1995)) to identify the optimal number, size, 
and location of critical habitat units to achieve recovery. Based on 
the best information available at this time, including information on 
which the listing and recovery plans for most of these species were 
based, we have concluded that the current size and distribution of the 
extant populations are not sufficient to provide for the conservation 
of these plant species (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-238; Reed 
2005, pp. 563-568).
    For 95 of these plant species, the overall recovery strategy, 
outlined in the approved recovery plans, includes: (1) Stabilization of 
existing wild populations; (2) protection and management of habitat; 
(3) enhancement of existing small populations and reestablishment of 
new populations within historical range; and (4) research on species 
biology and ecology (Service Recovery Plan for Gouania hillebrandii 
(Rhamnaceae), July 1990; Recovery Plan for the Kauai Plant Cluster, 
September 1995; Lanai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan, September 1995; 
Recovery Plan for Marsilea villosa, April 1996; Recovery Plan for the 
Big Island Plant Cluster, September 1996; Recovery Plan for Molokai 
Plant Cluster, September 1996; Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant 
Cluster, July 1997; Recovery Plan for Kokia cookei, June 1998; Recovery 
Plan for the Oahu Plant Cluster, August 1998; Recovery Plan for 4 
Hawaiian Ferns, April 1998; Molokai II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan 
for the Molokai Plant Cluster, May 1998; Recovery Plan for the Multi-
Island Plants, July 1999; and Addendum to the Recovery Plan for Multi-
Island Plants, September). Although recovery plans have not yet been 
developed for 35 of the plants in this final rule (Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. conjuncta, 
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Canavalia pubescens, Cyanea asplenifolia, 
C. duvalliorum, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, C. maritae, C. 
munroi, C. obtusa, C. profuga, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. 
filipes, C. oxybapha, Festuca molokaiensis, Geranium hanaense, G. 
hillebrandii, Mucuna sloanei var. persericea, Myrsine vaccinioides, 
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. 
pilosa, Pittosporum halophilum, Pleomele fernaldii, Schiedea jacobii, 
S. laui, S. salicaria, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and Wikstroemia villosa) 
listed as endangered on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014), or for Phyllostegia 
hispida, listed as endangered on March 17, 2009 (74 FR 11319), and for 
which we are designating critical habitat in this final rule, we 
believe it is reasonable to apply this same recovery strategy to these 
35 plant species because they have similar life histories, occur in the 
same habitat, and face the same threats as the 95 plant species with 
approved recovery plans and addressed in this final rule, including 
small numbers of individuals and greatly reduced distributions.
    The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of 
95 plant species with approved recovery plans and which we have applied 
to the 35 plant species without recovery plans, includes the 
establishment of 8 to 10 populations with a minimum of 100 mature, 
reproducing individuals per population for long-lived perennials; 300 
mature, reproducing individuals per population for short-lived 
perennials; and 500 mature, reproducing individuals per population for 
annuals. These are the minimum population targets set for considering 
delisting of the species, which we consider the equivalent of achieving 
the conservation of the species as defined in section 3 of the Act 
(hereafter we refer to these delisting objectives as defined in 
recovery plans or by the HPPRCC (1998) as simply ``recovery 
objectives''). (There is only one exception to the criteria above, and 
that is Marsilea villosa, a short-lived terrestrial fern dependent on 
flooding regimes for its reproductive cycle. The recovery plan states 
that for downlisting, at least six distinct, self-sustaining 
populations must be maintained over two successive flooding events, and 
that to delist, the six populations must no longer be in need of active 
management, and that these criteria should then be reconsidered 5 years 
following the delisting). To be considered recovered, the populations 
of multi-island species should be distributed among the islands of its 
known historical range (Service Recovery Plan for Gouania hillebrandii 
(Rhamnaceae), July 1990; Recovery Plan for the Kauai Plant Cluster, 
September 1995; Lanai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan, September 1995; 
Recovery Plan for Marsilea villosa, April 1996; Recovery Plan for the 
Big Island Plant Cluster, September 1996; Recovery Plan for Molokai 
Plant Cluster, September 1996; Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant 
Cluster, July 1997; Recovery Plan for Kokia cookei, June 1998; Recovery 
Plan for the Oahu Plant Cluster, August 1998; Recovery Plan for 4 
Hawaiian Ferns, April 1998; Molokai II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan 
for the Molokai Plant Cluster, May 1998; Recovery Plan for the Multi-
Island Plants, July 1999; and Addendum to the Recovery Plan for Multi-
Island Plants, September; HPPRCC 1998). A population, for the purposes 
of this discussion and as defined in the recovery plans for these 
species, is a unit in which the individuals could be regularly cross-
pollinated and influenced by the same small-scale events (such as 
landslides), and which contains a minimum of 100, 300, or 500 mature, 
reproducing individuals, depending on whether the species is a long-
lived perennial, short-lived perennial, or annual, respectively. For 
all plant species, propagated and outplanted individuals are generally 
not initially counted toward recovery, as populations must demonstrate 
recruitment (the ability to reproduce and generate multiple 
generations) and viability over an extended period of time to be 
considered self-sustaining.
    By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the 
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events 
and catastrophes, such as landslides, floods, and hurricanes, which 
could destroy a large percentage of a species at any one time, may be 
reduced (Kramer et al. 2008, p. 879; Menges 1990, pp. 56-60; Neel and 
Ellstrand 2003, p. 347). These recovery objectives were initially 
developed by the HPPRCC and are found in the recovery plans for 95 
plant species, and applied to the 35 plant species without approved 
recovery plans. Further discussion on these recovery objectives can be 
found in our final critical habitat designations for 3 plants on the 
island of Lanai (68 FR 1220; January 9, 2003), 41 plants on Molokai (68 
FR 12982; March 18, 2003), and 60 plants on the islands of Maui and 
Kahoolawe (68 FR 25934; May 14, 2003). As stated above, these 
objectives describe the minimum population criteria to be met, based on 
the best available scientific data, to ensure adequate population 
resiliency (population size, growth rate, and connectivity; indicative 
of ability to

[[Page 17866]]

withstand stochastic disturbances), redundancy (spreading the risk 
among multiple populations over a large geographic area; ability to 
withstand catastrophic events), and representation (genetic and 
environmental diversity; ability to adapt to changing conditions over 
time) to ensure long-term viability and bring these species to the 
point at which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary 
(delisting). As this is the definition of conservation under section 3 
of the Act, we consider the ability to meet these recovery objectives 
as essential to the conservation of these species. These population 
recovery objectives are not necessarily the only recovery criteria for 
each species, but they served as the guide for our identification of 
the critical habitat areas essential for the conservation of the Maui 
Nui species in this rule, in terms of providing the ability to meet the 
specified population objectives.
    In conclusion, for the 130 plant species addressed in this final 
rule, their conservation is dependent upon the protection of habitat 
for existing population sites, including room for population growth and 
expansion, and suitable unoccupied habitat within their historical 
range to provide for the requisite resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation of populations through restoration and reintroductions 
(see Unoccupied Areas, below).
Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds
    The recovery strategies for the akohekohe and kiwikiu are generally 
similar because these two birds inhabit similar geographic areas and 
face common threats (Service 2006, pp. 2-83, 2-143). These recovery 
strategies, enumerated in the Service's 2006 Revised Recovery Plan for 
Hawaiian Forest Birds (pp. 2-83, 2-143), include the protection, 
restoration, and management of native high-elevation habitat on east 
Maui; research to understand the threats from disease and predation; 
and reestablishment (through captive propagation (both akohekohe and 
kiwikiu) or translocation of wild-caught adult birds (kiwikiu)) of a 
second population of both species in historical habitat on west Maui or 
east Molokai to reduce the risk of extinction due to catastrophic 
events, such as hurricanes and disease outbreaks (Service 2006, pp. 2-
83, 2-143). Currently, there is only one population each of the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu, both on the windward side of Haleakala, east 
Maui. Suitable habitat is needed in other areas to achieve at least two 
populations or a metapopulation of each species on the islands of Maui 
Nui. The akohekohe and kiwikiu are known to have occurred on Molokai. 
West Maui and Molokai contain intact native forest suitable for both 
species, except for the presence of mosquitoes and avian diseases. 
Haleakala supports a population of approximately 3,800 akohekohe that 
occupy 22 sq mi (58 sq km), and a population of approximately 500 
kiwikiu that occupy about 19 sq mi (59 sq km). For each species these 
areas represent less than 5 percent of the estimated historical ranges 
on Maui. Both species appear to occupy almost all habitat that is 
currently suitable, because of disease constraints at lower elevations. 
To ensure the potential for population increase, additional habitat 
must be restored from 4,000 to 7,000 ft (1,200 to 2,000 m) on the 
leeward slopes and from 5,000 to 7,000 ft (1,500 to 2,000 m) on the 
western slopes, including a lower elevational limit of 2,500 ft (750 m) 
on windward Haleakala to encompass nonbreeding habitat for some birds 
following seasonal flowering downslope. A recovery area on west Maui, 
from 2,500 ft (750 m) to the summit (5,800 ft (1,800 m) that 
encompasses suitable forest habitat, most of which is already managed 
for conservation, with large areas of native forest, would provide a 
second geographically disjunct population for each of these species. A 
recovery area on Molokai, from 2,500 ft (750 m) to the summit, would 
encompass forest habitat suitable for the two forest birds, and 
currently, upper elevations are managed for conservation, with 
management still required for control and prevention of avian disease. 
This would provide for population increases and populations disjunct 
from the island of Maui, in case of catastrophic events. The 
establishment of these additional populations in unoccupied but 
suitable habitat is essential to the conservation of these two bird 
species, as each remains highly vulnerable to extinction through either 
a single catastrophic event or a disease epizootic, since each species 
has been reduced to only a single population.
    The recovery plan also provides the recovery criteria for delisting 
the akohekohe and kiwikiu (i.e., removing the species from protection 
under the Act). The following criteria must be met over a 30-year time 
period: (1) Two or more viable populations or a viable metapopulation 
on Haleakala and either west Maui or Molokai that represent the 
ecological, morphological, behavioral, and genetic diversity of the 
species; (2) population viability demonstrated by quantitative surveys 
or demographic monitoring and total population size not expected to 
decline by more than 20 percent over a 30-year period; (3) sufficient 
habitat in recovery areas is protected and managed to achieve criteria 
1 and 2; and (4) threats that led to the decline of the species are 
identified and controlled (Service 2006, pp. x-xi, 3-5).
    In conclusion, for both of these birds, their conservation is 
dependent upon the protection of existing population sites and suitable 
unoccupied habitat within their historical range. Unoccupied but 
suitable habitat, as described in the Revised Forest Birds Recovery 
Plan, is essential for the conservation of both bird species to provide 
for the expansion of extant populations, as well as sites for 
translocation or reintroduction to establish additional populations 
essential to the conservation of the species. Areas both on east and 
west Maui, and on Molokai, are designated as critical habitat because 
these areas are necessary to promote natural demographic and 
evolutionary processes, and to allow the species to expand into 
potential habitat in a ``ring'' of suitable forest at upper elevations 
where mosquitoes (that spread disease) are rare. Reestablishment of 
these forest birds on west Maui or Molokai is necessary; however, it is 
uncertain in exactly which area (east or west Maui, or Molokai) a new 
population of birds might have the most success in reestablishing. 
Relatively large areas of suitable unoccupied habitat are needed to 
support the additional populations that are essential to the 
conservation of each species, based on the large home ranges of the 
birds, their territorial behavior, and the requisite availability of 
food sources that are ephemeral on the landscape and therefore shift in 
geographic location over time (i.e., trees come into flower in 
different locations at different times).
Recovery Strategy for Three Tree Snails
    Only one recovery plan is available for listed Hawaiian tree 
snails, and it is for 41 species on Oahu previously listed as 
endangered (Service Recovery Plan for Oahu Tree Snails of the Genus 
Achatinella 1992, entire). Although there are no downlisting or 
delisting criteria for these 41 endangered species of tree snails, the 
primary interim recovery objective is to stabilize populations in the 
wild and initiate captive propagation. Additional actions include 
conducting surveys, assessing and managing threats, protecting habitat, 
and conducting research. Although recovery plans have not yet been 
developed for the three tree snails in this final rule, it is 
reasonable to conclude that their conservation needs

[[Page 17867]]

would be similar and apply these same interim recovery objectives to 
the three Maui Nui tree snails because they are in the same family, 
have similar life histories (long-lived, low reproductive rates, etc.), 
occur in similar habitat, and face the same threats as the 41 species 
of Achatinella tree snails that have an approved recovery plan 
(Browning 2013, in litt.; Sether 2013, in litt.). The essential habitat 
for the Achatinella tree snails was determined by mapping their current 
and historical ranges on the island of Oahu, and selecting forest areas 
with suitable vegetation and rainfall within those current and 
historical ranges. As described in the recovery plan, Achatinella sp. 
had ranges varying from 3 to 150 square kilometers (sq km) (1 to 58 
square miles (sq mi). In the absence of a recovery plan for the three 
species at issue here, we are following the same delisting objectives 
as for the Achatinella tree snails, i.e., determine their current range 
on the island of Maui (Newcombia cumingi) and Lanai (Partulina 
semicarinata and P. variabilis) and select forest areas with suitable 
vegetation and rainfall within those areas, to stabilize wild 
populations by managing threats and protecting habitat within suitable 
forest areas within their current ranges, and to initiate captive 
propagation for reintroduction to these areas. As each of the three 
Maui Nui tree snails has been considerably reduced in both range and 
number (each of the three species is a single-island endemic; on Maui, 
the last survey for N. cumingi in 2012 identified a single individual, 
and on Lanai, the most recent surveys in 2005 estimated a total of 29 
individuals of P. semicarinata and 90 of P. variabilis), unoccupied but 
suitable habitat including the forest and rainfall to provide for wet 
forest habitat within their current range (a total of approximately 10 
sq km (4 sq mi) for each Partulina sp. and 2.5 sq km (1 sq mi) for 
Newcombia) will be essential to the conservation of each of these 
species.
    In summary, the overall recovery of these 135 Hawaiian species (130 
plants, 2 forest birds, and 3 tree snails) in this final rule includes 
protection of existing populations and their habitat, augmentation of 
existing populations and reestablishment of new populations within 
their historical range, control of threats, research on species' 
biology and ecology, and research on abatement and control of threats 
that are currently not addressed. Relevant to this designation of 
critical habitat, the recovery of these 135 Hawaiian species therefore 
requires a combination of both presently occupied habitat (to protect 
existing populations) and unoccupied habitat (for expansion or 
augmentation of existing populations and reestablishment of new 
populations within their historical range) (see Occupied Areas and 
Unoccupied Areas, below).
Revision of Critical Habitat for 85 Plants on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe
    Under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act we may, as appropriate, 
revise a critical habitat designation. In 1984, we designated critical 
habitat for a single species of plant, Gouania hillebrandii, on 114 ac 
(46 ha) in four units (49 FR 44753) based on its known location at the 
time. In 2003, we designated critical habitat for 3 Lanai plants on 789 
ac (320 ha) in 6 units (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003); for 41 Molokai 
plants on 24,333 ac (9,843 ha) in 88 units (68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003); and for 60 plants on Maui (93,200 ac (37,717 ha)) and Kahoolawe 
(2,915 ac (1,180 ha)) in 139 units (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). All 
designations were based on the known locations of the species at the 
time. Based on new scientific data available since 2003, we are 
revising critical habitat for these 85 plant species on the islands of 
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (this number differs from the 
original number of species with critical habitat designations, due to 
some taxonomic revisions made subsequent to the original designations; 
in addition, as some species occur on more than one island, they are 
counted twice if the species are counted on an island-by-island basis; 
see Table 1). When designating critical habitat in occupied areas, we 
focus on the essential physical or biological features that may be 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protections. In unoccupied 
habitat, we focus on whether the area is essential to the conservation 
of the species. We have determined that the physical or biological 
features identified in the original critical habitat designations for 
these 85 plant species can be improved, based on new information that 
has become available. The physical or biological features for occupied 
areas as described in this rule, in conjunction with the unoccupied 
areas needed to expand and reestablish wild populations within their 
historical range, provide a more accurate picture of the geographic 
areas needed for the recovery of each species. We believe this 
information will be helpful to Federal agencies and our other partners, 
as we collectively work to recover these imperiled species.
    Approximately 64 percent of the area we are designating as critical 
habitat in this rule overlaps with the areas already designated in the 
1984 and 2003 final critical habitat rules. In some areas, the 
footprint of the revision is larger than the 1984 and 2003 
designations, to accommodate the expansion of species' ranges within 
the particular ecosystem in which they occur (e.g., expansion into 
currently unoccupied habitat), which may not have been accounted for in 
the original designations. Based on the best available information, the 
revision correlates each species' physical or biological requirements 
with the characteristics of the ecosystems on which they depend (e.g., 
elevation, rainfall, species associations, etc.), and also includes 
some areas unoccupied by the species but determined to be essential for 
the conservation of the species. One ancillary benefit is that the 
revision should enable managers to focus conservation management 
efforts on common threats that occur across shared ecosystems and 
facilitates the restoration of the ecosystem function and species-
specific habitat needs for the recovery of each of the 85 species. 
Another added benefit is that the publication of more comprehensive 
critical habitat unit maps that should be more useful to the public and 
conservation managers.
    Here we have reevaluated the physical or biological features for 
each of the 85 plant species for which we are revising critical 
habitat, based on habitat type using species information from the 1984 
and 2003 critical habitat designations, and new scientific information 
that has become available since that time. As noted above, in 1984 and 
2003, the physical or biological features for each plant species were 
defined on the basis of the habitat features of the areas actually 
occupied by the plants, which included plant community, associated 
native plant species, locale information (e.g., steep rocky cliffs, 
talus slopes, gulches, stream banks), and elevation (49 FR 44753, 
November 9, 1984; 68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this final rule, we are 
designating critical habitat in areas occupied by the species at the 
time of listing as well as areas currently unoccupied by the species 
but determined to be essential for their conservation (i.e., areas 
necessary to bring the species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer needed). The physical or 
biological features have now been more precisely identified for

[[Page 17868]]

these 85 plant species, and include elevation, precipitation, 
substrate, canopy, subcanopy, and understory characteristics. In 
addition, since 2003, we have found that many areas where these species 
are currently or recently reported from are marginal habitat and that 
the species occurs there due to remoteness or inaccessibility to feral 
ungulates. The physical or biological features essential to the 
species' conservation have now been more accurately identified for 
these 85 plant species, and include elevation, precipitation, 
substrate, canopy, subcanopy, and understory characteristics. In 
addition, as all of the species addressed in this final rule have been 
greatly reduced from their former abundance and distribution, a 
designation limited to the areas currently occupied by these species is 
inadequate for their conservation, especially if the areas currently 
occupied represent suboptimal habitats. Therefore, the 1984 and 2003 
critical habitat designations may not have included all of the 
unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the 
species. When occupied areas were not adequate to achieve essential 
recovery goals, we also identified some unoccupied areas as critical 
habitat upon a determination that such areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species. We concluded that each of the Maui Nui 
species requires some currently unoccupied areas that are essential to 
achieve recovery and therefore the conservation of the species. We 
address this issue under ``Unoccupied Areas,'' below.

VII. Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining those areas occupied at the time of 
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the 135 species, and those areas that may be 
unoccupied but are essential to the conservation of the species, by 
identifying the occurrence data for each species and determining the 
ecosystems upon which they depend. This information was developed by 
using:
     The known locations of the 135 species, including site-
specific species information from the Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping 
Program (HBMP) database (HBMP 2010), the TNC database (TNC 2007), and 
our own rare plant database;
     Species information from the plant database housed at the 
National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG);
     Maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian 
plants, as determined by the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery 
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC 1998, 32 pp. + appendices);
     Recovery area as determined in the revised Recovery Plan 
for Hawaiian Forest Birds (USFWS 2006);
     Maps of important habitat for the recovery of plants 
protected under the Act (USFWS 1999, pp. F8-F11);
     Projections of geographic ranges of plant species in the 
Hawaiian Islands, including climate data, substrate data, topography, 
soils, and disturbance, Price et al. 2012 (34 pp. + appendices);
     Recovery plans that are available for 95 of the plant 
species (Recovery Plan for Gouania hillebrandii (Rhamnaceae), July 
1990; Recovery Plan for the Kauai Plant Cluster, September 1995; Lanai 
Plant Cluster Recovery Plan, September 1995; Recovery Plan for Marsilea 
villosa, April 1996; Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster, 
September 1996; Recovery Plan for Molokai Plant Cluster, September 
1996; Recovery Plan for the Maui Plant Cluster, July 1997; Recovery 
Plan for Kokia cookei, June 1998; Recovery Plan for the Oahu Plant 
Cluster, August 1998; Recovery Plan for 4 Hawaiian Ferns, April 1998; 
Molokai II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan for the Molokai Plant 
Cluster, May 1998; Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island Plants, July 
1999; and Addendum to the Recovery Plan for Multi-Island Plants, 
September);
     Recovery plan for Oahu tree snails (Recovery Plan for Oahu 
Tree Snails of the Genus Achatinella, April 1993);
     The Nature Conservancy's Ecoregional Assessment of the 
Hawaiian High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps (TNC 2007);
     Color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital aerial photographs for 
the Hawaiian Islands (April to May 2005);
     Island-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage 
(e.g., Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data of 2005);
     1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles;
     Geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from Maui 
County (includes Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe) (2010);
     Final critical habitat designations for Gouania 
hillebrandii and for listed plant species on the islands of Lanai, 
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (49 FR 44753, November 9, 1984; 68 FR 
1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 
14, 2003);
     Recent biological surveys and reports; and
     Discussions with qualified individuals familiar with these 
species and ecosystems.
    Based upon all of this data, we determined that one or more of the 
11 habitat types described in this rule are currently occupied or were 
occupied at the time of listing by one or more of the 135 species 
addressed in this rule and contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, or are currently not 
occupied by one or more of the 135 species but are areas essential for 
the conservation of the species (coastal (TNC 2006a), lowland dry (TNC 
2006b), lowland mesic (TNC 2006c), lowland wet (TNC 2006d), montane wet 
(TNC 2006e), montane mesic (TNC 2006f), montane dry (TNC 2006g), 
subalpine (TNC 2006h), alpine (TNC 2006i), dry cliff (TNC 2006j), and 
wet cliff (TNC 2006k)).

Occupied Areas

Essential Physical or Biological Features
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we determine 
which areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of 
listing contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. These physical or biological features 
provide the essential life-history requirements of the species, and 
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, rearing (or development) of 
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    For plant species, ecosystems that provide appropriate seasonal 
wetland and dry land habitats, host species, pollinators, soil types, 
and associated plant communities are taken into consideration when 
determining the physical or biological features essential for a 
species. For the two forest bird species, ecosystems that provide 
appropriate forest habitat for shelter, breeding, reproduction, rearing 
(or development) of offspring and nutritional requirements are taken 
into consideration when determining the physical or biological features 
essential for both species. For tree snail species, ecosystems that 
provide appropriate host plant species for shelter, reproduction, and 
nutritional

[[Page 17869]]

requirements are taken into consideration when determining the physical 
or biological features essential for the three species in this final 
rule.
    Under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act we may, as appropriate, 
revise a critical habitat designation. For the reasons described above, 
we are revising critical habitat for 85 plants from Molokai, Lanai, 
Maui, and Kahoolawe, based on new information received since the 
original designations and the need to designate unoccupied habitat to 
conserve the species. In addition, the recovery plans for 95 of the 
plant species (see list, above) identify several actions needed to 
recover these species (see above, ``Recovery Strategy for Hawaiian 
Plants,'' ``Recovery Strategy for Two Forest Birds,'' and ``Recovery 
Strategy for Three Tree Snails''), including: (1) Protecting habitat 
and controlling threats; (2) expanding existing wild populations; (3) 
conducting essential research; (4) developing and maintaining 
monitoring plans; (5) reestablishing wild populations within the 
historical range; and (6) validating and revising recovery criteria. Of 
these actions essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
species, of primary relevance to this designation of critical habitat 
for the Maui Nui species is the objective of providing for expansion or 
augmentation of existing wild populations (relevant to consideration of 
occupied critical habitat) and the need for reintroduction and 
reestablishment of populations within the historical range (relevant to 
the consideration of unoccupied critical habitat). For species with 
recovery plans, recovery criteria have been established, and generally 
include specific objectives in terms of numbers of populations and 
individuals that are needed to achieve the conservation of the species. 
Where such objectives exist, we considered them in our identification 
of critical habitat (i.e., whether population expansion, augmentation, 
or reestablishment is essential to the conservation of the species, in 
light of its current status). As noted above, most but not all of the 
plant species included in this final rule have a recovery plan in 
place. For those plant species without specific recovery goals set 
forth in a recovery plan, we used the general recovery objective 
guidelines established by the HPPRC (1998) to help determine what is 
needed for each species in terms of critical habitat. Although we have 
described these guidelines earlier, here we summarize them for ease of 
reference in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Number of populations that must reach stability.
    \3\ Number of mature, reproducing individuals that must be 
present in each stable population.
    \4\ Known to live for more than 10 reproductive years; if no 
solid information available, assume short-lived.

                           Table 4--Recovery Objective Guidelines for Hawaiian Plants
  [Goals presented here are for delisting, which is equivalent to achieving the conservation of the species, as
 defined in section 3 of the Act. In addition to achieving the numbers shown here, the guidelines stipulate that
                       all populations must be stable, secure, and naturally reproducing]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                                                     Number of      individuals    Total number        Time
                  Life history                      populations         per       of individuals     sustained
                                                        \2\       population \3\                      (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-lived perennials \4\.......................            5-10         100-200       500-2,000              10
Short-lived perennials..........................            5-10         300-500     1,500-5,000            5-10
Annuals.........................................            5-10       500-1,000    2,500-10,000               5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for each of the plant and animal species from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat 
section of the June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), proposed rule, and in the 
information presented below. The consideration of whether space for the 
expansion or augmentation of current occurrences or populations is 
needed, in light of the recovery objectives for each species and its 
current status, was also taken into account in our derivation of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species.
Primary Constituent Elements
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the 135 species in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. 
Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the 
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
    The primary constituent elements identified in this final rule take 
into consideration the habitat types in which each species occurs and 
reflect a distribution that we believe is essential to achieving the 
species' recovery needs within those ecosystems. As described above, we 
considered the current population status of each species, to the extent 
it is known, and assessed its status relative to the recovery 
objectives for that species, in terms of population goals (numbers of 
populations and individuals in each population, which contributes to 
population resiliency) and distribution (whether the species occurs in 
habitats representative of its historic geographical and ecological 
distribution, and are sufficiently redundant to withstand the loss of 
some populations over time). This assessment informed us as to whether 
the species requires space for population growth and expansion in areas 
occupied at the time of listing, or whether additional areas unoccupied 
at the time of listing may be required for the reestablishment of 
populations to achieve conservation.
    In this final rule, primary constituent elements for each of the 
135 species are defined based on those physical or biological features 
essential to support the successful functioning of the habitat type 
upon which each species depends, and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. As the conservation of each 
species is dependent upon functioning habitat to provide its 
fundamental life requirements, such as a certain soil type, minimum 
level of rainfall, or suitable native host plant, we consider the 
physical or biological features present in the ecosystems described in 
this rule to provide the necessary PCEs for each species. These 
features collectively provide the suite of environmental conditions 
within each ecosystem essential to meeting the requirements of each 
species, including space for individual and population growth, and for 
normal behavior, the appropriate microclimatic conditions for 
germination and growth of the plants (e.g., light availability, soil 
nutrients,

[[Page 17870]]

hydrologic regime, temperature); maintenance of upland habitat to 
provide for the proper ecological functioning of forest elements for 
the three tree snails and the two forest birds; and, in all cases, 
space within the appropriate habitats for population growth and 
expansion, as well as to maintain the historical geographical and 
ecological distribution of each species. Due to our limited knowledge 
of the specific life-history requirements for the species that are 
little-studied and occur in remote and inaccessible areas, the physical 
or biological features described in this document that provide for the 
successful function of the ecosystem that is essential to the 
conservation of the species represents the best (and, in many cases, 
the only) scientific information available. Accordingly, for purposes 
of this rule, the physical or biological features of a properly 
functioning ecosystem are, at least in part, the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of these 135 species.
    Table 5 identifies the physical or biological features of a 
functioning ecosystem for each of the habitat types identified in this 
final rule, and each species identified in this rule requires the 
physical or biological features for each ecosystem in which that 
species occurs. These physical or biological features provide the PCEs 
for the individual species in each ecosystem or habitat type. The 
physical or biological features are defined here by elevation, annual 
levels of precipitation, substrate type and slope, and the 
characteristic native plant genera that are found in the canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory levels of the vegetative community where 
applicable. If further information is available indicating additional, 
specific life-history requirements for some species, PCEs relating to 
these requirements are described separately and are termed ``species-
specific PCEs,'' which are identified in Table 6. The PCEs for each 
species are therefore composed of the physical or biological features 
found in its functioning ecosystem(s) (Table 5), in combination with 
additional requirements specific to that species, if any (Table 6). 
Note that the PCEs identified in Table 6 for each species are directly 
related to the physical or biological features presented in detail in 
Table 5; thus, both Tables 5 and 6 must be read together to fully 
describe all of the PCEs for each species.

                                                Table 5-Physical or Biological Features in Each Ecosystem
                                                           [Read in association with Table 6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Supporting one or more of these associated native plant
                                                            Annual                                                      genera
            Ecosystem                  Elevation         precipitation         Substrate     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Canopy             Subcanopy          Understory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal \1\.....................  <980 ft (<300 m)..  <20 in (<50 cm)...  Well-drained,       Hibiscus,           Gossypium, Sida,    Eragrostis,
                                                                           calcareous, talus   Myoporum,           Vitex.              Jacquemontia,
                                                                           slopes; dunes;      Santalum,                               Lyceum, Nama,
                                                                           weathered clay      Scaevola.                               Sesuvium,
                                                                           soils; ephemeral                                            Sporobolus,
                                                                           pools; mudflats.                                            Vigna.
Lowland Dry \2\.................  <3,300 ft (<1,000   <50 in (<130 cm)..  Weathered silty     Diospyros,          Chamaesyce,         Alyxia, Artemisia,
                                   m).                                     loams to stony      Myoporum,           Dodonaea,           Bidens,
                                                                           clay, rocky         Pleomele,           Leptecophylla,      Chenopodium,
                                                                           ledges, little-     Santalum.           Osteomeles,         Nephrolepis,
                                                                           weathered lava.                         Psydrax,            Peperomia,
                                                                                                                   Scaevola,           Sicyos.
                                                                                                                   Wikstroemia.
Lowland Mesic \3\...............  <3,300 ft (<1,000   50-75 in (130-190   Shallow soils,      Acacia, Diospyros,  Dodonaea,           Carex,
                                   m).                 cm).                little to no        Metrosideros,       Freycinetia,        Dicranopteris,
                                                                           herbaceous layer.   Myrsine,            Leptecophylla,      Diplazium,
                                                                                               Pouteria,           Melanthera,         Elaphoglossum,
                                                                                               Santalum.           Osteomeles,         Peperomia.
                                                                                                                   Pleomele, Psydrax.
Lowland Wet \4\.................  <3,300 ft (<1,000   >75 in (>190 cm)..  Clays; ashbeds;     Antidesma,          Cibotium,           Alyxia, Cyrtandra,
                                   m).                                     deep, well-         Metrosideros,       Claoxylon, Kadua,   Dicranopteris,
                                                                           drained soils;      Myrsine, Pisonia,   Melicope.           Diplazium,
                                                                           lowland bogs.       Psychotria.                             Machaerina,
                                                                                                                                       Microlepia.
Montane Wet \5\.................  3,300-6,500 ft      >75 in (>190 cm)..  Well-developed      Acacia,             Broussaisia,        Ferns, Carex,
                                   (1,000-2,000 m).                        soils, montane      Charpentiera,       Cibotium, Eurya,    Coprosma,
                                                                           bogs.               Cheirodendron,      Ilex, Myrsine.      Leptecophylla,
                                                                                               Metrosideros.                           Oreobolus,
                                                                                                                                       Rhynchospora,
                                                                                                                                       Vaccinium.
Montane Mesic \6\...............  3,300-6,500 ft      50-75 in (130-190   Deep ash deposits,  Acacia, Ilex,       Alyxia,             Ferns, Carex,
                                   (1,000-2,000 m).    cm).                thin silty loams.   Metrosideros,       Charpentiera,       Peperomia.
                                                                                               Myrsine,            Coprosma,
                                                                                               Nestegis,           Dodonaea, Kadua,
                                                                                               Nothocestrum,       Labordia,
                                                                                               Pisonia,            Leptecophylla,
                                                                                               Pittosporum,        Phyllostegia,
                                                                                               Psychotria,         Vaccinium.
                                                                                               Sophora,
                                                                                               Zanthoxylum.

[[Page 17871]]

 
Montane Dry \7\.................  3,300-6,500 ft      <50 in (<130 cm)..  Dry cinder or ash   Acacia,             Chamaesyce,         Bidens,
                                   (1,000-2,000 m).                        soils, loamy        Metrosideros,       Coprosma,           Eragrostis,
                                                                           volcanic sands,     Myoporum,           Dodonaea,           Melanthera,
                                                                           blocky lava, rock   Santalum, Sophora.  Dubautia,           Vaccinium.
                                                                           outcroppings.                           Leptecophylla,
                                                                                                                   Osteomeles,
                                                                                                                   Wikstroemia.
Subalpine \8\...................  6,500-9,800 ft      15-40 in (38-100    Dry ash, sandy      Chamaesyce,         Coprosma,           Ferns, Bidens,
                                   (2,000-3,000 m).    cm).                loam, rocky,        Chenopodium,        Dodonaea,           Carex,
                                                                           undeveloped         Metrosideros,       Dubautia,           Deschampsia,
                                                                           soils, weathered    Myoporum,           Geranium,           Eragrostis,
                                                                           lava.               Santalum, Sophora.  Leptecophylla,      Gahnia, Luzula,
                                                                                                                   Vaccinium,          Panicum,
                                                                                                                   Wikstroemia.        Pseudognaphalium,
                                                                                                                                       Sicyos,
                                                                                                                                       Tetramolopium.
Alpine \9\......................  >9,800 ft (>3,000   30-50 in (75-125    Barren gravel,      none..............  Argyroxiphium,      none.
                                   m).                 cm).                debris, cinders.                        Dubautia, Silene,
                                                                                                                   Tetramolopium.
Dry Cliff \10\..................  unrestricted......  <75 in (<190 cm)..  >65 degree slope,   none..............  Antidesma,          Bidens,
                                                                           rocky talus.                            Chamaesyce,         Eragrostis,
                                                                                                                   Diospyros,          Melanthera,
                                                                                                                   Dodonaea.           Schiedea.
Wet Cliff \11\..................  unrestricted......  >75 in (>190 cm)..  >65 degree slope,   none..............  Broussaisia,        Bryophytes, Ferns,
                                                                           shallow soils,                          Cheirodendron,      Coprosma,
                                                                           weathered lava.                         Leptecophylla,      Dubautia, Kadua,
                                                                                                                   Metrosideros.       Peperomia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Coastal ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Coastal-Units 1-11; Kahoolawe-
  Coastal-Units 1-3; Molokai-Coastal-Units 1-7.
\2\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Dry ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Lowland Dry-Units 1-6; Kahoolawe-
  Lowland Dry-Units 1-2; Molokai-Lowland Dry-Units 1-2.
\3\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Mesic ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Lowland Mesic-Units 1-3;
Lanai-Lowland Mesic-Unit 1; Molokai-Lowland Mesic-Unit 1.
\4\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Lowland Wet ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Lowland Wet-Units 1-8; Molokai-
  Lowland Wet-Units 1-3.
\5\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Wet ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Montane Wet-Units 1-77; Molokai-
  Montane Wet-Units 1-3.
\6\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Mesic ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Montane Mesic-Units 1-55;
  Molokai-Montane Mesic-Unit 1.
\7\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Montane Dry ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Montane Dry-Unit 1.
\8\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Subalpine ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Subalpine-Units 1-2.
\9\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Alpine ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Alpine-Unit 1.
\10\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Dry Cliff ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Dry Cliff-Units 1-66.
\11\ The physical or biological features for the species in the Wet Cliff ecosystem apply to the following units: Maui-Wet Cliff-Units 1-44, 6-8;
  Molokai-Wet Cliff-Units 1-3.


[[Page 17872]]


  Table 6--Primary Constituent Elements for the Maui NUI Species Are a Combination of the Physical or Biological Features (See Table 5) in the Applicable Ecosystem(s) as Well as PCES Specific to Each Species, if Any Are Identified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Ecosystem                                                                           Species-
                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   specific
                                                                                                                                                                                        physical or
                                  Coastal     Lowland dry   Lowland mesic   Lowland wet    Montane wet      Montane    Montane dry   Sub-alpine     Alpine     Dry cliff    Wet cliff    biological
                                                                                                             mesic                                                                        features
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Plants
 
Abutilon eremitopetalum......  ............  LA.
Acaena exigua................  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Adenophorus periens..........  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA, LA, MO..  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  epiphytic.
Alectryon macrococcus var.     ............  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  EMA.........  EMA........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  elevation
 auwahiensis.                                                                                                                                                                            >1,200 ft
                                                                                                                                                                                         (>370 m).
Alectryon macrococcus var.     ............  .............  MO...........  WMA..........  .............  EMA, MO.....  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  elevation
 macrococcus.                                                                                                                                                                            >1,200 ft
                                                                                                                                                                                         (>370 m).
Argyroxiphium sandwicense      ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA.........  ...........  EMA........  EMA........  EMA........  ...........  alpine
 ssp.macrocephalum.                                                                                                                                                                      cinder
                                                                                                                                                                                         deserts.
Asplenium dielerectum........  ............  WMA, LA......  WMA, MO......  WMA, MO......  .............  EMA, MO.....  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.
Asplenium peruvianum var.      ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.........  ...........  EMA.
 insulare.
Bidens campylotheca ssp.       ............  WMA..........  WMA..........  .............  EMA..........  EMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA........  EMA, WMA.    ...........
 pentamera.
Bidens campylotheca ssp.       ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA........  stream
 waihoiensis.                                                                                                                                                                            banks.
Bidens conjuncta.............  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Bidens micrantha ssp.          ............  EMA, LA......  LA...........  WMA..........  .............  EMA.........  ...........  EMA........  ...........  EMA, LA.
 kalealaha.
Bidens wiebkei...............  MO..........  .............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  MO.
Bonamia menziesii............  ............  EMA, MO......  LA, MO.......  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  WMA.
Brighamia rockii.............  EMA, WMA, MO  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........  MO.
Calamagrostis hillebrandii...  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Canavalia molokaiensis.......  MO..........  .............  MO...........  MO...........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO
Canavalia pubescens..........  LA..........  EMA.
Cenchrus agrimonioides.......  ............  EMA, WMA.....  LA.
Clermontia lindseyana........  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA.
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.   ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  MO...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO.
 brevipes.
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.   ............  .............  LA...........  EMA, WMA, LA.  EMA.
 mauiensis.
Clermontia peleana...........  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  observed
                                                                                                                                                                                         epiphytic
                                                                                                                                                                                         on ohia,
                                                                                                                                                                                         koa,
                                                                                                                                                                                         olapa.
Clermontia samuelii..........  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bog
                                                                                                                                                                                         margins.
Colubrina oppositifolia......  ............  EMA..........  WMA.
Ctenitis squamigera..........  ............  EMA, WMA.....  EMA, WMA, MO.  WMA..........  .............  WMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........  WMA, LA.
Cyanea asplenifolia..........  ............  .............  EMA..........  EMA, WMA.
Cyanea copelandii ssp.         ............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA.
 haleakalaensis.
Cyanea dunbariae.............  ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  .............  MO.
Cyanea duvalliorum...........  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.
Cyanea gibsonii..............  ............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.

[[Page 17873]]

 
Cyanea glabra................  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  EMA..........  EMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.         ............  .............  .............  MO...........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO.
 grimesiana.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.        ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  EMA.
 hamatiflora.
Cyanea horrida...............  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA.
Cyanea kunthiana.............  ............  .............  .............  EMA, WMA.....  EMA, WMA.....  EMA.
Cyanea lobata ssp. baldwinii.  ............  .............  .............  .............  LA.
Cyanea lobata ssp. lobata....  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Cyanea magnicalyx............  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  .............  WMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Cyanea mannii................  ............  .............  MO...........  .............  MO...........  MO.
Cyanea maritae...............  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.
Cyanea mceldowneyi...........  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  EMA.
Cyanea munroi................  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA, MO.
Cyanea obtusa................  ............  WMA..........  .............  .............  .............  EMA.
Cyanea procera...............  ............  .............  MO...........  .............  MO...........  MO.
Cyanea profuga...............  ............  .............  MO...........  .............  MO.
Cyanea solanacea.............  ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  MO...........  MO.
Cyperus fauriei..............  ............  LA...........  MO...........  .............  .............  MO.
Cyperus pennatiformis........  EMA.
Cyperus trachysanthos........  ............  LA, MO.......  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  seasonally
                                                                                                                                                                                         wet soil
                                                                                                                                                                                         and pond
                                                                                                                                                                                         margins.
Cyrtandra ferripilosa........  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.
Cyrtandra filipes............  ............  .............  MO...........  WMA, MO......  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Cyrtandra munroi.............  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA, LA.
Cyrtandra oxybapha...........  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  EMA.
Diplazium molokaiense........  ............  .............  LA, MO.......  WMA..........  EMA..........  EMA, WMA....  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.
Dubautia plantaginea ssp.      ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
 humilis.
Eugenia koolauensis..........  ............  MO.
Festuca molokaiensis.........  ............  .............  MO.
Flueggea neowawraea..........  ............  EMA..........  MO.
Geranium arboreum............  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA.........  EMA........  EMA.
Geranium hanaense............  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Geranium hillebrandii........  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Geranium multiflorum.........  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.........  ...........  EMA........  ...........  EMA.
Gouania hillebrandii.........  ............  WMA, KAH.....  MO.
Gouania vitifolia............  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Hesperomannia arborescens....  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  MO...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA, MO,
                                                                                                                                                                            LA.
Hesperomannia arbuscula......  ............  WMA..........  .............  WMA..........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  WMA.
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.      MO..........  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO.
 immaculatus.
Hibiscus brackenridgei.......  LA, MO......  EMA, WMA, LA,
                                              MO, KAH.
Huperzia mannii..............  ............  .............  EMA..........  EMA, WMA.....  EMA, WMA.....  EMA, WMA....  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  epiphytic.
Ischaemum byrone.............  EMA, MO.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.......  ............  .............  MO...........  WMA..........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  WMA.
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi.....  ............  .............  LA...........  LA.
Kadua coriacea...............  ............  WMA.
Kadua laxiflora..............  ............  .............  LA, MO.......  WMA, LA......  LA...........  MO..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  WMA, LA.
Kanaloa kahoolawensis........  KAH.........  KAH.
Kokia cookei.................  ............  MO.
Labordia tinifolia var.        ............  .............  LA...........  LA...........  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.
 lanaiensis.
Labordia triflora............  ............  .............  MO.
Lysimachia lydgatei..........  ............  WMA..........  .............  .............  .............  WMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Lysimachia maxima............  ............  .............  .............  MO...........  MO.
Marsilea villosa.............  MO..........  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  seasonal
                                                                                                                                                                                         wetland.
Melanthera kamolensis........  ............  EMA.

[[Page 17874]]

 
Melicope adscendens..........  ............  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  EMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  elevation
                                                                                                                                                                                         >3,200 ft
                                                                                                                                                                                         (>975 m).
Melicope balloui.............  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA.
Melicope knudsenii...........  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  EMA.
Melicope mucronulata.........  ............  EMA..........  MO...........  .............  .............  MO..........  EMA.
Melicope munroi..............  ............  .............  MO...........  .............  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.
Melicope ovalis..............  ............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA.
Melicope reflexa.............  ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  MO.
Mucuna sloanei var.            ............  .............  .............  EMA.
 persericea.
Myrsine vaccinioides.........  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Neraudia sericea.............  ............  EMA, WMA, LA,  MO...........  .............  .............  EMA, MO.....  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA, LA.
                                              KAH.
Nototrichium humile..........  ............  EMA.
Peperomia subpetiolata.......  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA.
Peucedanum sandwicense.......  EMA, MO.....  .............  .............  WMA, MO.
Phyllostegia bracteata.......  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  EMA, WMA.....  EMA.........  ...........  EMA........  ...........  ...........  EMA.
Phyllostegia haliakalae......  ............  .............  MO...........  EMA..........  EMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........  EMA, LA.
Phyllostegia hispida.........  ............  .............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO.
Phyllostegia mannii..........  ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  EMA, MO......  EMA.
Phyllostegia pilosa..........  ............  .............  MO...........  .............  EMA, MO.
Pittosporum halophilum.......  MO.
Plantago princeps............  ............  .............  .............  MO...........  .............  MO..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  EMA........  EMA, WMA.
Platanthera holochila........  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA, WMA, MO.  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Pleomele fernaldii...........  ............  LA...........  LA...........  LA...........  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........  LA.
Portulaca sclerocarpa........  LA.
Pteris lidgatei..............  ............  .............  .............  WMA..........  MO...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA, MO.
Remya mauiensis..............  ............  WMA..........  WMA..........  WMA..........  .............  WMA.........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA.
Sanicula purpurea............  ............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  bogs.
Santalum haleakalae var.       ............  EMA, WMA.....  WMA, LA, MO..  WMA, LA......  LA...........  EMA, WMA, MO  EMA........  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA, LA.
 lanaiense.
Schenkia sebaeoides..........  WMA, MO.....  LA.
Schiedea haleakalensis.......  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  EMA........  ...........  EMA.
Schiedea jacobii.............  ............  .............  .............  .............  EMA.
Schiedea laui................  ............  .............  .............  .............  MO.
Schiedea lydgatei............  ............  .............  MO.
Schiedea salicaria...........  ............  WMA.
Schiedea sarmentosa..........  ............  .............  MO.
Sesbania tomentosa...........  WMA, LA, MO,  EMA, WMA, LA,  MO.
                                KAH.          MO, KAH.
Silene alexandri.............  ............  .............  MO.
Silene lanceolata............  ............  LA...........  MO.
Solanum incompletum..........  ............  EMA, LA......  EMA, LA......  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.
Spermolepis hawaiiensis......  ............  EMA, WMA, LA.  LA, MO.......  .............  .............  MO.
Stenogyne bifida.............  ............  .............  MO...........  MO...........  MO...........  MO..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  MO.
Stenogyne kauaulaensis.......  ............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA.

[[Page 17875]]

 
Tetramolopium capillare......  ............  WMA..........  .............  .............  .............  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  WMA........  WMA.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.   ............  LA.
 lepidotum.
Tetramolopium remyi..........  ............  WMA, LA.
Tetramolopium rockii.........  MO.
Vigna o-wahuensis............  EMA, KAH....  LA, KAH......  LA, MO.
Viola lanaiensis.............  ............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........  LA.
Wikstroemia villosa..........  ............  .............  .............  EMA, WMA.....  EMA..........  EMA.
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.......  ............  EMA..........  WMA, MO......  LA, MO.......  MO...........  EMA, WMA....  EMA........  EMA.
 
            Birds
 
Akohekohe....................  ............  .............  WMA, MO......  EMA, WMA, MO.  EMA, WMA, MO.  EMA, WMA, MO  ...........  EMA........  ...........  EMA, WMA...  EMA, WMA,
                                                                                                                                                                            MO.
Kiwikiu......................  ............  .............  WMA, MO......  EMA, WMA, MO.  EMA, WMA, MO.  EMA, WMA, MO  ...........  EMA........  ...........  EMA, WMA...  EMA, WMA,
                                                                                                                                                                            MO.
 
            Snails
 
Newcombia cumingi (Newcomb's   ............  .............  .............  WMA.
 tree snail).
Partulina semicarinata (Lanai  ............  .............  .............  LA...........  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........
 tree snail).
Partulina variabilis (Lanai    ............  .............  .............  LA...........  LA...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  LA.........
 tree snail).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA = east Maui.
WMA = west Maui.
LA = Lanai.
MO = Molokai.
KAH = Kahoolawe.


[[Page 17876]]

    Some of the species addressed in this final rule occur in more than 
one ecosystem. The PCEs for these species are described separately for 
each ecosystem in which they occur. The reasoning behind this approach 
is that each species requires a different suite of environmental 
conditions depending upon the ecosystem in which it occurs. For 
example, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera will occur in association 
with different native plant species, depending on whether it is found 
within the lowland dry, lowland mesic, montane wet, montane mesic, dry 
cliff, or wet cliff ecosystems. Each of the physical or biological 
features described in each ecosystem in which the species occurs are 
essential to the conservation of the species, to retain its 
geographical and ecological distribution across the different ecosystem 
types in which it may occur. Each physical or biological feature is 
also essential to retaining the genetic representation that allows this 
species to successfully adapt to different environmental conditions in 
various native ecosystems. Although some of these species occur in 
multiple native ecosystems, their declining abundance in the face of 
ongoing threats, such as increasing numbers of nonnative plant 
competitors, indicates that they are not such broad habitat generalists 
as to be able to persist in highly altered habitats. Based on an 
analysis of the best available scientific information, functioning 
native ecosystems provide the fundamental biological requirements for 
the narrow-range endemics addressed in this rule.
    Some examples may help to clarify our approach to describing the 
PCEs for each individual species. If we want to determine the PCEs for 
the plant Abutilon eremitopetalum, we look at Table 6 and see that the 
PCEs for A. eremitopetalum are provided by the physical or biological 
features in the lowland dry ecosystem. Table 5 indicates that the 
physical or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem include 
elevations of less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m); annual precipitation of 
less than 50 in (130 cm); weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky 
ledges, and little-weathered lava; and potential habitat for one or 
more genera of the canopy (Diospyros, Myoporum, Pleomele, and 
Santalum), subcanopy (Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Leptecophylla, Osteomeles, 
Psydrax, Scaevola, and Wikstroemia), or understory plants (Alyxia, 
Artemisia, Bidens, Chenopodium, Nephrolepis, Peperomia, and Sicyos). As 
we do not specifically know of any PCEs specific to A. eremitopetalum 
and this plant is found only in the lowland dry ecosystem, we believe 
that the physical or biological features for the lowland dry ecosystem 
best approximate the PCEs for A. eremitopetalum. Thus we use the 
physical and biological features provided in the ecosystem in which A. 
eremitopetalum is found as the PCEs for A. eremitopetalum.
    As another example, Table 6 indicates the physical or biological 
features for the plant Geranium hillebrandii include the ecosystem-
level physical or biological features for the montane wet and montane 
mesic ecosystems, depending on the locations, and also that this 
species has a species-specific PCE: Bogs. The PCEs for G. hillebrandii 
are thus composed of the physical or biological features for each of 
the two ecosystems it occupies, as described in Table 5 for the montane 
wet and montane mesic ecosystems, as well as bogs, as identified in 
Table 6. Table 6 is read in a similar fashion in conjunction with Table 
5 to describe the PCEs for each of the 125 species for which we are 
designating critical habitat in this final rule.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    In identifying critical habitat in occupied areas, we determine 
whether those areas that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species require any special management actions. 
Although the determination that special management may be required is 
not a prerequisite to designating critical habitat in unoccupied areas, 
special management is needed throughout all of the critical habitat 
units in this final rule. The following discussion of special 
management needs is therefore applicable to each of the Maui Nui 
species for which we are designating critical habitat in this rule.
    In this final rule, we are designating critical habitat for 125 of 
the 135 species for which we proposed critical habitat. For the reasons 
described below (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors), we 
are not designating critical habitat for eight plants (Abutilon 
eremitopetalum, Cyanea gibsonii, Kadua cordata ssp. remyi, Labordia 
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Pleomele fernaldii, Portulaca sclerocarpa, 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, and Viola lanaiensis) and two 
tree snails (Partulina semicarinata and P. variabilis). The 125 species 
for which we are designating critical habitat include 108 plant and 
animal species that are currently found in the wild on Molokai, Maui, 
and Kahoolawe; (10 plant species which were historically found on one 
or more of these islands, but are currently found only on other 
Hawaiian Islands (Adenophorus periens, Clermontia peleana, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis, 
Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, Nototrichium 
humile, and Solanum incompletum), 6 plant species that may not be 
currently extant in the wild (Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, Schiedea jacobii, and 
Tetramolopium capillare), and 1 plant species, Kokia cookei, which 
exists only in cultivation. For each of the 108 species currently found 
in the wild on Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, we have determined that 
the features essential to their conservation are those required for the 
successful functioning of the ecosystem(s) in which they occur (see 
Tables 5 and 6, above). As described earlier, in some cases, additional 
species-specific primary constituent elements were also identified (see 
Table 6, above). Special management considerations or protections are 
necessary throughout the critical habitat areas designated here to 
avoid further degradation or destruction of the habitat that provides 
those features essential to their conservation. The primary threats to 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
all of these species include habitat destruction and modification by 
nonnative ungulates, competition with nonnative species, hurricanes, 
landslides, rockfalls, flooding, fire, drought, and climate change. 
Additionally, the rosy wolf snail poses a threat to the Newcomb's tree 
snail and mosquito-borne diseases pose threats to the two forest birds. 
The reduction of these threats will require the implementation of 
special management actions within each of the critical habitat areas 
identified in this final rule.
    All designated critical habitat requires active management to 
address the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by 
nonnative ungulates (pigs, goats, mouflon sheep, axis deer, and 
cattle). Nonnative ungulates also impact the habitat through predation 
and trampling. Without this special management, habitat containing the 
features that are essential for the

[[Page 17877]]

conservation of these species will continue to be degraded and 
destroyed.
    All designated critical habitat requires active management to 
address the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by 
nonnative plants. Special management is also required to prevent the 
introduction of new nonnative plant species into native habitats. 
Particular attention is required in nonnative plant control efforts to 
avoid creating additional disturbances that may facilitate the further 
introduction and establishment of invasive plant seeds. Precautions are 
also required to avoid the inadvertent trampling of listed plant 
species in the course of management activities.
    The active control of nonnative plant species would help to address 
the threat posed by fire to 31 of the designated ecosystem critical 
habitat units in particular: Maui-Coastal--Units 4 through 7; Maui-
Lowland Dry--Units 1 through 6; Maui-Lowland Mesic--Units 1 and 2; 
Maui-Montane Mesic--Units 1, 2, and 5; Maui-Dry Cliff--Units 1, 5, and 
7; Kahoolawe-Coastal--Units 1 through 3; Kahoolawe-Lowland Dry--Units 1 
and 2; Molokai-Coastal--Units 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7; Molokai-Lowland Dry--
Units 1 and 2; and Molokai-Lowland Mesic--Unit 1. This threat is 
largely a result of the presence of nonnative plant species such as the 
grasses Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge), Cenchrus spp. (sandbur, 
buffelgrass), and Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass), that increase 
the fuel load and quickly regenerate after a fire. These nonnative 
grass species can outcompete native plants that are not adapted to 
fire, creating a grass-fire cycle that alters ecosystem functions 
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 64-66; Brooks et al. 2004, p. 680).
    Nine of the ecosystem critical habitat units (Maui-Lowland Wet--
Units 1 and 4; Maui-Montane Wet--Units 1 through 3; Maui-Montane 
Mesic--Unit 2; Maui-Wet Cliff--Units 6 and 7; and Molokai-Montane Wet--
Unit 1) may require special management to reduce the threat of 
landslides, rockfalls, and flooding. These threaten to further degrade 
habitat conditions in these units and have the potential to eliminate 
some occurrences of 50 plant species (e.g., Adenophorus periens, 
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, B. 
conjuncta, B. wiebkei, Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, C. oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. 
duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, 
C. magnicalyx, C. mannii, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. profuga, C. 
solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, 
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Geranium hanaense, G. multiflorum, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Huperzia mannii, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, L. maxima, Melicope balloui, M. ovalis, Phyllostegia hispida, 
P. mannii, P. pilosa, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris 
lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea 
laui, Stenogyne bifida, S. kauaulaensis, Wikstroemia villosa, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) found on steep slopes and cliffs, or in narrow 
gulches.

Special Management To Address Disease and Disease Vectors

    All of the forest bird critical habitat units may require special 
management to reduce the threat of mosquitoes. Mosquito-borne disease 
(i.e., avian pox and malaria) is identified as a threat to both the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu, and limits distribution of these two birds to 
their current high-elevation ranges (i.e., above 4,000 ft (1,200 m)). 
It is believed that the incidence of avian disease is less prevalent 
above 4,000 ft, where the abundance of mosquito vectors is low and 
development of the malarial parasite in the mosquito vector is limited 
by thermal constraints (Service 2006, p. 4-62). The recovery strategy 
for the akohekohe and kiwikiu calls for the reestablishment of a second 
population of both species in historical habitat on west Maui or east 
Molokai in areas that possibly harbor populations of mosquitoes, and 
therefore will require special management to reduce the threat from 
mosquito-borne disease.

Special Management To Address Predation by the Nonnative Rosy Wolf 
Snail

    The only critical habitat unit for the Newcomb's tree snail 
(Newcombia cumingi--Unit 1--Lowland Wet) may require special management 
to reduce the threat of predation by the nonnative rosy wolf snail 
(Euglandina rosea). This nonnative snail is now found on six of the 
eight main Hawaiian Islands (its presence on Niihau and Kahoolawe has 
not been confirmed) and it has expanded its range on those islands to 
include cooler, mid-elevation forests where many endemic tree snails 
are found. This nonnative snail is likely responsible for the decline 
and extinction of many of Hawaii's native tree snails (Stone and 
Anderson 1988, p. 134; Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 621; Hadfield 2010a, in 
litt.). For the reasons described below (see Exclusions Based on Other 
Relevant Factors), critical habitat is not designated on the island of 
Lanai, where the two Lanai tree snails (Partulina semicarinata and P. 
variabilis) are found.
    In summary, we find that each of the areas we are designating as 
critical habitat that were occupied at the time of listing contains 
features essential for the conservation of the species that may require 
special management considerations or protection to ensure the 
conservation of 125 Maui Nui species. These special management 
considerations and protections may be required to preserve and maintain 
the essential features provided to these species by the ecosystems upon 
which they depend.

Unoccupied Areas

    Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we may designate as critical 
habitat specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species. Here we have 
designated critical habitat for 17 plant species that historically 
occurred on the islands of Maui Nui but are no longer found on these 
islands. Ten of these plants were historically found on one or more of 
these islands, but are currently found only on other Hawaiian Islands 
(Adenophorus periens, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis, Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, Nototrichium humile, Solanum incompletum, 
and Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum), 6 plant species may not be 
currently extant in the wild (Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, Schiedea jacobii, and 
Tetramolopium capillare), and 1 plant species, Kokia cookei, which 
exists only in cultivation. The conservation of these species will be 
entirely dependent upon suitable but unoccupied habitat for the 
reestablishment of populations to ensure their conservation and 
recovery. In addition, because of reduced population sizes and 
distribution, and because of ongoing threats in the areas currently 
occupied by the species, all of the Maui Nui species additionally 
require presently unoccupied but suitable habitat to provide space for 
the expansion of existing populations and reestablishment of additional 
populations to achieve the conservation of the species, as guided by 
the goals set in recovery plans for the species (for 95 of the plant 
species, the 3 tree snails, and 2 birds) or general recovery

[[Page 17878]]

objectives for Hawaiian plants (for 30 of the plant species without 
specific recovery plans), and to provide resiliency of the populations 
in the face of ongoing threats.
    One of the primary reasons for listing of these 125 species is that 
their numbers have been so greatly reduced in terms of numbers of 
individuals, populations, and distribution as to render these species 
vulnerable to extinction. Based on the current status of each species 
(see Current Status of 135 Listed Maui Nui Species, above), we have 
determined that each requires suitable habitat and space for the 
expansion of existing populations to achieve a level that could 
approach recovery; in all cases, this requires areas of suitable 
habitat that are not currently occupied by the species. Most of these 
species have been reduced to only a few known occurrences with numbers 
so low that not even a single existing viable population is known; in 
such cases, suitable but unoccupied habitat is essential for the 
conservation of the species to both expand and reestablish populations 
and maintain its historical geographical and ecological distribution. 
In addition, for plant species in particular, the reintroduction of 
imperiled species is a relatively new and inexact science (see, e.g., 
Guerrant and Kaye 2007, entire). Most attempted reintroductions are not 
successful; a recent global meta-analysis found rare plant 
reintroductions resulting in recruitment of offspring ranged from only 
5 percent to just under 50 percent (Dalrymple et al. 2012, p. 39), 
despite using conditions associated with extant, wild populations to 
select reintroduction sites (Dalrymple et al. 2012, p. 47). For all of 
the Maui Nui plant species, reintroductions may therefore be needed at 
a number of sites of potentially suitable habitat greater than the 
number of sites eventually required to support the minimum number of 
populations required for recovery (Kaye 2008, p. 316; Dalrymple et al. 
2012, pp. 48-49). Furthermore, long-term success of a reintroduction 
will depend not only on initial growth and survival, but ultimately the 
reintroduced species must be embedded in a larger ecological community 
that is capable of promoting persistence (Guerrant and Kaye 2008, p. 
367).
    We have taken all of these factors into account in our designation 
of unoccupied habitat for the Maui Nui species, and have concluded that 
more potentially suitable habitat than what would appear to be the 
minimum required to achieve conservation goals is essential, space is 
needed between populations, and a stochastic event may negatively 
impact one or more populations. Given the need for this redundancy in 
unoccupied habitat suitable for future reintroductions, because 
populations must be widely distributed across the range of the species 
to protect each against extirpation from stochastic events, and because 
room is needed for expansion of known occurrences, we conclude that all 
of the unoccupied areas designated here as critical habitat are 
essential to the conservation of the species, in order to achieve the 
requisite abundance and distribution of stable, secure, and self-
sustaining populations to consider the species recovered. As described 
above, for similar reasons we have designated unoccupied habitat for 
the akohekohe and kiwikiu based on the recovery areas identified in the 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (Service 2006), and for 
future reintroduction sites for the three tree snails based on the 
interim recovery objectives as identified in the Recovery Plan for Oahu 
Tree Snails of the Genus Achatinella (1992, entire). As we have 
determined that a designation limited to the current range of the 125 
Maui Nui species would be inadequate to achieve their conservation, for 
all of the reasons outlined above, here we are designating unoccupied 
critical habitat that we have determined is essential for the 
conservation of the species.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(e), we review available information pertaining to the 
habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the 
time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation 
of the species. If after identifying currently occupied areas, a 
determination is made that those areas are inadequate to ensure 
conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we then consider whether 
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied--are 
essential for the conservation of the species. We are designating 
critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing because we have determined that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
    We considered several factors in the selection of specific 
boundaries for critical habitat for the Maui Nui species. We determined 
critical habitat unit boundaries taking into consideration the known 
past and present locations of the species, areas determined to be 
essential to Hawaiian plants (HPPRCC 1998, entire), the recovery areas 
as determined by species' Recovery Plans (for plants, birds, and tree 
snails), any previously designated critical habitat for the species, 
projections of geographic ranges of Hawaiian plant species (Price et 
al. 2012, entire), space to allow for increases in numbers of 
individuals and for expansion of populations to provide for the minimum 
numbers required to reach delisting goals (as described in Recovery 
Plans), space between individual critical habitat units to provide for 
redundancy of populations across the range of the species in case of 
catastrophic events such as fire and hurricanes, and critical habitat 
units on multiple islands for those species known from more than one 
Hawaiian island (see also Methods, and ``Unoccupied Areas,'' above). 
The initial boundaries were superimposed over digital topographic maps 
of the islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe and further 
evaluated. In general, land areas that were identified as highly 
degraded were removed from the proposed critical habitat units, and 
natural or manmade features (e.g., ridge lines, valleys, streams, 
coastlines, roads, obvious land features, etc.) were also used to 
delineate the final critical habitat boundaries. We are designating 
critical habitat on lands that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to conserving multiple species, based on their 
shared dependence on the functioning ecosystems they have in common. 
Because the 11 habitat types discussed in this final rule do not form a 
single contiguous area, they are divided into geographic units on the 
islands of Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe: 82 Plant critical habitat 
units, 82 forest bird critical habitat units (41 units for each bird), 
and 1 tree snail critical habitat unit. The forest bird and the tree 
snail critical habitat units completely overlap the 82 plant critical 
habitat units.
    The critical habitat is a combination of areas currently occupied 
by the species in that ecosystem, as well as areas that may be 
currently unoccupied. Due to the extremely remote and inaccessible 
nature of the area, surveys are relatively infrequent and may be 
limited in scope; therefore, it is difficult to say with certainty 
whether individual representatives of a rare species may or may not be 
present. A properly functioning ecosystem provides the life-

[[Page 17879]]

history requirements of the species that make up that ecosystem, and 
the physical or biological features found in such an ecosystem are the 
PCEs essential for the conservation of the species that occur there. In 
other words, the occupied areas provide the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species occurring in the 
ecosystems we analyzed, by providing for the successful functioning of 
the ecosystem on which the species depend. However, due to the small 
population sizes, few numbers of individuals, and reduced or lost 
geographic range of each of the 125 species for which critical habitat 
is designated, we have determined that a designation limited to the 
known present range of each species would be inadequate to achieve the 
conservation of those species because the current populations and range 
are insufficient to meet recovery goals or to provide sufficient 
resiliency against ongoing threats to ensure the viability of the 
species. The areas believed to be unoccupied, and that may have been 
unoccupied at the time of listing, have been determined to be essential 
for the conservation and recovery of the species because they provide 
the physical or biological features necessary for the expansion of 
existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations 
within the historical range of the species. For 15 of the plant species 
(Acaena exigua, Cyanea glabra, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis, Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, Kokia cookei, Nototrichium humile, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum 
incompletum, and Tetramolopium capillare), we are designating 
unoccupied areas only, as these species are not believed to be extant 
on Molokai, Maui, or Kahoolawe. Designating unoccupied critical habitat 
for these species, which once occurred on these islands but are no 
longer found there, would promote conservation actions to restore their 
historical, geographical, and ecological representation, which is 
essential for their recovery. Critical habitat boundaries for all 
species were delineated to include the habitat features necessary to 
provide for functioning ecosystems on which they depend; these areas 
are essential to the conservation of these species since they have been 
extirpated from these islands and their recovery will be entirely 
dependent upon their successful reestablishment in suitable but 
unoccupied habitat.
    In some cases, we have identified areas of critical habitat for 
species in multiple ecosystem areas. With the exception of Acaena 
exigua, Cyanea glabra, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis, Gouania vitifolia, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, Kokia cookei, Nototrichium humile, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum 
incompletum, and Tetramolopium capillare, which are believed to be no 
longer extant on Molokai, Maui, or Kahoolawe, all of the critical 
habitat units in these ecosystems contain some areas that are currently 
unoccupied, and that may have been unoccupied at the time of listing, 
but have been determined to be essential for the conservation of the 
species. Because of the small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes of each of the 125 species, each requires suitable habitat and 
space for the expansion of existing populations to achieve a level that 
could approach recovery. For example, although the plant Huperzia 
mannii is found in multiple critical habitat units across four 
ecosystem types, its entire distribution is comprised of a total of 
fewer than 200 wild individuals. The unoccupied areas of each unit are 
essential for the expansion of this species to achieve viable 
population numbers and maintain its historical geographical and 
ecological distribution. This same logic applies to each of the Maui 
Nui species.
    On Maui, there are two distinct geographic areas separated by an 
isthmus (east and west Maui mountains) with geological and evolutionary 
age differences. Sixty-three of the plant species and the tree snail 
Newcombia cumingi, for which we are designating critical habitat on the 
islands of Maui Nui, are historically known from only east Maui or only 
west Maui. In the case of those species endemic to either east or west 
Maui, we are designating critical habitat only in the geographic area 
of historical occurrence on this island. Thirty-eight plant species 
(Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis, 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium peruvianum var. 
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Canavalia pubescens, 
Clermontia lindseyana, C. peleana, C. samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. 
horrida, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, Cyperus pennatiformis, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, Flueggea neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G. hanaense, G. 
multiflorum, Ischaemum byrone, Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope 
adscendens, M. balloui, M. knudsenii, M. mucronulata, M. ovalis, Mucuna 
sloanei var. persericea, Nototrichium humile, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, Schiedea haleakalensis, 
S. jacobii, Solanum incompletum, and Vigna o-wahuensis) are known only 
from the east Maui mountains, and 26 plant species (Acaena exigua, 
Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cyanea lobata ssp. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Geranium hillebrandii, Gouania hillebrandii, 
G. vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua coriacea, K. laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Myrsine 
vaccinioides, Pteris lydgatei, Remyi mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, 
Schenkia sebaeoides, Schiedea salicaria, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, 
Tetramolopium capillare, and T. remyi), and the tree snail Newcombia 
cumingi, are known only from the west Maui mountains.
    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of the physical or biological features essential for the 
recovery and conservation of 125 Maui Nui species, and the unoccupied 
areas needed for the expansion or augmentation of reduced populations 
or reestablishment of populations. The approximate size of each of the 
82 plant critical habitat units, the 82 forest bird critical habitat 
units (41 units for each bird), and the tree snail critical habitat 
unit, and the status of their land ownership, are identified in Tables 
7A through 7F. The ecosystems in which critical habitat for each of the 
plant, forest bird, and tree snail species is designated are identified 
in Tables 8A through 8C, along with areas excluded from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions, 
below). All forest bird and tree snail critical habitat units overlap 
areas designated as plant critical habitat.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the 125 Maui Nui species. The scale of the maps we 
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of 
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the

[[Page 17880]]

maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are 
not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action 
involving these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with 
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the action would affect the physical or biological 
features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the regulatory portion of this final rule. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R1-ES-2015-0071, on our Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/), and at the field office responsible for the 
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
    Units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or 
biological features being present to support the species' life 
processes. Some units contain all of the identified elements of 
physical or biological features and supported multiple life processes. 
Some units contain only some elements of the physical or biological 
features necessary to support the species' particular use of that 
habitat.

                                        Table 7A--Critical Habitat for 60 Plant Species on the Island of Molokai
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molokai--Coastal:
    --Unit 1............................................             125              50               0              54               0              70
    --Unit 2............................................             973             396             263               0               0             710
    --Unit 3............................................             803             325             794               3               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................              10               4              10               0               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................               1             0.5               1               0               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................           1,884             762             190               0               0           1,685
    --Unit 7............................................              49              20               0               0               0              49
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Coastal *.................................           3,849           1,558           1,258              57               0           2,514
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Lowland Dry:
    --Unit 1............................................              24              10               0               0               0              24
    --Unit 2............................................             589             238             589               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Dry...............................             613             248             589               0               0              24
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Lowland Mesic:
    --Unit 1............................................           8,770           3,549           3,489               0               0           5,281
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Mesic.............................           8,770           3,549           3,489               0               0           5,281
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Lowland Wet:
    --Unit 1............................................           2,949           1,193           2,195               0               0             754
    --Unit 2............................................           1,950             789           1,356               0               0             594
    --Unit 3............................................           3,219           1,303              94               0               0           3,125
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Wet...............................           8,118           3,285           3,645               0               0           4,473
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Montane Wet:
    --Unit 1............................................           3,397           1,375           1,545               0               0           1,851
    --Unit 2............................................             910             368             871               0               0              39
    --Unit 3............................................             803             325              77               0               0             726
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Wet...............................           5,110           2,068           2,493               0               0           2,616
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Montane Mesic:
    --Unit 1............................................             816             330             257               0               0             559
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Mesic.............................             816             330             257               0               0             559
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Molokai--Wet Cliff:
    --Unit 1............................................           1,607             651           1,395               0               0             212
    --Unit 2............................................           1,268             513             462               0               0             806
    --Unit 3............................................           1,362             551           1,137               0               0             225
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Wet Cliff.................................           4,237           1,715           2,994               0               0           1,243
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total all units.............................          31,513          12,753          14,725              57               0          16,710
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Area discrepancy between unit and parcel due to parcel coastline data


[[Page 17881]]


                                          Table 7B--Critical Habitat for 91 Plant Species on the Island of Maui
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maui--Coastal:
    --Unit 1............................................               2               1               2               0               0               0
    --Unit 2............................................              25              10              16               0               0               9
    --Unit 3............................................              11               4               0               0               0              10
    --Unit 4............................................              74              30              40               0               0              35
    --Unit 5............................................              26              11              26               0               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................             356             144             356               0               0               0
    --Unit 7............................................              46              19              30               0               0              15
    --Unit 8............................................             493             200             493               0               0               0
    --Unit 9............................................             170              69             170               0               0              <1
    --Unit 10...........................................             173              70             147               0               0              26
    --Unit 11...........................................               6               3               6               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Coastal...................................           1,382             561           1,286               0               0              95
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Lowland Dry:
    --Unit 1............................................          13,537           5,478          11,465           2,069               0               3
    --Unit 2............................................           1,851             749           1,851               0               0               0
    --Unit 3............................................             188              76               0               0               0             188
    --Unit 4............................................           1,266             512           1,266               0               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................           3,658           1,480           3,615               0               0              43
    --Unit 6............................................             240              97               3               0               0             237
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Dry...............................          20,740           8,392          18,200           2,069               0             471
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Lowland Mesic:
    --Unit 1............................................           1,882             762           1,147             494               0             241
    --Unit 2............................................           1,147             464           1,034               0               0             113
    --Unit 3............................................             477             193             477               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Mesic.............................           3,506           1,419           2,658             494               0             354
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Lowland Wet:
    --Unit 1............................................          16,079           6,507           6,616           2,038               0           7,425
    --Unit 2............................................              65              26              65               0               0               0
    --Unit 3............................................           1,247             505           1,247               0               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................             864             350             864               0               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................              30              12              30               0               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................             136              55             136               0               0               0
    --Unit 7............................................             898             364             898               0               0               0
    --Unit 8............................................             230              93             230               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Wet...............................          19,549           7,912          10,086           2,038               0           7,425
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Montane Wet:
    --Unit 1............................................           2,110             854           1,313               0               0             798
    --Unit 2............................................          14,583           5,901           4,075             875               0           9,633
    --Unit 3............................................           2,228             902               0           2,228               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................           1,833             742             180           1,653               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................             387             156             222             165               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................           1,399             566           1,113               0               0             286
    --Unit 7............................................              80              32              80               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Wet...............................          22,620           9,153           6,983           4,921               0          10,717
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Montane Mesic:
    --Unit 1............................................          10,972           4,440           6,593           3,672               0             707
    --Unit 2............................................             124              50             124               0               0               0
    --Unit 3............................................             174              70             174               0               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................              72              29              72               0               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................             170              69             170               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Mesic.............................          11,512           4,658           7,133           3,672               0             707
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Montane Dry:
    --Unit 1............................................           3,524           1,426           2,962             563               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Dry...............................           3,524           1,426           2,962             563               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================

[[Page 17882]]

 
Maui--Subalpine:
    --Unit 1............................................          15,975           6,465          10,785           3,568               0           1,622
    --Unit 2............................................           9,886           4,001               0           9,836               0              50
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Subalpine.................................          25,861          10,465          10,785          13,404               0           1,672
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Alpine:
    --Unit 1............................................           1,797             727             475             911               0             411
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Alpine....................................           1,797             727             475             911               0             411
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Dry Cliff:
    --Unit 1............................................             755             305               0             755               0               0
    --Unit 2............................................             688             279               0             688               0               0
    --Unit 3............................................             200              81               0             200               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................             315             127               0             315               0               0
    --Unit 5............................................           1,298             525           1,298               0               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................             279             113             279               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Dry Cliff.................................           3,535           1,430           1,577           1,958               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Maui--Wet Cliff:
    --Unit 1............................................             290             117               0               0               0             290
    --Unit 2............................................           1,407             569             475             912               0              20
    --Unit 3............................................             438             177               5             433               0               0
    --Unit 4............................................             184              75             184               0               0               0
    --Unit 6............................................           2,110             854           1,858               0               0             253
    --Unit 7............................................             557             225             556               0               0               0
    --Unit 8............................................             337             137             337               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Wet Cliff.................................           5,323           2,154           3,415           1,345               0             563
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total all units.............................         119,349          48,297          65,560          31,375               0          22,415
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Table 7C--Critical Habitat for Six Plant Species on the Island of Kahoolawe
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahoolawe--Coastal:
    --Unit 1............................................           1,516             613           1,516               0               0               0
    --Unit 2............................................              12               5              12               0               0               0
    --Unit 3............................................             189              76             189               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Coastal...................................           1,717             694           1,717               0               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Kahoolawe--Lowland Dry:
    --Unit 1............................................           1,220             494           1,220               0               0               0
    --Unit 2............................................           3,205           1,297           3,205               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Dry...............................           4,425           1,791           4,425               0               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total all Units.............................           6,142           2,485           6,142               0               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17883]]


                          Table 7D--Critical Habitat for Two Forest Bird Species (Akohekohe and Kiwikiu) on the Island of Maui
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Mesic:
    Maui--Unit 1........................................             477             193             477               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Mesic.............................             477             193             477               0               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Lowland Wet:
    Maui--Unit 2........................................          16,079           6,507           6,616           2,038               0           7,425
    Maui--Unit 3........................................              65              26              65               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 4........................................           1,247             505           1,247               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 5........................................             864             350             864               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 6........................................              30              12              30               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 7........................................             136              55             136               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 8........................................             898             364             898               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 9........................................             230              93             230               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Wet...............................          19,549           7,912          10,086           2,038               0           7,425
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Montane Wet:
    Maui--Unit 10.......................................           2,110             854           1,313               0               0             798
    Maui--Unit 11.......................................          14,583           5,901           4,075             875               0           9,633
    Maui--Unit 12.......................................           2,228             902               0           2,228               0               0
    Maui--Unit 13.......................................           1,833             742             180           1,653               0               0
    Maui--Unit 14.......................................             387             156             222             165               0               0
    Maui--Unit 15.......................................           1,399             566           1,113               0               0             286
    Maui--Unit 16.......................................              80              32              80               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Wet...............................          22,620           9,153           6,983           4,921               0          10,717
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Montane Mesic:
    Maui--Unit 18.......................................          10,972           4,440           6,593           3,672               0             707
    Maui--Unit 19.......................................             124              50             124               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 20.......................................             174              70             174               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 21.......................................              72              29              72               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 22.......................................             170              69             170               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Mesic.............................          11,512           4,658           7,133           3,672               0             707
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subalpine:
    Maui--Unit 24.......................................          15,975           6,465          10,785           3,568               0           1,622
    Maui--Unit 25.......................................           9,886           4,001               0           9,836               0              50
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Subalpine.................................          25,861          10,466          10,785          13,404               0           1,672
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Dry Cliff:
    Maui--Unit 26.......................................             755             305               0             755               0               0
    Maui--Unit 27.......................................             200              81               0             200               0               0
    Maui--Unit 28.......................................             315             127               0             315               0               0
    Maui--Unit 29.......................................           1,298             525           1,298               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Dry Cliff.................................           2,568           1,038           1,298           1,270               0               0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Wet Cliff:
    Maui--Unit 30.......................................             290             117               0               0               0             290
    Maui--Unit 31.......................................           1,407             569             475             912               0              20
    Maui--Unit 32.......................................             438             177               5             433               0               0
    Maui--Unit 33.......................................             184              75             184               0               0               0
    Maui--Unit 35.......................................           2,110             854           1,858               0               0             253
    Maui--Unit 36.......................................             557             225             556               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Wet Cliff.................................           4,986           2,017           3,078           1,345               0             563
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total all Units.............................          87,573          35,437          39,840          26,650               0          21,084
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17884]]


                         Table 7E--Critical Habitat for Two Forest Bird Species (Akohekohe and Kiwikiu) on the Island of Molokai
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Mesic:
    Molokai--Unit 37....................................           8,770           3,549           3,489               0               0           5,281
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Mesic.............................           8,770           3,549           3,489               0               0           5,281
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Lowland Wet:
    Molokai--Unit 38....................................           2,949           1,193           2,195               0               0             754
    Molokai--Unit 39....................................           1,950             789           1,356               0               0             594
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Wet...............................           4,899           1,982           3,551               0               0           1,348
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Montane Wet:
    Molokai--Unit 40....................................           3,397           1,375           1,545               0               0           1,851
    Molokai--Unit 41....................................             910             368             871               0               0              39
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Montane Wet...............................           4,307           1,743           2,416               0               0           1,890
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Montane Mesic:
    Molokai--Unit 42....................................             816             330             257               0               0             559
        Total Montane Mesic.............................             816             330             257               0               0             559
Wet Cliff:
    Molokai--Unit 43....................................           1,607             651           1,395               0               0             212
    Molokai--Unit 44....................................           1,268             513             462               0               0             806
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Wet Cliff.................................           2,875           1,164           1,857               0               0           1,018
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total all Units.............................          21,667           8,768          11,570               0               0          10,096
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table 7F--Critical Habitat for Newcombia Cumingi on the Island of Maui
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Landownership (acres)
                  Critical habitat area                    Size of unit    Size of unit  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             in acres       in hectares        State          Federal         County          Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Wet:
    Maui--Unit 1........................................              65              26              65               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Lowland Wet...............................              65              26              65               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total all Units.............................              65              26              65               0               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17885]]


                                                 Table 8A--Plant Species for Which Critical Habitat Is Designated in Each Ecosystem, and Areas Excluded Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Ecosystem                                                                                   Excluded
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    from      Total critical
            Species                                                                                                                                                                                          critical        habitat
                                     Coastal       Lowland dry    Lowland mesic    Lowland wet     Montane wet    Montane mesic   Montane dry     Sub-alpine       Alpine       Dry cliff      Wet cliff    habitat ac    designated ac
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (ha)           (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Plants
Abutilon eremitopetalum........  ..............  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      10,705             0 (0)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,332)
Acaena exigua*.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       3,139       1,479 (599)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,270)
Adenophorus periens............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA, LA, MO...  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,711   26,251 (10,623)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,930)
Alectryon macrococcus var.       ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,254    20,974 (8,415)
 auwahiensis.                                                                                                                                                                                                  (3,745)
Alectryon macrococcus var.       ..............  ..............  MO............  WMA...........  ..............  EMA, MO.......  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      25,746   27,032 (10,940)
 macrococcus.                                                                                                                                                                                                 (10,419)
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  .............  EMA..........  EMA..........  EMA..........  .............      10,897   40,588 (16,425)
 macrocephalum.                                                                                                                                                                                                (4,410)
Asplenium dielerectum..........  ..............  WMA, LA.......  WMA, MO.......  WMA, MO.......  ..............  EMA, MO.......  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  .............      31,677   37,668 (15,244)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (12,819)
Asplenium peruvianum var.        ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............      18,569   57,974 (23,461)
 insulare.                                                                                                                                                                                                     (7,515)
Bidens campylotheca ssp.         ..............  WMA...........  WMA...........  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA, WMA.....      28,654   44,915 (18,177)
 pentamera.                                                                                                                                                                                                   (11,596)
Bidens campylotheca ssp.         ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........       9,017            39,538
 waihoiensis.                                                                                                                                                                                                  (3,649)          (16,001)
Bidens conjuncta...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  WMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      20,414     7,953 (3,219)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (8,261)
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha  ..............  EMA, LA.......  LA............  WMA...........  ..............  EMA...........  .............  EMA..........  .............  EMA, LA......  .............      50,343   59,101 (23,917)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (20,373)
Bidens wiebkei.................  MO............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       3,157    17,895 (7,241)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,277)
Bonamia menziesii..............  ..............  EMA, MO.......  LA, MO........  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA..........      30,503   30,806 (12,467)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (12,344)
Brighamia rockii...............  EMA, WMA, MO..  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  MO...........       2,061     9,470 (3,832)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (834)
Calamagrostis hillebrandii.....  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      3,139,       1,479 (599)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,270)
Canavalia molokaiensis.........  MO............  ..............  MO............  MO............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........       1,325   24,976 (10,107)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (536)
Canavalia pubescens............  LA............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,571    16,841 (6,816)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,873)
Cenchrus agrimonioides.........  ..............  EMA, WMA......  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      21,265    20,739 (8,393)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (8,605)
Clermontia lindseyana..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       7,269    10,972 (4,440)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (2,942)
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.     ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........       1,820   26,235 (10,617)
 brevipes.                                                                                                                                                                                                       (736)
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.     ..............  ..............  LA............  EMA, WMA, LA..  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      28,688   40,689 (16,466)
 mauiensis.                                                                                                                                                                                                   (11,610)
Clermontia peleana *...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   802 (325)    16,079 (6,507)
Clermontia samuelii............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,846   37,219 (15,062)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,580)
Colubrina oppositifolia........  ..............  EMA...........  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      10,414    18,466 (7,473)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,214)
Ctenitis squamigera............  ..............  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA, MO..  WMA...........  ..............  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  WMA, LA......      32,267   40,030 (16,200)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (13,058)
Cyanea asplenifolia............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA, WMA......  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,872    21,430 (8,673)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,590)

[[Page 17886]]

 
Cyanea copelandii ssp.           ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........       9,022   41,420 (16,762)
 haleakalaensis.                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,651)
Cyanea dunbariae...............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  ..............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,202    17,704 (7,165)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (486)
Cyanea duvalliorum.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,846   37,219 (15,062)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,580)
Cyanea gibsonii................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........       1,209             0 (0)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (489)
Cyanea glabra*.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      32,588   38,586 (15,615)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (13,188)
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.           ..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........      12 (5)    12,355 (5,000)
 grimesiana*.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.          ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      16,116   48,191 (19,502)
 hamatiflora.                                                                                                                                                                                                  (6,522)
Cyanea horrida.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........      15,484   34,431 (13,934)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (6,266)
Cyanea kunthiana...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA......  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      27,318   53,140 (21,505)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (11,055)
Cyanea lobata ssp. baldwinii...  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   248 (101)             0 (0)
Cyanea lobata ssp. lobata......  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      17,275     6,473 (2,620)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (6,991)
Cyanea magnicalyx..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      17,790     7,014 (2,839)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,199)
Cyanea mannii..................  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  MO............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       2,621    14,696 (5,947)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,060)
Cyanea maritae.................  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,846   37,219 (15,062)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,580)
Cyanea mceldowneyi.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      16,116   48,191 (19,502)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (6,522)
Cyanea munroi..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  LA, MO.......   974 (394)     4,237 (1,715)
Cyanea obtusa..................  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,144    14,870 (6,018)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,700)
Cyanea procera.................  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  MO............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       2,621    14,696 (5,947)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,060)
Cyanea profuga.................  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,807    13,880 (5,617)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (731)
Cyanea solanacea...............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  MO............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       2,621    22,814 (9,232)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,060)
Cyperus fauriei................  ..............  LA............  MO............  ..............  ..............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      11,906     9,586 (3,879)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,818)
Cyperus pennatiformis..........  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............     85 (35)       1,034 (418)
Cyperus trachysanthos*.........  ..............  LA, MO........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      10,705         613 (248)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,332)
Cyrtandra ferripilosa..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      15,313   32,112 (12,995)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (6,197)
Cyrtandra filipes..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  WMA, MO.......  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      17,663   28,244 (11,430)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,148)
Cyrtandra munroi...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA, LA......      18,484    11,356 (4,596)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,480)
Cyrtandra oxybapha.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      10,408    12,451 (5,039)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,212)
Diplazium molokaiense..........  ..............  ..............  LA, MO........  WMA...........  EMA...........  EMA, WMA......  .............  .............  .............  EMA, WMA, LA.  .............      37,690   48,427 (19,598)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (15,253)
Dubautia plantaginea ssp.        ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........       9,211     7,886 (3,192)
 humilis.                                                                                                                                                                                                      (3,728)

[[Page 17887]]

 
Eugenia koolauensis*...........  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       0 (0)         613 (248)
Festuca molokaiensis...........  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   388 (157)     8,770 (3,549)
Flueggea neowawraea............  ..............  EMA...........  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,074   25,612 (10,365)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,672)
Geranium arboreum..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA..........  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............      11,989   40,358 (16,332)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,852)
Geranium hanaense..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,044    21,141 (8,555)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,255)
Geranium hillebrandii..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       3,654       2,019 (817)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,479)
Geranium multiflorum...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  EMA..........  .............  EMA..........  .............      18,926   59,931 (24,253)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,659)
Gouania hillebrandii...........  ..............  WMA, KAH......  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       2,263    17,094 (6,918)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (916)
Gouania vitifolia*.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........       9,211     7,886 (3,192)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,728)
Hesperomannia arborescens......  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA, LA, MO..      19,667    20,703 (8,378)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,959)
Hesperomannia arbuscula........  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA..........      20,196    16,831 (6,812)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (8,173)
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.        MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........   937 (379)     8,088 (3,272)
 immaculatus.
Hibiscus brackenridgei.........  LA, MO........  EMA, WMA, LA,   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      23,075   29,629 (11,990)
                                                  MO, KAH.                                                                                                                                                     (9,338)
Huperzia mannii................  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA......  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      27,839   55,562 (22,485)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               11,266)
Ischaemum byrone...............  EMA, MO.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,010     4,885 (1,976)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (409)
Isodendrion pyrifolium*........  ..............  ..............  MO............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA..........      18,710    21,703 (8,783)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,571)
Kadua cordata ssp. remyi.......  ..............  ..............  LA............  LA............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      11,778             0 (0)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,767)
Kadua coriacea*................  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,874     3,898 (1,578)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (759)
Kadua laxiflora................  ..............  ..............  LA, MO........  WMA, LA.......  LA............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA, LA......      32,511    22,519 (9,114)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (13,157)
Kanaloa kahoolawensis..........  KAH...........  KAH...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       0 (0)     6,142 (2,486)
Kokia cookei*..................  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       0 (0)          613(248)
Labordia tinifolia var.          ..............  ..............  LA............  LA............  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........      12,988             0 (0)
 lanaiensis.                                                                                                                                                                                                   (5,256)
Labordia triflora..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       0 (0)     8,770 (3,549)
Lysimachia lydgatei............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      11,600            12,324
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,695)       (4,988)ROW>
Lysimachia maxima..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,419    13,228 (5,353)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (574)
Marsilea villosa...............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   924 (374)     3,851 (1,558)
Melanthera kamolensis..........  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,685    16,841 (6,816)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,515)
Melicope adscendens............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      14,322    24,509 (9,918)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (5,796)
Melicope balloui...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,846   37,219 (15,062)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,580)
Melicope knudsenii.............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,464     3,524 (1,426)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (592)
Melicope mucronulata...........  ..............  EMA...........  MO............  ..............  ..............  MO............  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  .............      11,351   29,952 (12,121)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,593)
Melicope munroi................  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  1,598(647)     8,770 (3,549)
Melicope ovalis................  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........       9,017   39,538 (16,001)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,649)
Melicope reflexa...............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,807    21,998 (8,902)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (731)
Mucuna sloanei var. persericea.  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   802 (325)    16,079 (6,507)
Myrsine vaccinioides...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       3,139       1,479 (599)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,270)

[[Page 17888]]

 
Neraudia sericea...............  ..............  EMA, WMA, LA,   MO............  ..............  ..............  EMA, MO.......  .............  .............  .............  WMA, LA......  .............      31,616   58,282 (19,142)
                                                  KAH.                                                                                                                                                        (12,795)
Nototrichium humile*...........  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,685    16,841 (6,816)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,515)
Peperomia subpetiolata.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,044    21,141 (8,555)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,255)
Peucedanum sandwicense.........  EMA, MO.......  ..............  ..............  WMA, MO.......  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,074    16,472 (6,665)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,672)
Phyllostegia bracteata*........  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  EMA, WMA......  EMA...........  .............  EMA..........  .............  .............  EMA..........      29,943   65,241 (26,402)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (12,117)
Phyllostegia haliakalae*.......  ..............  ..............  MO............  EMA...........  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  EMA, LA......      11,200   48,308 (19,550)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,533)
Phyllostegia hispida...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........       1,431    17,465 (7,068)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (579)
Phyllostegia mannii............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  EMA, MO.......  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      17,120   54,111 (21,897)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (6,928)
Phyllostegia pilosa............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  EMA, MO.......  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       9,851   35,021 (14,172)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,986)
Pittosporum halophilum.........  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   924 (374)     3,851 (1,558)
Plantago princeps..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  EMA..........  EMA, WMA.....      10,551    21,096 (8,538)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,270)
Platanthera holochila..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA, WMA, MO..  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      21,813   35,616 (14,413)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (8,827)
Pleomele fernaldii.............  ..............  LA............  LA............  LA............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  LA...........      24,279             0 (0)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (9,825)
Portulaca sclerocarpa..........  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   886 (359)             0 (0)
Pteris lidgatei................  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA, MO......      18,706    20,703 (8,378)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (7,570)
Remya mauiensis................  ..............  WMA...........  WMA...........  WMA...........  ..............  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........      21,393    17,418 (7,049)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (8,657)
Sanicula purpurea..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       3,139       1,479 (599)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,270)
Santalum haleakalae var.         ..............  EMA, WMA......  WMA, LA, MO...  WMA, LA.......  LA............  EMA, WMA, MO..  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............  WMA, LA......      53,000   58,342 (23,611)
 lanaiense.                                                                                                                                                                                                   (21,449)
Schenkia sebaeoides............  WMA, MO.......  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      11,834     4,200 (1,699)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,789)
Schiedea haleakalensis.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  EMA..........  .............  EMA..........  .............       3,613   27,819 (11,258)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,462)
Schiedea jacobii*..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       8,044    21,141 (8,555)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (3,255)
Schiedea laui..................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,419     5,110 (2,068)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (574)
Schiedea lydgatei..............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   388 (157)     8,770 (3,549)
Schiedea salicaria.............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............       1,874     3,898 (1,578)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (759)
Schiedea sarmentosa............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   388 (157)     8,770 (3,549)
Sesbania tomentosa.............  WMA, LA, MO,    EMA, WMA, LA,   MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      23,668   51,447 (16,375)
                                  KAH.            MO, KAH.                                                                                                                                                     (9,578)
Silene alexandri...............  ..............  ..............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   388 (157)     8,770 (3,549)
Silene lanceolata..............  ..............  LA............  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      11,093     8,770 (3,549)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,489)

[[Page 17889]]

 
Solanum incompletum*...........  ..............  EMA, LA.......  EMA, LA.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  .............      31,402    18,723 (7,577)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (12,708)
Spermolepis hawaiiensis........  ..............  EMA, WMA, LA..  LA, MO........  ..............  ..............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      33,638   30,326 (12,272)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (13,613)
Stenogyne bifida...............  ..............  ..............  MO............  MO............  MO............  MO............  .............  .............  .............  .............  MO...........       2,633   27,051 (10,947)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (1,065)
Stenogyne kauaulaensis.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   515 (209)         540 (219)
Tetramolopium capillare*.......  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  WMA..........  WMA..........      12,132    13,361 (5,407)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (4,909)
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.     ..............  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      10,705             0 (0)
 lepidotum*.                                                                                                                                                                                                   (4,332)
Tetramolopium remyi............  ..............  WMA, LA.......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      12,579     3,898 (1,578)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (5,091)
Tetramolopium rockii...........  MO............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............   924 (374)      3,851(1,558)
Vigna o-wahuensis..............  EMA, KAH......  LA, KAH.......  LA, MO........  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      22,351    26,928 (6,453)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (9,045)
Viola lanaiensis...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............  ..............  .............  .............  .............  LA...........  LA...........       2,044             0 (0)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (827)
Wikstroemia villosa............  ..............  ..............  ..............  EMA, WMA......  EMA...........  EMA...........  .............  .............  .............  .............  .............      24,179   51,661 (20,906)
                                                                                                                                                                                                               (9,785)
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.........  ..............  EMA...........  WMA, MO.......  LA, MO........  MO............  EMA, WMA......  EMA..........  EMA..........  .............  .............  .............      25,331   81,362 (32,926)
                                                                                                                                                                                                              (10,251)
Areas Excluded by Ecosystem, ac  2,101 (850)...  21,265 (8,605)  13,294 (5,380)  9,472 (3,834).  12,850 (5,200)  8,598 (3,480).  1,464 (592)..  3,256 (1,318)  15 (6).......  2,238 (906)..  10,354         ..........  ................
 (ha).                                                                                                                                                                                        (4,190).
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area Designated CH, ac     6,950 (2,812).  25,778          12,277 (4,968)  27,666          27,730          12,328 (4,989)  3,524 (1,426)  25,861         1,797 (727)..  3,535 (1,431)  9,560 (3,869)  ..........  ................
 (ha).                                            (10,432).                       (11,197).       (11,222).                                      (10,466).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA = East Maui, WMA = West Maui, LA = Lanai, MO = Molokai, KAH = Kahoolawe.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently unoccupied by
  those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as seed dispersal and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.
* This species may no longer occur in the wild on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, or Kahoolawe.


                                                   Table 8B--Forest Bird Species for Which Critical Habitat Is Designated in Each Ecosystem, and Areas Excluded Under Section 4(b)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Ecosystem                                                                                     Excluded      Total
                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    from      critical
             Species                                                                                                                                                                                               critical     habitat
                                      Coastal      Lowland  dry   Lowland  mesic   Lowland  wet    Montane  wet   Montane  mesic   Montane  dry      Subalpine        Alpine         Dry cliff       Wet cliff      habitat   designated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ac (ha)     ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Forest Bird
Akohekohe.......................  ..............  ..............  WMA, MO.......  EMA, WMA, MO..  EMA, WMA, MO..  EMA, WMA, MO..  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA, MO..      43,699     109,238
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (17,684)    (44,207)
Kiwikiu.........................  ..............  ..............  WMA, MO.......  EMA, WMA, MO..  EMA, WMA, MO..  EMA, WMA, MO..  ..............  EMA...........  ..............  EMA, WMA......  EMA, WMA, MO..      43,699     109,238
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (17,684)    (44,207)
Area, Excluded ac (ha)..........  ..............  ..............  388...........  8,866.........  12,602........  8,598.........  ..............  3,256.........  ..............  595...........  9,394.........
                                                                  (157).........  (3,588).......  (5,100).......  (3,480).......                  (1,318).......                  (241).........  (3,801).......
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area Designated Critical    ..............  ..............  9,247.........  24,447........  26,927........  12,328........  ..............  25,861........  ..............  2,566.........  7,860
 Habitat.                                                         (3,742).......  (9,894).......  (10,897)......  (4,989).......                  (10,466)......                  (1,039).......  (3,181).......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA = East Maui.
WMA = West Maui.
MO = Molokai.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently unoccupied by
  those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as food gathering and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.


[[Page 17890]]


                                                        Table 8C--Tree Snail Species For Which Critical Habitat Is Designated In Each Ecosystem, And Areas Excluded Under 4(b)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Ecosystem                                                                                     Excluded      Total
                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    from      critical
             Species                                                                                                                                                                                               critical     habitat
                                      Coastal      Lowland  dry   Lowland  mesic   Lowland  wet    Montane  wet   Montane  mesic   Montane  dry      Subalpine        Alpine         Dry cliff       Wet cliff      habitat   designated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ac (ha)     ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree Snail
    Newcombia cumingi...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  WMA...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         534          65
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (216)        (26)
    Partulina semicarinata......  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............       1,815           0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (735)         (0)
    Partulina variabilis........  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............  LA............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  LA............       1,815           0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (735)         (0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMA = West Maui.
LA = Lanai.
The area known to be occupied by species for which the unit is designated also provides area essential to the conservation of all of the species that occur in that particular ecosystem, even if the area is currently unoccupied by
  those species. Those areas provide the space and appropriate environmental conditions for activities such as food gathering and reproduction that will serve to expand the existing populations.


[[Page 17891]]

VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating 157,002 ac (63,537 ha) as critical habitat in 11 
ecosystem types for 125 species. The critical habitat is composed of 82 
critical habitat units for the plant species, 41 critical habitat units 
for each of the 2 forest birds (82 total), and one critical habitat 
unit for the Newcomb's tree snail (see Tables 7A-7F, above, for 
details). The critical habitat includes land under State, County of 
Maui, Federal (Haleakala National Park; Kalaupapa National Historical 
Park (NHP), Department of Homeland Security--Coast Guard), and private 
ownership. The critical habitat units we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of those areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for 125 of the 135 Maui Nui species of plants and 
animals. Critical habitat was proposed but is not designated for 10 
species that occur on Lanai (the plants Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea 
gibsonii, Kadua cordata ssp. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, 
Pleomele fernaldii, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum, and Viola lanaiensis; and the tree snails Partulina 
semicarinata and P. variabilis). Although the areas proposed are still 
considered essential for the conservation of these species, we have 
determined under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that the benefit of 
excluding these areas outweighs the benefit of including them in 
critical habitat, for the reasons discussed below (see the Exclusions 
section of this document).

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

    Critical habitat for the 125 plant species, the 2 forest birds, and 
the Newcomb's tree snail Newcombia cumingi are published in separate 
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Critical habitat is 
set forth at 50 CFR 17.99(c) and (d) for plants on Molokai, 50 CFR 
17.99(e)(1) and (f) for plants on Maui, and 50 CFR 17.99(e)(2) and (f) 
for plants on Kahoolawe; at 50 CFR 17.95(b) for the two forest birds; 
and at 50 CFR 17.95(f) for the tree snail species. However, the 
designated critical habitat for plants, birds, and tree snail overlap 
each other in many areas of Molokai and Maui. For example, ``Maui-
Lowland Wet--Unit 1'' and the forest bird units ``Palmeria dolei--Unit 
2--Lowland Wet'' and ``Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 2--Lowland Wet'' 
correspond to the same geographic area. Therefore, because the unit 
boundaries are the same, we are describing them only once to avoid 
redundancy and reduce publication costs for this final rule, as 
indicated by ``(and)'' following the unit name.
    Maui--UCoastal--Unit 1 consists of 2 ac (1 ha) on Keopuka Rock on 
the northern coast of east Maui. This unit is State-owned, and is 
classified as a State Seabird Sanctuary. It is occupied by the plant 
Peucedanum sandwicense and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, 
the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the coastal 
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of this species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Maui-Coastal--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by Brighamia 
rockii, Cyperus pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, or Vigna o-wahuensis, 
we have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these coastal species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 2 consists of 16 ac (6 ha) of State land, and 9 
ac (4 ha) of privately owned land, from Wahinepee Stream to Moiki Point 
on the northern coast of east Maui. This unit includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--
Coastal--Unit 2 is not currently occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus 
pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna o-
wahuensis, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the physical or biological features necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within the historical ranges of the species. Due to 
their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, these 
species require suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction to achieve population levels that could achieve 
recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 3 consists of 10 ac (4 ha) of privately owned 
land at Pauwalu Point on the northern coast of east Maui. This unit is 
occupied by the plant Ischaemum byrone and includes the mixed herbland 
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 3 is not known 
to be occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus pennatiformis, Peucedanum 
sandwicense, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these coastal species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 4 consists of 40 ac (16 ha) of State land, and 
35 ac (14 ha) of privately owned land, from Papiha Point to Honolulu 
Nui Bay on the northeastern coast of east Maui. This unit is occupied 
by the plant Cyperus pennatiformis and includes the mixed herbland and 
shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 4 is not known to be occupied 
by Brighamia rockii, Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna 
o-wahuensis, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
their historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or 
low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 5 consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of State land from 
Keakulikuli Point to Pailoa Bay on the northeastern coast of east Maui. 
This unit is occupied by the plant Ischaemum byrone and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This

[[Page 17892]]

unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Coastal--
Unit 5 is not known to be occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus 
pennatiformis, Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these coastal species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 6 consists of 356 ac (144 ha) of State land at 
Kamanamana on the southern coast of East Maui. This unit is occupied by 
the plant Vigna o-wahuensis and includes the mixed herbland and 
shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 6 is not known to be occupied 
by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, or 
Peucedanum sandwicense, we have determined this area to be essential 
for the conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within the historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 7 consists of 30 ac (12 ha) of State land, and 
15 ac (6 ha) of privately owned land, from Kailio Point to Waiuha Bay, 
on the southern coast of east Maui. This unit includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--
Coastal--Unit 7 is not currently occupied by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus 
pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna o-
wahuensis, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
the historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 8 consists of 493 ac (199 ha) of State land 
from Kiakeana Point to Manawainui on the southern coast of east Maui. 
This unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the coastal ecosystem 
(see Table 5). Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 8 is not currently occupied 
by Brighamia rockii, Cyperus pennatiformis, Ischaemum byrone, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these coastal 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within the historical ranges of the species. Due to 
their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 9 consists of 170 ac (69 ha) of State land and 
0.3 ac (0.1 ha) of privately owned land, from Poelua Bay to Mokolea 
Point on the northwestern coast of west Maui. This unit is occupied by 
the plants Schenkia sebaeoides and Sesbania tomentosa, and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This 
unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Coastal--
Unit 9 is not known to be occupied by Brighamia rockii, we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of this coastal species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within its historical range. Due to 
the small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, this species 
requires suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to 
achieve population levels that could approach recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 10 consists of 147 ac (60 ha) of State land and 
26 ac (10 ha) of privately owned land, from Kahakuloa Head to Waihee 
Point on the northeastern coast of west Maui. This unit is occupied by 
the plant Schenkia sebaeoides, and includes the mixed herbland and 
shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of these species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 10 is not known to be 
occupied by Brighamia rockii or Sesbania tomentosa, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
coastal species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within its historical range. Due to 
the small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, this species 
requires suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to 
achieve population levels that could approach recovery.
    Maui--Coastal--Unit 11 consists of 6 ac (3 ha) of State land on 
Mokeehia Island on the northeastern coast of west Maui. This unit 
includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). 
Although Maui--Coastal--Unit 11 is not currently occupied by Brighamia 
rockii, Schenkia sebaeoides, or Sesbania tomentosa, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
coastal species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within the historical ranges of the 
species. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 consists of 11,465 ac (4,640 ha) of State 
land, 2,069 ac (837 ha) of federally owned land, and 3 ac (1 ha) of 
privately owned land, from Kanaio to Kahualau Gulch on the southern 
slopes of east Maui. This unit is occupied by the plants Bonamia 
menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Flueggea neowawraea, Melicope 
adscendens, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, and includes the mixed herbland and

[[Page 17893]]

shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains 
unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of these 
species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 is not 
known to be occupied by Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Canavalia pubescens, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope 
mucronulata, Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium humile, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Solanum incompletum, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland 
dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 consists of 1,851 ac (749 ha) of State 
land at Keokea on the southern slopes of east Maui. This unit is 
occupied by the plants Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia pubescens, and 
Hibiscus brackenridgei, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, 
the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland 
dry ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by 
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia 
sericea, Nototrichium humile, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, 
Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, or 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have determined this area to be essential 
for the conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because 
it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 consists of 188 ac (76 ha) of privately 
owned land, at Keauhou on the southern slopes of east Maui. This unit 
is occupied by the plant Canavalia pubescens, and includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3 is not 
known to be occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia 
menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Melanthera 
kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium 
humile, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4 consists of 1,266 ac (512 ha) of State 
land (including the Department of Land and Natural Resources) at Ahihi-
Kinau Natural Area Reserve on the southern slopes of east Maui. This 
unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified 
as physical or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see 
Table 5). Although Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 4 is not currently occupied 
by Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia 
pubescens, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Melanthera 
kamolensis, Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia sericea, Nototrichium 
humile, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5 consists of 3,615 ac (1,463 ha) of State 
land, and 43 ac (17 ha) of privately owned land, from Panaewa to 
Manawainui on the western and southern slopes of west Maui. This unit 
is occupied by the plants Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua 
coriacea, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Tetramolopium capillare, and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5). This 
unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 5 is not known to be occupied by Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
obtusa, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, Neraudia sericea, Schiedea salicaria, Sesbania tomentosa, or 
T. remyi, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 6 consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of State land, 
and 237 ac (96 ha) of privately owned land, from Paleaahu Gulch to Puu 
Hona on the southern slopes of west Maui. This unit is occupied by the 
plants Hibiscus brackenridgei and Schiedea salicaria, and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and

[[Page 17894]]

canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 
5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland 
Dry--Unit 6 is not known to be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea obtusa, Gouania hillebrandii, Hesperomannia 
arbuscula, Kadua coriacea, Lysimachia lydgatei, Neraudia sericea, Remya 
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, or T. remyi, we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for 
the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. 
Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 consists of 1,147 ac (464 ha) of State 
land, 241 ac (97 ha) of privately owned land, and 494 ac (200 ha) of 
federally owned land (Haleakala National Park), from Manawainui Valley 
to Kukuiula on the eastern slopes of east Maui. This unit is occupied 
by the plants Cyanea asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, 
and Huperzia mannii, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland 
mesic ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of these species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is not known to be 
occupied by Ctenitis squamigera or Solanum incompletum, we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these lowland mesic species because it provides the PCEs necessary 
for the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical 
range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 2 consists of 1,034 ac (419 ha) of State 
land, and 113 ac (46 ha) of privately owned land, from Honokohau to 
Launiupoko on the western slopes of west Maui. This unit is occupied by 
the plants Ctenitis squamigera, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae 
var. lanaiense, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, and includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland mesic ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 2 is not 
known to be occupied by Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, or Colubrina oppositifolia, we have determined this area to 
be essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland mesic 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within its historical range. Due to its small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, this species requires 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve 
population levels that could approach recovery.
Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 1--Lowland Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 1--Lowland Mesic
    This area consists of 477 ac (193 ha) of State land at Ukumehame on 
the southern slopes of west Maui. These units include the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland mesic ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--
Lowland Mesic--Unit 3 is not currently occupied by the plants Asplenium 
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Remya mauiensis, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these lowland mesic species because it provides the PCEs 
for the reestablishment of wild populations within the historical 
ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 2--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 2--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 6,616 ac (2,677 ha) of State land, 7,425 ac 
(3,005 ha) of privately owned land, and 2,038 ac (825 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park), from Haiku Uka to Kipahulu Valley 
on the northern and eastern slopes of east Maui. These units include 
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). 
These units are occupied by the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. copelandii 
ssp. haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, 
C. kunthiana, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, Huperzia mannii, Melicope 
balloui, and M. ovalis. These units also contain unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by the 
plants Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. peleana, Mucuna 
sloanei var. persericea, Phyllostegia haliakalae, or Wikstroemia 
villosa, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.

[[Page 17895]]

Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 3--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 3--Lowland Wet (and)
Newcombia cumingi--Unit 1--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 65 ac (26 ha) of State land at Moomoku, on 
the northwestern slopes of west Maui. These units include the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are 
occupied by the plant Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense. Although 
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 2 is not currently occupied by the plants 
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B. 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, or 
Wikstroemia villosa, by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria 
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), or by the Newcomb's tree 
snail (Newcombia cumingi), we have determined this area to be essential 
for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet species because 
it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within the historical ranges of the species. Due to their 
small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat 
and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 4--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 4--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 1,247 ac (505 ha) of State land at Honanana 
Gulch on the northeastern slopes of west Maui. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). They 
are occupied by the plants Bidens conjuncta, Cyanea asplenifolia, and 
Pteris lidgatei. These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs 
necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although 
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, 
Cyanea glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra 
filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, Remya mauiensis, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by the 
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these lowland wet species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 5--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 5--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 864 ac (350 ha) of State land at Kahakuloa 
Valley on the northeastern slopes of west Maui. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). They 
are occupied by the plants Bidens conjuncta and Cyanea asplenifolia. 
These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of this these species by providing the PCEs necessary for 
the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland 
Wet--Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by the plants Alectryon 
macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, 
Cyanea glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra 
filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya 
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, 
or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 6--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 6--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 30 ac (12 ha) of State land at Iao Valley on 
the eastern side of west Maui. These units include the mixed herbland 
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--
Lowland Wet--Unit 5 is not known to be occupied by the plants Alectryon 
macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, 
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, 
Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Kadua laxiflora, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris 
lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or 
Wikstroemia villosa, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria 
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland 
wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within the historical ranges of the 
species. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to

[[Page 17896]]

achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 6 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 7--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 7--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 136 ac (55 ha) of State land at Honokowai and 
Wahikuli valleys on the western slopes of west Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 
5). These units are occupied by the plant Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense. These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of this species by providing the PCEs 
necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although 
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 6 is not currently occupied by the plants 
Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, or 
Wikstroemia villosa, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria 
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland 
wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within the historical ranges of the 
species. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 7 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 8--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 8--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 898 ac (364 ha) of State land at Olowalu 
Valley, on the southern slopes of west Maui. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 5). 
These units are occupied by the plant Alectryon macrococcus. These 
units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Lowland 
Wet--Unit 7 is not currently occupied by the plants Asplenium 
dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, 
C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, 
C. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. 
arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya 
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, 
or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within the historical ranges of the species. Due to 
their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 8 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 9--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 9--Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 230 ac (93 ha) of State land at upper 
Ukumehame Gulch, on the southern slopes of west Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 8 is not currently occupied by the 
plants Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens conjuncta, 
B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. kunthiana, C. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by the forest 
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these lowland wet species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within the historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 10--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 10--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 1,313 ac (531 ha) of State land and 798 ac 
(323 ha) of privately owned land, at Haiku Uka on the northern slopes 
of east Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the montane 
wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are occupied by the plants 
Cyanea duvalliorum, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, Huperzia mannii, 
Melicope balloui, and Phyllostegia pilosa, and by the forest birds, the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys). 
These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Montane 
Wet--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by the plants Adenophorus 
periens, Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. 
glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium hanaense, G. 
multiflorum, Melicope ovalis, Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea 
jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the

[[Page 17897]]

reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 11--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 11--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 4,075 ac (1,649 ha) of State land, 9,633 ac 
(3,898 ha) of privately owned land, and 875 ac (354 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park), from Haiku Uka to Puukaukanu and 
upper Waihoi Valley, on the northern and northeastern slopes of east 
Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the montane 
wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are occupied by the plants 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea 
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Geranium 
hanaense, G. multiflorum, and Wikstroemia villosa, and by the forest 
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys). These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs 
necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although 
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Adenophorus periens, Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Cyanea glabra, C. maritae, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Huperzia mannii, Melicope balloui, M. ovalis, Peperomia 
subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P. 
pilosa, Platanthera holochila, and Schiedea jacobii, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
montane wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 12--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 12--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 2,228 ac (902 ha) of federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park) in Kipahulu Valley, on the northeastern 
slopes of east Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and 
shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units are occupied by 
the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora, C. maritae, and Melicope ovalis, and by the forest bird, 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys). These units also contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of these species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 3 is not known to be 
occupied by the plants Adenophorus periens, Asplenium peruvianum var. 
insulare, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii, Cyanea 
duvalliorum, C. glabra, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium hanaense, G. 
multiflorum, Huperzia mannii, Melicope balloui, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, 
Platanthera holochila, Schiedea jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by 
the forest bird, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei), we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
montane wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 13--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 13--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 180 ac (73 ha) of State land and 1,653 ac 
(669 ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala National Park), in Kaapahu 
Valley on the northeastern slopes of east Maui. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5). 
These units are occupied by the plants Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea 
copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. 
horrida, C. kunthiana, C. maritae, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, and Huperzia 
mannii. These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential 
to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary 
for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--
Montane Wet--Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Adenophorus periens, Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea duvalliorum, C. glabra, 
C. mceldowneyi, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium hanaense, G. 
multiflorum, Melicope balloui, M. ovalis, Peperomia subpetiolata, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, 
Platanthera holochila, Schiedea jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by 
the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 14--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 14--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 222 ac (90 ha) of State land, and 165 ac (67 
ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala National Park), near Kaumakani 
on the eastern slopes of east Maui. These units include the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units area 
occupied by the plant Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera. These units 
also contain unoccupied

[[Page 17898]]

habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 5 is not currently 
occupied by the plants Adenophorus periens, Asplenium peruvianum var. 
insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. 
duvalliorum, C. glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. 
kunthiana, C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium hanaense, G. multiflorum, Huperzia mannii, 
Melicope balloui, M. ovalis, Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, Platanthera holochila, 
Schiedea jacobii, or Wikstroemia villosa, or by the forest birds, the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these montane wet species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 15--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 1,113 ac (451 ha) of State land, and 286 ac 
(116 ha) of privately owned land, at the summit and surrounding areas 
on west Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the montane 
wet ecosystem (see Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Bidens 
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cyanea kunthiana, Geranium 
hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides, and Sanicula purpurea. These units 
also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation 
of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of 
the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6 is 
not known to be occupied by the plants Acaena exigua, Cyrtandra 
oxybapha, Huperzia mannii, Phyllostegia bracteata, or Platanthera 
holochila, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 7 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 16--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 16--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 80 ac (32 ha) of State land near Hanaula and 
Pohakea Gulch on the southeastern slopes of west Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 
5). They are occupied by the plants Cyrtandra oxybapha and Platanthera 
holochila, and contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Montane 
Wet--Unit 7 is not known to be occupied by the plants Acaena exigua, 
Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cyanea kunthiana, 
Geranium hillebrandii, Huperzia mannii, Myrsine vaccinioides, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, or Sanicula purpurea, or by the forest birds, 
the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), 
we have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these montane wet species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 18--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 18--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 6,593 ac (2,668 ha) of State land, 707 ac 
(286 ha) of privately owned land, and 3,672 ac (1,486 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park), from Kealahou to Puualae, nearly 
circumscribing the summit of Haleakala on east Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the montane mesic ecosystem (see 
Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense 
ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, 
Clermontia lindseyana, Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra 
ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, G. 
multiflorum, Huperzia mannii, Melicope adscendens, and Neraudia 
sericea. These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential 
to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary 
for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--
Montane Mesic--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha, Cyanea glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. 
kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. mannii, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, Wikstroemia villosa, or Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane mesic 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 19--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 19--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 124 ac (50 ha) of State land at Helu and the 
upper reaches of Puehuehunui on the southern slopes of west Maui. These 
units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified 
as physical or biological features in the montane mesic ecosystem (see 
Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
magnicalyx,

[[Page 17899]]

Diplazium molokaiense, Lysimachia lydgatei, Remya mauiensis, and 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense. These units also contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of these species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 2 is not known to be 
occupied by the plants Geranium hillebrandii, Huperzia mannii, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest 
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these montane mesic species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 20--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 20--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 174 ac (70 ha) of State land at Lihau on the 
southwestern slopes of west Maui. These units include the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5). They are 
occupied by the plant Geranium hillebrandii, and contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 3 is not known to be 
occupied by the plants Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea magnicalyx, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Huperzia mannii, Lysimachia lydgatei, Remya 
mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, 
or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe 
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these montane mesic species because it provides the PCEs necessary 
for the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical 
range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population 
sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 21--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 21--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of State land at Halepohaku on 
the southern slopes of west Maui. These units include the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the montane mesic ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--
Montane Mesic--Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea magnicalyx, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium 
hillebrandii, Huperzia mannii, Lysimachia lydgatei, Remya mauiensis, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria 
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane 
mesic species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 22--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 22--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 170 ac (69 ha) of State land at the upper 
reaches of Manawainui Gulch on the southeastern slopes of west Maui. 
These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the montane mesic 
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Remya 
mauiensis and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and contain 
unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of these 
species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 5 is not 
known to be occupied by the plants Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
magnicalyx, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium hillebrandii, Huperzia 
mannii, Lysimachia lydgatei, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, or Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane mesic 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1 consists of 2,962 ac (1,199 ha) of State 
land, and 563 ac (228 ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala National 
Park), from Kanaio to Naholoku and Kaupo Gap along the southern slopes 
of east Maui. This unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the montane 
dry ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1 is not 
known to be occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Geranium 
arboreum, Melicope knudsenii, M. mucronulata, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have determined this area to 
be essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane dry 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 24--Subalpine (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 24--Subalpine
    This area consists of 10,785 ac (4,365 ha) of State land, 1,622 ac 
(656 ha) of privately owned land, and 3,568 ac (1,444 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park), from Kanaio north to Puu Nianiau 
on east Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as

[[Page 17900]]

physical or biological features in the subalpine ecosystem (see Table 
5). They are occupied by the plants Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha and 
Geranium arboreum, and contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to 
the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for 
the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--
Subalpine--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium peruvianum var. 
insulare, Geranium multiflorum, Phyllostegia bracteata, Schiedea 
haleakalensis, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these subalpine species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
Maui--Subalpine--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 25--Subalpine (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 25--Subalpine
    This area consists of 50 ac (20 ha) of privately owned land, and 
9,836 ac (3,981 ha) of federally owned land (Haleakala National Park), 
from the summit north to Koolau Gap and east to Kalapawili Ridge on 
east Maui. These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the subalpine 
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Geranium multiflorum, and Schiedea 
haleakalensis, and by the forest bird, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei). 
These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Maui--Subalpine--
Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by the plants Asplenium peruvianum 
var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Geranium arboreum, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest 
bird, the kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
subalpine species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Alpine--Unit 1 consists of 475 ac (192 ha) of State land, 411 
ac (166 ha) of privately owned land, and 911 ac (369 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park), at the summit of Haleakala on 
east Maui. This unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and the subcanopy native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the alpine ecosystem (see Table 5). 
This unit is occupied by the plant Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, and contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Due to its small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 26--Dry Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 26--Dry Cliff
    This area consists of 755 ac (305 ha) of federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park), from Pakaoao to Koolau Gap on east Maui. 
These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and the subcanopy and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the dry cliff 
ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 1 is not known 
to be occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum, Plantago 
princeps, or Schiedea haleakalensis, or by the forest birds, the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these dry cliff species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 2 consists of 688 ac (279 ha) of federally 
owned land (Haleakala National Park) from Haupaakea Peak to Kaupo Gap 
on east Maui. This unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and the subcanopy and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the dry cliff 
ecosystem (see Table 5). It is occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium 
sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Geranium multiflorum, Plantago 
princeps, and Schiedea haleakalensis, and contains unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by the 
plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, 
or Diplazium molokaiense, we have determined this area to be essential 
for the conservation and recovery of these dry cliff species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 27--Dry Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 27--Dry Cliff
    This area consists of 200 ac (81 ha) of federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park) near Papaanui on east Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the 
subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as physical or 
biological features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). It is 
occupied by the plant Plantago princeps, and contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 3 is not currently occupied 
by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum, or

[[Page 17901]]

Schiedea haleakalensis, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria 
dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these dry 
cliff species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 28--Dry Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 28--Dry Cliff
    This area consists of 315 ac (127 ha) federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park), along Kalapawili Ridge on east Maui. These 
units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and the subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 4 is not currently occupied by the 
plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum, Plantago princeps, or Schiedea 
haleakalensis, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) 
and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to 
be essential for the conservation and recovery of these dry cliff 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 5 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 29--Dry Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 29--Dry Cliff
    This area consists of 1,298 ac (525 ha) of State land, from Helu 
and across Olowalu to Ukumehame Gulch, on west Maui. These units 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the 
subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as physical or 
biological features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). They are 
occupied by the plant Tetramolopium capillare, and contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 5 is not currently occupied 
by the plants Bonamia menziesii, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia 
arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, or Neraudia 
sericea, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these dry cliff species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 6 consists of 279 ac (113 ha) of State land 
along the east wall of Ukumehame Gulch on west Maui. This unit includes 
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the 
subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as physical or 
biological features in the dry cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). Although 
Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 6 is not currently occupied by the plants Bonamia 
menziesii, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Neraudia sericea, or Tetramolopium 
capillare, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these dry cliff species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 30--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 30--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 290 ac (117 ha) of privately owned land along 
the wall of Keanae Valley on the northern slopes of east Maui. These 
units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and the subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 1 is not currently occupied by the 
plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea horrida, 
Melicope ovalis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, or Plantago 
princeps, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 31--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 31--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 475 ac (192 ha) of State land, 20 ac (8 ha) 
of privately owned land, and 912 ac (369 ha) of federally owned land 
(Haleakala National Park), from Kalapawili Ridge along Kipahulu Valley 
and north to Puuhoolio, on the northeastern slopes of east Maui. These 
units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and the subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 
5). They are occupied by the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Melicope ovalis, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, and Plantago princeps. These units also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 2 is not 
known to be occupied by the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Cyanea horrida, or Phyllostegia haliakalae, or by the forest birds, the 
akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these wet cliff species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction

[[Page 17902]]

are essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 3 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 32--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 32--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State land and 433 ac (175 ha) 
federally owned land (Haleakala National Park) along the south rim of 
Kipahulu Valley on east Maui. These units include the mixed herbland 
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the subcanopy and understory 
native plant species identified as physical or biological features in 
the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 3 
is not currently occupied by the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, C. horrida, Melicope ovalis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. 
haliakalae, or Plantago princeps, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe 
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these wet cliff species because it provides the PCEs necessary for 
the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. 
Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 4 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 33--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 33--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 184 ac (75 ha) of State land along the north 
wall of Waihoi Valley, on the northeastern slopes of east Maui. These 
units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and the subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 
5). They are occupied by the plant Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera 
and B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, and contain unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by the 
plants Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, C. horrida, Melicope 
ovalis, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, or Plantago princeps, or 
by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 35--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 35--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 1,858 ac (752 ha) of State land, and 253 ac 
(102 ha) of privately owned land, at the summit ridges of west Maui. 
These units include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and the subcanopy and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the wet cliff 
ecosystem (see Table 5). They are occupied by the plants Alectryon 
macrococcus, B. conjuncta, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyrtandra munroi, Remya 
mauiensis, and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense. These units also 
contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6 is not 
known to be occupied by the plants Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, 
Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra 
filipes, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua 
laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, or Tetramolopium capillare, or by the 
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 7 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 36--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 36--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 556 ac (225 ha) of State land along Honokowai 
ridge on the northwestern side of west Maui. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the subcanopy 
and understory native plant species identified as physical or 
biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). These 
units are occupied by the plants Cyrtandra filipes and C. munroi, and 
contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 7 is not 
known to be occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. conjuncta, Bonamia menziesii, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
H. arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, 
Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, or Tetramolopium 
capillare, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 8 consists of 337 ac (137 ha) of State land 
along Kahakuloa ridge on the north side of west Maui. This unit 
includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and the 
subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as physical or 
biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). Although 
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 8 is not known to be occupied by the plants 
Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
conjuncta, Bonamia menziesii, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia,

[[Page 17903]]

Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua 
laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, or Tetramolopium capillare, we have determined this area to 
be essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet cliff 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
    Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 1 consists of 1,516 ac (613 ha) of State 
land from Kaneloa to Lae o Kaule, including Aleale, along the southern 
and eastern coast of Kahoolawe. It is occupied by the plant Kanaloa 
kahoolawensis and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the coastal 
ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of this species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by the 
plants Sesbania tomentosa or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these coastal 
species because it provides the physical or biological features 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 2 consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of State land 
on Puukoae, an islet off the southern coast of Kahoolawe. It is 
occupied by the plant Sesbania tomentosa and includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 2 is not 
known to be occupied by Kanaloa kahoolawensis or Vigna o-wahuensis, we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these coastal species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 3 consists of 189 ac (76 ha) of State land 
from Laepaki to Honokanaia along the western coast of Kahoolawe. This 
unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified 
as physical or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Kahoolawe--Coastal--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by 
Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Sesbania tomentosa, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these coastal species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Kahoolawe--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 consists of 1,220 ac (494 ha) of 
State land, north of Waihonu Gulch on west Kahoolawe. This unit 
includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Kahoolawe--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied 
by Gouania hillebrandii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, 
Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for 
the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. 
Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Kahoolawe--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 consists of 3,205 ac (1,297 ha) of 
State land from Lua o Kealialuna to Puu o Moaulaiki and Luamakika on 
the eastern side of Kahoolawe. This unit includes the mixed herbland 
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5). Although 
Kahoolawe--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by Gouania 
hillebrandii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, Neraudia 
sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, or Vigna o-wahuensis, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 1 consists of 70 ac (28 ha) of privately 
owned land, and 54 ac (22 ha) of federally owned land (U.S. Coast 
Guard) at Laau Point, from Kahaiawa to Keawakalani, along the western 
coast of Molokai. This unit is occupied by the plant Marsilea villosa, 
and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). 
This unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--Coastal--
Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia rockii, 
Canavalia molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum 
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium 
rockii, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
their historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or 
low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 2 consists of 263 ac (106 ha) of State land, 
and 710 ac (287 ha) of privately owned land, from Ilio Point to Kaa 
Gulch, along the northwestern coast of Molokai. This

[[Page 17904]]

unit is occupied by the plant Marsilea villosa and includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Molokai--Coastal--Unit 2 is not 
known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia 
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. brackenridgei, 
Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum halophilum, 
Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium rockii, we 
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these coastal species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 3 consists of 794 ac (321 ha) of State land, 
and 3 ac (1 ha) of federally owned land (Kalaupapa National Historical 
Park), from Kahiu Point to Wainene, along the north-central coast of 
Molokai. This unit is occupied by the plants Pittosporum halophilum, 
Schenkia sebaeoides, and Tetramolopium rockii, and includes the mixed 
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the 
existing wild populations. Although Molokai--Coastal--Unit 3 is not 
known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia 
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. brackenridgei, 
Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa, Peucedanum sandwicense, or Sesbania 
tomentosa, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
their historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or 
low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 4 consists of 10 ac (4 ha) on Mokapu Island 
on the northern coast of Molokai. This area is State-owned, and is 
classified as a State Seabird Sanctuary. This unit is occupied by the 
plants Peucedanum sandwicense and Pittosporum halophilum, and includes 
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This 
unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--Coastal--
Unit 4 is not known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia rockii, 
Canavalia molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa, Schenkia sebaeoides, 
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium rockii, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these coastal 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 5 consists of 1 ac (0.5 ha) on Huelo islet 
on the northern coast of Molokai. This area is State-owned, and is 
classified as a State Seabird Sanctuary. This unit is occupied by the 
plants Brighamia rockii, Peucedanum sandwicense, and Pittosporum 
halophilum, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the coastal ecosystem 
(see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs 
necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although 
Molokai--Coastal--Unit 5 is not known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, 
Canavalia molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa, Schenkia sebaeoides, 
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium rockii, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these coastal 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 6 consists of 190 ac (77 ha) of State land, 
and 1,685 ac (682 ha) of privately owned land, from Kaholaiki Bay to 
Halawa Bay, on the northeastern coast of Molokai. This unit is occupied 
by the plants Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis, Hibiscus 
arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, and Ischaemum byrone, and includes the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). This 
unit also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for the 
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--Coastal--
Unit 6 is not known to be occupied by Brighamia rockii, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Marsilea villosa, Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum 
halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides, Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium 
rockii, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
their historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or 
low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Molokai--Coastal--Unit 7 consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of privately 
owned land from Alanuipuhipaka Ridge to Kalanikaula, on the 
northeastern coast of Molokai. This unit includes the mixed herbland 
and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and 
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological 
features in the coastal ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Molokai--
Coastal--Unit 7 is not known to be occupied by Bidens wiebkei, 
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. 
immaculatus, H. brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Marsilea villosa, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum halophilum, Schenkia sebaeoides, 
Sesbania tomentosa, or Tetramolopium

[[Page 17905]]

rockii, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these coastal species because it provides 
the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within 
their historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or 
low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
    Molokai--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 consists of 24 ac (10 ha) of privately 
owned land, in a small gulch northwest of Mahana, in west-central 
Molokai. This unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland 
dry ecosystem (see Table 5). Although Molokai--Lowland Dry--Unit 1 is 
not known to be occupied by Bonamia menziesii, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Eugenia koolauensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Kokia cookei, or Sesbania 
tomentosa, we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 consists of 589 ac (238 ha) of State 
land at Kamiloloa on the southern slopes of Molokai. This unit includes 
the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 5). 
Although Molokai--Lowland Dry--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by 
Bonamia menziesii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Eugenia koolauensis, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Kokia cookei, or Sesbania tomentosa, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 37--Lowland Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 37-- Lowland Mesic
    This area consists of 3,489 ac (1,412 ha) of State land, and 5,281 
ac (2,137 ha) of privately owned land, from Waianui Gulch to Mapulehu, 
in central Molokai. These units are occupied by the plants Alectryon 
macrococcus, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea dunbariae, C. mannii, C. 
profuga, Cyperus fauriei, Cyrtandra filipes, Gouania hillebrandii, 
Labordia triflora, Neraudia sericea, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, Schiedea lydgatei, S. sarmentosa, Silene alexandri, S. 
lanceolata, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, and 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland mesic ecosystem (see 
Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential 
to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary 
for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--
Lowland Mesic--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by Asplenium 
dielerectum, Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia molokaiensis, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea procera, C. solanacea, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Festuca molokaiensis, Flueggea neowawraea, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Melicope mucronulata, M. munroi, M. 
reflexa, Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Stenogyne bifida, or Vigna o-wahuensis, or the forest birds, 
the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), 
we have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these lowland mesic species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 38--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 38-- Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 2,195 ac (888 ha) of State land, and 754 ac 
(305 ha) of privately owned land (partly within The Nature 
Conservancy's Pelekunu Preserve), from Pelekunu Valley to Wailau 
Valley, in north-central Molokai. These units are occupied by the plant 
Cyrtandra filipes, and include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland 
wet ecosystem (see Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of this species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations. Although Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 1 is not known to be 
occupied by Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia 
molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, 
C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. solanacea, Lysimachia maxima, 
Melicope reflexa, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia hispida, P. 
mannii, Plantago princeps, Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, 
or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 39--Lowland Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 39-- Lowland Wet
    This area consists of 1,356 ac (549 ha) of State land and 594 ac 
(241 ha) of privately owned land, from Kahanui to Pelekunu Valley, in 
north-central Molokai. These units are occupied by the plant Lysimachia 
maxima, and include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the lowland wet 
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of this species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by 
Asplenium dielerectum,

[[Page 17906]]

Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. 
solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Melicope reflexa, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia hispida, P. mannii, Plantago princeps, Stenogyne bifida, 
or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe 
(Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have 
determined this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery 
of these lowland wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for 
the reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. 
Due to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, 
suitable habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are 
essential to achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 3 consists of 94 ac (38 ha) of State 
land, and 3,125 ac (1,265 ha) of privately owned land, from Waiahookalo 
gulch to Moaula stream and Puniuohua, on eastern Molokai. This unit 
includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Molokai--Lowland Wet--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied 
by Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea dunbariae, C. grimesiana 
ssp. grimesiana, C. solanacea, Cyrtandra filipes, Lysimachia maxima, 
Melicope reflexa, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia hispida, P. 
mannii, Plantago princeps, Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, 
we have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and 
recovery of these lowland wet species because it provides the PCEs 
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within their 
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low 
population sizes, suitable habitat and space for expansion or 
reintroduction are essential to achieving population levels necessary 
for recovery.
Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 40--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 40--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 1,545 ac (625 ha) of State land, and 1,851 ac 
(749 ha) of privately owned land, from the headwaters of Waialelia 
Stream and above Pelekunu Valley, eastward along the summit area to 
Mapulehu, in north-central Molokai. These units are occupied by the 
plants Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea 
mannii, C. profuga, Phyllostegia hispida, and Pteris lidgatei, and 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 
5). These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to 
the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary for 
the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--
Montane Wet--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by Adenophorus periens, 
Cyanea procera, C. solanacea, Hesperomannia arborescens, Lysimachia 
maxima, Melicope reflexa, Phyllostegia mannii, P. pilosa, Platanthera 
holochila, Schiedea laui, Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, 
or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu 
(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 41--Montane Wet (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 41--Montane Wet
    This area consists of 871 ac (353 ha) of State land, and 39 ac (16 
ha) of privately owned land, from Honukaupu to Olokui (between Pelekunu 
and Wailau valleys), in north-central Molokai. These units include the 
mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical 
or biological features in the montane wet ecosystem (see Table 5). 
Although Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by 
Adenophorus periens, Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, Cyanea mannii, C. procera, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Lysimachia maxima, Melicope reflexa, 
Phyllostegia hispida, P. mannii, P. pilosa, Platanthera holochila, 
Pteris lidgatei, Schiedea laui, Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these montane wet 
species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment 
of wild populations within their historical range. Due to their small 
numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and 
space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving 
population levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 3 consists of 77 ac (31 ha) of State 
land, and 726 ac (294 ha) of privately owned land, above the east rim 
of Wailau Valley on eastern Molokai. This unit is occupied by the plant 
Melicope reflexa, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the 
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant 
species identified as physical or biological features in the montane 
wet ecosystem (see Table 5). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of this species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by 
Adenophorus periens, Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, Cyanea mannii, C. procera, C. profuga, C. solanacea, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Lysimachia maxima, Phyllostegia hispida, P. 
mannii, P. pilosa, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Schiedea 
laui, Stenogyne bifida, or Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, we have determined 
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these 
montane wet species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Montane Mesic--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 42--Montane Mesic (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 42--Montane Mesic
    This area consists of 257 ac (104 ha) of State land, and 559 ac 
(226 ha) of privately owned land from Kamiloloa to Makolelau in central 
Molokai. These

[[Page 17907]]

units are occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens wiebkei, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and 
include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and 
canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the montane mesic ecosystem (see 
Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied habitat that is essential 
to the conservation of these species by providing the PCEs necessary 
for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Molokai--
Montane Mesic--Unit 1 is not known to be occupied by Asplenium 
dielerectum, Cyanea dunbariae, C. mannii, C. procera, C. solanacea, 
Cyperus fauriei, Kadua laxiflora, Melicope mucronulata, Neraudia 
sericea, Plantago princeps, or Stenogyne bifida, or by the forest 
birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these montane mesic species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 1 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 43--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 43--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 1,395 ac (565 ha) of State land, and 212 ac 
(86 ha) of privately owned land, and encircles the plateau between 
Pelekunu and Wailau valleys, in north-central Molokai. These units are 
occupied by the plants Brighamia rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, Cyanea munroi, and Hibiscus 
arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, and include the mixed herbland and 
shrubland, the moisture regime, and the subcanopy and understory native 
plant species identified as physical or biological features in the wet 
cliff ecosystem (see Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of these species by 
providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild 
populations Although Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 1 is not known to be 
occupied by Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Phyllostegia hispida, Pteris lidgatei, or Stenogyne 
bifida, or by the forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and 
kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be 
essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species 
because it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild 
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers 
of individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 2 (and)
Palmeria dolei--Unit 44--Wet Cliff (and)
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 44--Wet Cliff
    This area consists of 462 ac (187 ha) of State land, and 806 ac 
(326 ha) of privately owned land (partly within The Nature 
Conservancy's Pelekunu Preserve), along the rim of Pelekunu Valley from 
Kipapa Ridge to Mapulehu, in central Molokai. These units are occupied 
by the plants Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes and Phyllostegia 
hispida, and include the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture 
regime, and the subcanopy and understory native plant species 
identified as physical or biological features in the wet cliff 
ecosystem (see Table 5). These units also contain unoccupied habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the 
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations. 
Although Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 2 is not known to be occupied by 
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, C. munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus arnottianus 
ssp. immaculatus, Pteris lidgatei, or Stenogyne bifida, or by the 
forest birds, the akohekohe (Palmeria dolei) and kiwikiu (Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys), we have determined this area to be essential for the 
conservation and recovery of these wet cliff species because it 
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations 
within their historical range. Due to their small numbers of 
individuals or low population sizes, suitable habitat and space for 
expansion or reintroduction are essential to achieving population 
levels necessary for recovery.
    Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 3 consists of 1,137 ac (460 ha) of State 
land, and 225 ac (91 ha) of privately owned land, along the rim of 
Wailau Valley from Mapulehu to Kahiwa Gulch, in eastern Molokai. This 
unit includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, 
and the subcanopy and understory native plant species identified as 
physical or biological features in the wet cliff ecosystem (see Table 
5). Although Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 3 is not known to be occupied by 
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. munroi, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, Phyllostegia 
hispida, Pteris lidgatei, or Stenogyne bifida, we have determined this 
area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these wet 
cliff species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the 
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due 
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, suitable 
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction are essential to 
achieving population levels necessary for recovery.

IX. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory 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, 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, we determine 
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with 
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical 
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the 
species.

[[Page 17908]]

    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, local, or private 
lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of 
the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, local, or private lands that are not federally funded or 
authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we may issue:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where 
we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical 
habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). 
Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary 
involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or 
designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or retain those physical or 
biological features that relate to the ability of the area to 
periodically support the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of the critical habitat network for the 135 species 
identified in this final rule. As discussed above, the role of critical 
habitat is to support the life history needs of the species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the 125 species. These activities include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Federal actions that would appreciably degrade or destroy the 
physical or biological features for the species including, but not 
limited to, the following: Overgrazing; maintaining or increasing feral 
ungulate levels; clearing or cutting native live trees and shrubs 
(e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing, construction, road building, mining, 
herbicide application); and taking actions that pose a risk of fire.
    (2) Federal actions that would alter watershed characteristics in 
ways that would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter 
natural, wetland, aquatic, or vegetative communities. Such actions 
include new water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, 
and manipulation of vegetation through activities such as the ones 
mentioned in (1), above.
    (3) Recreational activities that may appreciably degrade 
vegetation.
    (4) Mining sand or other minerals.
    (5) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant 
species.
    (6) Importing nonnative species for research, agriculture, and 
aquaculture, and releasing biological control agents.

X. Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the 
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to 
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no 
Department of Defense (DOD) lands with a completed INRMP within the 
critical habitat designation.

XI. Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the

[[Page 17909]]

Secretary may exercise her discretion to exclude the area only if such 
exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
factors such as the additional regulatory benefits that area would 
receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as 
a result of actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of 
mapping essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any 
benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal 
laws that may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships 
that will result in future conservation. The Secretary places great 
weight on demonstrated partnerships, as in many cases they can lead to 
the implementation of conservation actions that provide benefits to the 
species and their habitat beyond those that are achievable through the 
designation of critical habitat and section 7 consultations, 
particularly on private lands. As most endangered or threatened species 
in Hawaii occur on private and other non-Federal lands, such 
conservation partnerships are of heightened importance on the islands 
of Hawaii.
    In the case of the 125 Maui Nui species, the benefits of 
designating critical habitat include educational benefits resulting 
from identification of the features essential to the conservation these 
species and the delineation of areas important for their recovery. 
Further, there may be additional benefits realized by providing 
landowners, stakeholders, and project proponents greater certainty 
about which specific areas are important for the Maui Nui species. 
Thus, critical habitat designation increases public awareness of the 
presence the Maui Nui species and the importance of habitat protection 
and, in cases where a Federal nexus exists, increases habitat 
protection for these species due to the protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate whether to include or exclude lands from critical 
habitat where there is a voluntary conservation partnership, we 
evaluate the evidence of a cooperative relationship, the likelihood 
that it will result in meaningful conservation for the species at 
issue, and the possibility it will encourage others to enter into 
similar partnerships. Other factors we may consider include, but are 
not limited to, whether any management plan that may be under 
consideration is finalized; how it provides for the conservation of the 
essential physical or biological features; whether there is a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions contained in a management plan will be implemented into the 
future; whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to 
be effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or 
adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new 
information. Management plans or agreements, which may maintain the 
level of protection for the species or provide greater conservation 
benefits than would be realized due solely to the regulatory effect of 
critical habitat, may serve to reduce or eliminate the benefits of 
designating an area as critical habitat.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If our 
analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion of the particular 
area would result in the extinction of the species. If exclusion of an 
area from critical habitat will result in extinction, it will not be 
excluded from the designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments received, we evaluated whether 
certain lands in the proposed critical habitat were appropriate for 
exclusion from this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. We are excluding a total of 84,891 ac (34,355 ha) of lands on 
Maui, Molokai, and Lanai that meet the definition of critical habitat 
from the final critical habitat rule under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
based on conservation partnerships, land and resource management plans, 
or ``other relevant factors.'' On the islands of Maui and Molokai, 
approximately 59,478 ac (24,070 ha) are excluded under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act. All lands within proposed critical habitat on Lanai (14 
proposed plant units and 10 proposed tree snail units; 25,413 ac 
(10,284 ha)) are excluded from final designation pursuant to section 
4(b)(2) of the Act for the reasons described below. No lands on 
Kahoolawe are excluded from the final critical habitat designation. The 
Secretary has excluded lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act upon a 
determination that the benefits of excluding such areas outweigh the 
benefits of including them in critical habitat, and that the exclusion 
will not result in the extinction of the species.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2013). 
The draft analysis, dated January 14, 2013, was made available for 
public review from January 31, 2013, through March 4, 2013 (78 FR 6785; 
January 31, 2013), and was also available during the final comment 
period, which ran from June 10, 2015, through June 25, 2015 (80 FR 
32922). 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 received 
(Final Economic Analysis (FEA) 2015).
    The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all 
potential conservation efforts for the Maui Nui species; some of these 
costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate 
critical habitat (such costs are considered ``baseline'' costs). The 
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed 
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the 
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the 
costs we consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The 
economic analysis uses the historical record to inform its assessment 
of potential future impacts of critical habitat and forecasts both 
baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur during the 10-year 
period following the designation of critical habitat. This period was 
determined to be the

[[Page 17910]]

appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information 
was available for most activities to forecast activity levels for 
projects beyond a 10-year timeframe.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development projects and activities, such as 
economic impacts on small entities and the energy industry. Decision-
makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the 
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
    The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the 
potential incremental economic impacts associated with the designation 
of critical habitat for the Maui Nui species. This information is 
intended to assist the Service in considering whether to exclude any 
particular areas from critical habitat designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. The FEA analyzes economic impacts of the 
conservation efforts for the Maui Nui species associated with the 
following categories of activity: Residential and commercial 
development projects, energy projects, and grazing and farming 
activities. The FEA estimates approximately $100,000 in present value 
incremental impacts over a period of 10 years associated with 
development and energy projects, or roughly $20,000 in annualized 
impacts. A further $5,000 in total potential impacts were estimated for 
energy projects in areas considered for exclusion, or roughly $600 in 
annualized impacts (IEc 2015, p. ES-7). However, the FEA concluded that 
the direct effect of designation of critical habitat on any of these 
activities (i.e., the regulation of these activities through section 7 
consultation to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat) is 
likely to be limited. The costs estimated reflect the cost of 
additional effort under section 7 consultation and the potential costs 
of project modifications as a result of critical habitat.
    The FEA additionally considered the potential indirect effects of 
the designation, including, for example, perceptional effects on land 
values, or the potential for third-party lawsuits. Given the 
uncertainties surrounding the probability of any such effects 
occurring, and if so, the magnitude of any such effects, quantification 
of the potential indirect effects of the designation was not possible. 
The FEA acknowledges, however, that these uncertainties result in an 
underestimate of the quantified impacts of the designation (IEc 2015, 
p. 5-23).
    After reviewing the economic analysis the Secretary is not 
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of 
critical habitat for the Maui Nui species based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by 
contacting the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) 
or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

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

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national 
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat.
    The establishment and encouragement of strong conservation 
partnerships with non-Federal landowners is especially important in the 
State of Hawaii, where there are relatively few lands under Federal 
ownership; we cannot achieve the conservation and recovery of listed 
species in Hawaii without the help and cooperation of non-Federal 
landowners. In some cases we are excluding areas where landowners are 
already actively participating in the restoration or management of 
habitats essential to listed species, or taking steps to protect and 
increase numbers of individuals or populations of listed species that 
occur on their properties. In other cases, we are excluding areas to 
support existing partnerships and encourage new ones that will provide 
important conservation benefits to the Maui Nui species.
    More than 60 percent of the United States is privately owned 
(Lubowski et al. 2006, p. 35), and at least 80 percent of endangered or 
threatened species occur either partially or solely on private lands 
(Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). In the State of Hawaii, 84 percent of 
landownership is non-Federal (U.S. General Services Administration, in 
Western States Tourism Policy Council, 2009). Stein et al. (2008, p. 
340) found that only about 12 percent of listed species were found 
almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 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 landownership, 
conservation of listed species in many parts of the United States is 
dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of entities and 
the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners (Wilcove and 
Chen 1998, p. 1,407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 2002, p. 271). 
Building partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners 
is essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal 
lands and necessary to implement recovery actions, such as the 
reintroduction of listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat 
protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing 
to endangered species recovery. Conservation agreements with non-
Federal landowners, safe harbor agreements, other conservation 
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations enhance species 
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available 
through section 7 consultations. We encourage non-Federal landowners to 
enter into conservation agreements based on a view that we can achieve 
greater species conservation on non-Federal lands through such 
partnerships than we can through regulatory methods alone (USFWS and 
NOAA 1996c (61 FR 63854, December 2, 1996)).
    Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of attracting endangered species to their property. 
Mounting evidence suggests that some regulatory actions by the 
government, while well intentioned and required by law, can (under 
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the 
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; 
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; James 2002, pp. 270-271;

[[Page 17911]]

Koch 2002, pp. 2-3). Many landowners fear a decline in their property 
value due to real or perceived restrictions on land-use options where 
endangered or threatened species are found. Consequently, harboring 
endangered species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This 
perception results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining 
habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future 
economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1,264-1,265; Brook et al. 
2003, pp. 1,644-1,648).
    Because so many important conservation areas for the Maui Nui 
species occur on lands managed by non-Federal entities, collaborative 
relationships are essential for their recovery. The Maui Nui species 
and their habitat are expected to benefit substantially from voluntary 
land management actions that implement appropriate and effective 
conservation strategies, or that add to our bank of knowledge about the 
species and their ecological needs. The conservation benefits of 
critical habitat, on the other hand, are primarily regulatory or 
prohibitive in nature. Where consistent with the discretion provided by 
the Act, the Service believes it is both desirable and necessary to 
implement policies that provide positive incentives to non-Federal 
landowners and land managers to voluntarily conserve natural resources 
and to remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Wilcove et al. 
1996, pp. 1-14; Bean 2002, p. 2). Thus, we believe it is imperative for 
the recovery of the Maui Nui species to support ongoing positive 
management efforts with non-Federal conservation partners, and to 
provide positive incentives for other non-Federal land managers who 
might be considering implementing voluntary conservation activities but 
have concerns about incurring incidental regulatory, administrative, or 
economic impacts. Many landowners perceive critical habitat as an 
unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burden, particularly if those 
landowners are already developing and implementing conservation and 
management plans that benefit listed species on their lands. In certain 
cases, we believe the exclusion of non-Federal lands that are under 
positive conservation management is likely to strengthen the 
partnership between the Service and the landowner, which may encourage 
other conservation partnerships with that landowner in the future. As 
an added benefit, by modeling positive conservation partnerships that 
may result in exclusion from critical habitat, such exclusion may also 
help encourage the formation of new partnerships with other landowners, 
with consequent benefits to the listed species. For all of these 
reasons, we place great weight on the value of conservation 
partnerships with non-Federal landowners when considering the potential 
benefits of inclusion versus exclusion of areas in critical habitat.
    We are excluding a total of approximately 84,891 ac (34,355 ha) of 
lands on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai that meet the definition of critical 
habitat from the final critical habitat rule under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. We are excluding these non-Federal lands because the 
development and implementation of management plans, and ability to 
access private lands necessary for surveys or monitoring designed to 
promote the conservation of these federally listed plant species and 
their habitat, as well as provide for other native species of concern, 
are important outcomes of these conservation partnerships which reduce 
the benefits of overlying a designation of critical habitat. 
Importantly, such exclusions also are likely to result in the 
continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of important conservation 
partnerships that will contribute to the long-term conservation of the 
Maui Nui species. The Secretary has determined that the benefits of 
excluding these areas outweigh the benefits of including them in 
critical habitat, and that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species. The specific areas excluded are detailed in 
Table 8. As a result of our evaluation of whether the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion in critical habitat, as detailed 
below, we have excluded approximately 59,479 ac (24,070 ha) on the 
islands of Maui and Molokai, and 25,413 ac (10,284 ha) on the island of 
Lanai (resulting in the exclusion of all lands proposed as critical 
habitat on Lanai). No lands on Kahoolawe were excluded.

[[Page 17912]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.000


[[Page 17913]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.001


[[Page 17914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.002


[[Page 17915]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.003


[[Page 17916]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.004


[[Page 17917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.005


[[Page 17918]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.006


[[Page 17919]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.007


[[Page 17920]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.008


[[Page 17921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.009


[[Page 17922]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.010


[[Page 17923]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.011


[[Page 17924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.012


[[Page 17925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.013


[[Page 17926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.014


[[Page 17927]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.015


[[Page 17928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.016


[[Page 17929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.017


[[Page 17930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.018


[[Page 17931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.019


[[Page 17932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.020

    Here we present an overview of each of the areas considered for 
exclusion, followed by a summary of our analysis of the benefits of 
inclusion versus exclusion in each case. Maps of each area excluded are 
provided in our

[[Page 17933]]

supporting document ``Supplemental Information for the Designation and 
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and 
Kahoolawe for 135 Species,'' available at http://www.regulations.gov 
(see ADDRESSES).
The Nature Conservancy
Kapunakea Preserve Operational Plan, Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range 
Management Plan, Kamakou Preserve Management Plan, and Moomomi Preserve 
Long-Range Management Plan
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude from critical habitat lands owned or managed by 
The Nature Conservancy, totaling 10,056 ac (4,062 ha) on the islands of 
Maui and Molokai. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a proven conservation 
partner, as demonstrated, in part, by their ongoing management 
programs, documented in long-range management plans and yearly 
operational plans for TNC's Kapunakea Preserve on west Maui and 
Waikamoi Preserve on east Maui, and Kamakou Preserve and Moomomi 
Preserve on Molokai. These preserves were established by grants of 
perpetual conservation easements from the private landowners to TNC, or 
are owned by TNC, and are permanently dedicated to conservation. The 
Nature Conservancy's management and protection of these areas currently 
provide significant conservation benefits to 36 plant and 2 forest bird 
species that are reported from one or more of the preserves and their 
habitat. These areas also provide for the conservation and recovery of 
69 other plant species. For the reasons described below, we have 
determined that the benefits of excluding these lands owned or managed 
by The Nature Conservancy outweigh the benefits of including them in 
critical habitat. The land is distributed among several critical 
habitat units, as discussed below.
Maui
    Kapunakea Preserve encompasses 1,340 ac (542 ha) on west Maui. This 
preserve was established through a perpetual conservation easement with 
Pioneer Mill Company, Ltd. (succeeded by Kaanapali Land Management 
Corp.), in 1992, to protect the natural, ecological, and wildlife 
features of one of the highest quality native areas on west Maui (TNCH 
2008, p. 5). Eleven plant species included in this rule (Alectryon 
macrococcus, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, 
Cyrtandra filipes, C. munroi, Platanthera holochila, and Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense) are reported from the preserve. Kapunakea 
Preserve falls within four critical habitat units for plants (Maui--
Lowland Mesic--Unit 2, Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 6, Maui--Montane Wet--
Unit 6, and Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 7), and six units for the akohekohe 
and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 7--Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 7--Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 15--Montane Wet, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 
36--Wet Cliff, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 36--Wet Cliff). These 
units are occupied by the plants Bidens. conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea. kunthiana, Cyrtandra 
filipes, C. munroi, Geranium hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides, Remya 
mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. This area contains unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of 29 plant species, including Acaena 
exigua, Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia 
menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. lobata, C. 
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, 
Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, 
Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, 
Tetramolopium capillare, and Wikstroemia villosa, as well as the birds 
akohekohe and kiwikiu.
    Waikamoi Preserve encompasses 5,141 ac (2,080 ha) along the 
northern boundary of Haleakala National Park on east Maui. The preserve 
was established in 1983, through a perpetual conservation easement with 
Haleakala Ranch Company, to protect one of the largest intact native 
rain forests in Hawaii (TNCH 2006a, p. 3). Eight plant species included 
in this rule (Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens campylotheca 
ssp. pentamera, Cyanea horrida, C. kunthiana, Diplazium molokaiense, 
Geranium arboreum, G. multiflorum, and Phyllostegia pilosa), and the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu, are reported from the preserve. Waikamoi 
Preserve falls within 8 critical habitat units for plants (Maui--
Montane Wet--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 2, Maui--Montane Mesic--
Unit 1, Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1, Maui--Subalpine--Unit 2, Maui--Dry 
Cliff--Unit 1, Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 3, and Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 1), 
and 16 units for the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 10--
Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 10--Montane Wet, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 11--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 11--Montane 
Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--
Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 24--Subalpine, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 24--Subalpine, Palmeria dolei--Unit 25--
Subalpine, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 25--Subalpine, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 26--Dry Cliff, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 26--Dry 
Cliff, Palmeria dolei--Unit 27--Dry Cliff, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--
Unit 27--Dry Cliff, Palmeria dolei--Unit 30--Wet Cliff, and 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 30--Wet Cliff). These units are occupied 
by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium 
dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia lindseyana, C. 
samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalensis, C. duvalliorum, C. 
hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. maritae, C. 
mceldowneyi, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, G. hanaense, G. multiflorum, Huperzia 
mannii, Melicope adscendens, M. balloui, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia 
pilosa, Schiedea haleakalensis, and Wikstroemia villosa, and the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu. This area contains unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of 16 other plant species (Adenophorus 
periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea glabra, Melicope ovalis, 
Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. haliakalae, P. 
mannii, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Santalum haleakalae 
var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense).
Molokai
    Kamakou Preserve is located in the east Molokai mountains and 
encompasses 2,633 ac (1,066 ha). This preserve was established in 1982, 
through a perpetual conservation easement with Molokai Ranch, to 
protect endemic forest bird habitat and is the primary source area for 
ground and surface water on the island (TNCH 2006b, p. 2). Nineteen 
plant species

[[Page 17934]]

included in this rule (Adenophorus periens, Asplenium dielerectum, 
Bidens wiebkei, Canavalia molokaiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
brevipes, Cyanea mannii, C. procera, C. solanacea, Cyperus fauriei, 
Lysimachia maxima, Melicope mucronulata, Phyllostegia hispida, P. 
mannii, Platanthera holochila, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, 
Schiedea laui, Stenogyne bifida, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense) are reported from the preserve. Kamakou Preserve falls 
within four critical habitat units for plants (Molokai--Lowland Mesic--
Unit 1, Molokai--Montane Wet--Unit 1, Molokai--Montane Mesic--Unit 1, 
and Molokai--Wet Cliff--Unit 2) and eight units for the akohekohe and 
kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 37--Lowland Mesic, Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 37--Lowland Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 40--Montane 
Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 40--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--
Unit 42--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 42--Montane 
Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 44--Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 44--Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by the 
plants Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens wiebkei, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. brevipes, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea dunbariae, C. mannii, C. 
profuga, Cyperus fauriei, Cyrtandra filipes, Gouania hillebrandii, 
Labordia triflora, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia hispida, Pteris 
lidgatei, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, S. lydgatei, S. 
sarmentosa, Silene alexandri, S. lanceolata, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, 
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. This area contains unoccupied habitat that 
is essential for the conservation of 29 other plant species 
(Adenophorus periens, Asplenium dielerectum, Bonamia menziesii, 
Brighamia rockii, Canavalia molokaiensis, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana, C. munroi, C. procera, C. solanacea, Diplazium molokaiense, 
Eugenia koolauensis, Festuca molokaiensis, Flueggea neowawraea, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia maxima, Melicope 
mucronulata, M. reflexa, Phyllostegia haliakalae, P. mannii, P. pilosa, 
Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Schiedea laui, and Sesbania 
tomentosa, Stenogyne bifida, and Vigna o-wahuensis), as well as the 
birds akohekohe and kiwikiu.
    Moomomi Preserve encompasses 924 ac (374 ha) along the northwest 
shore of Molokai that are owned by TNC. This preserve was established 
in 1988, to protect the most intact coastal ecosystem in Hawaii, with 
nesting seabirds, nesting green sea turtles, and a variety of native 
coastal plants (TNCH 2005, pp. 2-3). One plant species included in this 
rule, Tetramolopium rockii, is reported from the preserve. Moomomi 
Preserve falls within one critical habitat unit, Molokai--Coastal--Unit 
2. This unit is occupied by Marsilea villosa. This area contains 
unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 11 other 
plant species (Bidens wiebkei, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia 
molokaiensis, Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus, H. brackenridgei, 
Ischaemum byrone, Peucedanum sandwicense, Pittosporum halophilum 
Schenkia sebaeoides, and Sesbania tomentosa).
    All four preserves were established by grants of perpetual 
conservation easements from the private landowners to TNC, or are owned 
by TNC, and are included in the State's Natural Area Partnership (NAP) 
programs, which provide matching funds for the management of private 
lands dedicated to conservation (TNCH 2005, pp. 2-3; TNCH 2006a, p. 3; 
TNCH 2006b, p. 2; TNCH 2008, p. 50). These partnerships with the State 
began in 1983 (with Haleakala Ranch) for Waikamoi, and were followed in 
1992 (with Kaanapali Land Management Corporation) for Kapunakea, in 
1995 (with Molokai Ranch) for Kamakou, and in 1995 for Moomomi (TNC-
owned). Under the NAP program, the State of Hawaii provides matching 
funds on a two-for-one basis for management of private lands dedicated 
to conservation. In order to qualify for this program, the land must be 
dedicated in perpetuity through transfer of fee title or a conservation 
easement to the State or a cooperating entity. The land must be managed 
by the cooperating entity or a qualified landowner according to a 
detailed management plan approved by the Board of Land and Natural 
Resources. Once approved, the 6-year partnership agreement between the 
State and the managing entity is automatically renewed each year so 
that there are always 6 years remaining in the term, although the 
management plan is updated and funding amounts are reauthorized by the 
board at least every 6 years. By April 1 of any year, the managing 
partner may notify the State that it does not intend to renew the 
agreement; however, in such case, the partnership agreement remains in 
effect for the balance of the existing 6-year term, and the 
conservation easement remains in full effect in perpetuity. The 
conservation easement may be revoked by the landowner only if State 
funding is terminated without the concurrence of the landowner and 
cooperating entity. Prior to terminating funding, the State must 
conduct one or more public hearings. The NAP program is funded through 
real estate conveyance taxes placed in a Natural Area Reserve Fund. 
Participants in the NAP program must provide annual reports to the 
DLNR, and the DLNR makes annual inspections of the work in the reserve 
areas (see State of Hawaii 1999, H.R.S. 195-D; State of Hawaii 1996, 
H.A.R. 13-210).
    Management programs within the preserves are documented in long-
range management plans and yearly operational plans. These plans detail 
management measures that protect, restore, and enhance rare plants and 
animals and their habitats within the preserves and in adjacent areas. 
These management measures address factors that pose threats to the Maui 
Nui species in this final rule, including control of nonnative species 
of ungulates, rodents, and weeds. In addition, habitat restoration and 
monitoring are also included in these plans.
    The primary management goals for each of the four TNC preserves are 
to: (1) Prevent degradation of native forest and shrubland by reducing 
feral ungulate damage; (2) improve or maintain the integrity of native 
ecosystems in selected areas of the preserve by reducing the effects of 
nonnative plants; (3) conduct small mammal control and reduce their 
negative impacts where possible; (4) monitor and track the biological 
and physical resources in the preserve and evaluate changes in these 
resources over time, and encourage biological and environmental 
research; (5) prevent extinction of rare species in the preserve; (6) 
build public understanding and support for the preservation of natural 
areas, and enlist volunteer assistance for preserve management; and (7) 
protect the resources from fires in and around the preserve (applicable 
to preserves in high fire-risk areas) (TNCH 2005, 148 pp. + appendices; 
TNCH 2006a, 23 pp. + appendices; TNCH 2006b, 21 pp. + appendices; TNCH 
2008, 30 pp.).
    The goal of TNC's ungulate program (see (1), above) is to bring 
feral ungulate populations to zero within the preserves as rapidly as 
possible, and to prevent domestic livestock from entering a preserve. 
Specific management actions to address feral ungulate impacts include 
the construction of fences, including strategic fences (fences placed 
in proximity to natural barriers such as cliffs); annual monitoring of 
ungulate

[[Page 17935]]

presence in transects; monthly boundary fence inspections; and trained 
staff and volunteer hunting. As axis deer also pose a threat to the 
preserves, TNC is a member of the Maui Axis Deer Group (MADG), and TNC 
meets regularly with MADG to seek management solutions. Ungulate 
management actions also include working with community hunters in 
conjunction with watershed partnerships for each island. By monitoring 
ungulate activity within each of the preserves, the staff is able to 
assess the success of the hunting program. If increased hunting 
pressure does not reduce feral ungulate activity in a preserve, 
preserve staff work with the hunting group to identify and implement 
alternative methods (TNCH 2005, pp. 7-8; TNCH 2006a, pp. 7-10; TNCH 
2006b, pp. 8-9; TNCH 2008, pp. 9-10).
    The nonnative plant control program (see (2), above) for each of 
the four TNC preserves focuses on controlling habitat-modifying 
nonnative plants (weeds) in intact native communities and preventing 
the introduction of additional nonnative plants. Based on the degree of 
threat to native ecosystems, weed priority lists have been compiled for 
each of the preserves, and control and monitoring of the highest 
priority species are ongoing. Weeds are controlled manually, 
chemically, or through a combination of both. Preventive measures 
(prevention protocol) are required by all who enter each of the 
preserves. This protocol includes such things as brushing footgear 
before entering the preserve to remove seeds of nonnative plants. Weeds 
are monitored along transects annually. Weed priority maps are 
maintained semi-annually. Staff participate as members of the Melastome 
Action Committee and the Maui and Molokai Invasive Species committees 
(MISC and MoMISC), and cooperate with the State Division of 
Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) in marijuana control, 
as needed (TNCH 2005, pp. 8-9; TNCH 2006a, pp. 11-13; TNCH 2006b, pp. 
10-12; TNCH 2008, pp. 11-13).
    The Nature Conservancy controls or prevents entry of nonnative 
mammals such as rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), mongoose 
(Herpestes auropunctatus), and dogs (Canis familiaris), on their 
preserves (see (3), above). These mammals have negative impacts on 
reproduction and persistence of native plants and animals. Independent 
studies and research regarding the effects of small nonnative mammals 
on native ecosystems on all four preserves is encouraged by TNC. Small 
mammal trapping is conducted in Moomomi Preserve to protect ground-
nesting native seabirds from predation (TNCH 2005, p. 6). While the 
most effective control methods for rats on TNC preserves are still 
under investigation, an intensive rat baiting program is in place at 
Kamakou Preserve to control rats, which prey upon native snails and 
plants (TNCH 2006a, pp. 2, 6; TNCH 2009b, p. 21). The Nature 
Conservancy's predator control program is directed by adaptive 
management (TNCH 2010a, pp. 3-5).
    Natural resource monitoring and research address the need to track 
the biological and physical resources of the preserves and evaluate 
changes in these resources to guide management programs, and contribute 
to prevention of extinction of rare species (see (4) and (5), above). 
Vegetation is monitored throughout each preserve to document long-term 
ecological changes, and rare plant species are monitored to assess 
population status. The Nature Conservancy provides logistical and other 
support to PEPP, including implementing threat abatement measures on 
their preserves (TNCH 2010a, p. 13). Bird surveys are conducted every 5 
years to document the relative abundance of all bird species in the 
preserves (TNCH 2010b, p. 16). Portions of the four preserves are 
adjacent to other areas managed to protect natural resources. 
Agreements with those land managers are used to coordinate management 
efforts, and to share staff, equipment, and expertise to maximize 
management efficiency. The Nature Conservancy takes an active part in 
planning and coordinating conservation actions with, and is a member 
of, the East Maui Watershed Partnership (EMWP), the West Maui Mountains 
Watershed Partnership (WMMWP), and the East Molokai Watershed 
Partnership (EMOWP) (TNCH 2006a, p. 3; TNCH 2008, p. 21; TNCH 2010a, p. 
2).
    The Nature Conservancy's goal to increase conservation and advocacy 
for native ecosystems in Hawaii is also implemented through their 
public outreach program (see (6), above). The Nature Conservancy 
provides sites and volunteer work for youth groups such as Ho'ikaika 
and AmeriCorps, and summer internships for youth and young adults (Alu 
Like, State Summer Youth Employment Program, Molokai Environmental 
Preservation Organization, and the Natural Resources Academy), 
providing students with hands-on experience in natural resource 
conservation. Other community groups, such as the Molokai Advisory 
Council, Molokai Hunting Working Group, and Kamalo Conservation 
Advisors, are encouraged to participate in the decision-making process 
for TNC's natural resources programs. The Nature Conservancy staff 
present slide shows and talks as requested by community and school 
groups, and lead guided hikes in their preserves for public schools and 
targeted community members. The Nature Conservancy produces a quarterly 
newsletter distributed on Molokai to inform the local community 
regarding conservation activities and opportunities (TNCH 2006b, pp. 
18-19; TNCH 2008, p. 20).
    Fire management is an important goal for two Molokai preserves: 
Kamakou Preserve on Molokai and Kapunakea Preserve on west Maui (TNCH 
2006b, p. 15; TNCH 2008, p. 22) (see (7), above). Wildfire management 
plans are updated annually. Staff is provided with fire suppression 
training, roads are maintained for access and as fire breaks, and 
equipment is supplied as needed to allow immediate response to fire 
threats (TNCH 2005, p. 13).
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
these TNC preserves. We believe that there is a low likelihood of a 
Federal nexus to provide a benefit to the species from designation of 
critical habitat. In addition, all of the management actions detailed 
above will either lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the 
species, or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not 
present, thereby benefitting the conservation of the 105 plant and 2 
forest bird species and their habitat.
Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc.
Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve Management Plan, West Maui Mountains 
Watershed Partnership, and Tree Snail Habitat Protection Agreement
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 8,931 ac (3,614 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned and managed 
by Maui Land and Pineapple Company (ML & P). Maui Land and Pineapple 
Company is a proven conservation partner with an established track 
record of voluntary protection and management of listed species as 
demonstrated, in part, by their ongoing management program for the Puu 
Kukui Watershed Preserve (Puu Kukui WP), their participation in the 
WMMWP, and the tree snail habitat protection agreement for ML & P's Puu

[[Page 17936]]

Kukui WP on west Maui. Puu Kukui WP, established in 1988, is 
permanently dedicated to conservation. The actions of ML & P provide 
for the conservation of 44 plants, 2 forest birds, and Newcomb's tree 
snail that occur on their lands and their habitat. For the reasons 
described below, we have determined that the benefits of excluding 
lands owned by Maui Land and Pineapple Company outweigh the benefits of 
including them in critical habitat.
    Puu Kukui WP is the largest privately owned watershed preserve in 
the State, and encompasses over 8,600 ac (3,480 ha) of ML & P's lands 
on west Maui. The forest, shrubland, and bogs within the preserve serve 
as a significant water source for west Maui residents and industries. 
Fourteen plant species (Bidens conjuncta, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
asplenifolia, C. kunthiana, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra 
filipes, C. munroi, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Myrsine 
vaccinioides, Sanicula purpurea, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, 
and Sesbania tomentosa), and the Newcomb's tree snail, occur in this 
area. The area falls within seven critical habitat units for plants 
(Maui--Coastal--9, Maui--Lowland Mesic--2, Maui--Lowland Wet--2, Maui--
Lowland Wet--3, Maui--Montane Wet--6, Maui--Wet Cliff--5, and Maui--Wet 
Cliff--7), eight critical habitat units for birds (Palmeria dolei--Unit 
3--Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 3--Lowland Wet, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 4--Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 4--Lowland 
Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--
Unit 15--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 34--Wet Cliff, and 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 34--Wet Cliff), and one critical habitat 
for the Newcomb's tree snail (Newcombia cumingi--Unit 1--Lowland Wet). 
These units are occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens. 
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
asplenifolia, C. kunthiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Geranium hillebrandii, 
Myrsine vaccinioides, Pteris lidgatei, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula 
purpurea, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schenkia sebaeoides, 
Sesbania tomentosa, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, and by the Newcomb's 
tree snail. This area contains habitat that is unoccupied but essential 
to the conservation of 28 other plant species (Acaena exigua, Asplenium 
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C. 
magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, C. oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, 
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, 
Tetramolopium capillare, and Wikstroemia villosa), and to the akohekohe 
and kiwikiu.
    Maui Land and Pineapple Company understands the importance of this 
water resource to the community, and recognizes that active management 
is needed for its protection and conservation, as evidenced by their 
implementation of an ongoing management program to preserve and protect 
the Puu Kukui WP. The ML & P Company has proactively managed the Puu 
Kukui WP since 1988, and joined the State of Hawaii's NAP program in 
July 1992. The NAP program contract has been continually renewed since 
that time, and has recently been authorized to continue through Fiscal 
Year 2018 (ML & P 2010, p. 5; DLNR 2011, in litt.). The primary 
management goals as outlined in the current Puu Kukui WP management 
plan for the NAP program, fiscal years 2012-2018 are to: (1) Eliminate 
ungulate activity in all Puu Kukui WP management units; (2) reduce the 
range of habitat-modifying weeds and prevent introduction of nonnative 
plants; (3) track biological and physical resources in the watershed 
and evaluate changes in these resources over time, including the 
identification of new threats to the watershed, and provide logistical 
support to approved research projects that will improve management 
understanding of the watershed's resources; (4) prevent the extinction 
of rare species in the watershed; (5) expose the community to projects 
focusing on preserving and enhancing native plant and animal 
communities; (6) assist the long-term management of the native 
ecosystems of west Maui by the WMMWP; and (7) provide adequate manpower 
and equipment to meet the goals and objectives of the plan. Over 20 
years of feral ungulate management has shown that the use of snares and 
fences has been an effective means of ungulate control, with 60 percent 
of the preserve not seeing pig activity for 5 or more years. Accessible 
fences and those with direct ungulate pressure are maintained 
quarterly. The nonnative plant control program focuses on areas with 
rare native species, and the maintenance of the most pristine areas, 
keeping them as weed-free as possible with manual and mechanical 
control. The ML & P Company also supports rare plant monitoring and 
propagule collection by the PEPP. Natural resource monitoring and 
research address the need to track biological and physical resources in 
order to guide management programs. Vegetation is monitored through 
permanent photo points; nonnative species are monitored along permanent 
transects; and rare, endemic, and indigenous species are also 
monitored.
    The ML & P Company has received funding in eight separate 
agreements (over $400,000) with the Service to survey for rare plants 
on their lands and to build feral ungulate control fences for the 
protection of listed plants. Additionally, logistical and other support 
for native bird and invertebrate studies by independent researchers and 
interagency cooperative agreements is provided.
    In our June 11, 2012, proposed rule, we proposed critical habitat 
in a portion of Puu Kukui WP (534 ac (236 ha)), where the remaining 
nine wild individuals of Newcomb's tree snail occur (Newcombia 
cumingi--Unit 1--Lowland Wet). This area is overlapped by critical 
habitat plant unit Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 2 for plant species. The 
remaining 65 ac (26 ha) of this unit overlaps State lands. Puu Kukui WP 
is permanently dedicated to conservation, and the positive management 
by ML & P of this area has demonstrated their understanding of the 
important of this resource to the community, as well as recognition 
that active management is needed for its protection and conservation. 
The Service has worked closely with ML & P, and recently established a 
cooperative agreement for fencing and management for the conservation 
of this tree snail species; the agreement is in place for 5 years 
(Service 2012, in litt.). The scope of work for this agreement includes 
snail surveys; design, placement, and construction of an exclosure 
fence (to exclude rats and mice) based on fences used to protect Oahu 
tree snails (Achatinella spp.) on Oahu; periodic monitoring; predator 
control (rats and mice) within the fenced area; and habitat 
restoration. ML & P has been actively working to develop a solid fence 
design and plan for installation; the construction of the fence is 
scheduled to begin in September 2015. Based on our past experience with 
ML & P and positive conservation partnership to date, we expect the 
conservation measures provided in this agreement will be continued into 
the foreseeable future. The Service

[[Page 17937]]

anticipates continuing to work with ML & P for the protection and 
conservation of Newcomb's tree snail on Puu Kukui WP.
    The ML & P Company is a member and participant of the WMMWP, 
established in 1998. Management priorities for the watershed 
partnership on west Maui include feral animal control, weed control, 
human activities management, public education and awareness, water and 
watershed monitoring, and management coordination improvements. The 
partnership's management actions benefit habitat conservation by: (1) 
Enabling land managers to construct fences and remove feral ungulates 
across land ownership boundaries; (2) allowing for more comprehensive 
conservation planning; (3) expanding the partners' ability to protect 
forest lands quickly and efficiently; (4) making more efficient use of 
resources and staff; (5) allowing for greater unity in attaining public 
funding; and (6) providing greater access to other funding 
opportunities. The WMMWP provides annual progress reports regarding the 
success of management actions and benefits provided to species and 
watershed habitat.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
ML & P lands. We believe that there is a low likelihood of a Federal 
nexus to provide a benefit to the species from designation of critical 
habitat. In addition, all of the management actions detailed above will 
either lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the Maui Nui 
species, or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not 
present, thereby benefitting the conservation of the 44 plants, the 2 
forest bird species, the tree snail, and their habitat.
Ulupalakua Ranch
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership Management Plan, 
Habitat Conservation Plan, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 6,535 ac (2,645 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are under management by 
Ulupalakua Ranch. Ulupalakua Ranch is a proven partner, as evidenced, 
in part, by their history of conservation actions including the Auwahi 
and Puu Makua restoration agreements and ongoing management of 
Ulupalakua Ranch lands on east Maui, which provide for the conservation 
of 46 plants and the 2 forest birds and their habitat. For the reasons 
described below, we conclude that the benefits of excluding the lands 
owned by Ulupalakua Ranch outweigh the benefits of designating them as 
critical habitat.
    Eight plant species included in this rule (Alectryon macrococcus, 
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Melicope adscendens, M. knudsenii, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiensis, 
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) are reported from Ulupalakua Ranch lands. 
The area falls within six critical habitat units for plants (Maui--
Coastal--Unit 6, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 3, 
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1, and Maui--
Subalpine--Unit 1), and four units for the akohekohe and kiwikiu 
(Palmeria dolei--Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 
18--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 24--Subalpine, and Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 24--Subalpine). These units are occupied by the 
plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium 
dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana, Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G. multiflorum, Huperzia mannii, 
Melicope adscendens, Neraudia sericea, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis. This area 
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 23 
other endangered plant species (Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Brighamia rockii, Colubrina oppositifolia, 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. 
kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Cyperus pennatiformis, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope 
mucronulata, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, P. mannii, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Solanum incompletum, and Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense), and to the akohekohe and kiwikiu.
    Ulupalakua Ranch is involved in several important voluntary 
conservation agreements with the Service and is currently carrying out 
activities on their lands for the conservation of rare and endangered 
species and their habitats. In 1997 and 1998, respectively, Ulupalakua 
Ranch entered into the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Auwahi and Puu 
Makua agreements to protect and restore dryland forest, including 
construction of ungulate exclosure fences, a greenhouse to propagate 
rare plants for outplanting, an access road, and propagation and 
outplanting of native plants. Preservation of habitat in Auwahi and Puu 
Makua benefits the 48 listed plant and animal species discussed above. 
Over the last 14 years, the Service has provided funding for 3 projects 
in the Auwahi area (Auwahi I, II, and III). Labor, material, and 
technical assistance is provided by Ulupalakua Ranch, U.S. Geological 
Survey-Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), and volunteers. The 
Auwahi I project area encompasses 10 ac (4 ha) on the southwest slope 
of Haleakala. Ulupalakua Ranch and its partners built an ungulate 
exclosure fence; outplanted native plants, including the listed 
endangered plants Alectryon macrococcus var. auwahiensis and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense; and removed all nonnative plants and feral 
ungulates within the fenced exclosure. The Auwahi II project area 
encompasses 23 ac (9 ha) adjacent to Auwahi I, and the Auwahi III 
project area encompasses an additional 181 ac (73 ha) (Van Dyke 2011, 
in litt.). Ulupalakua Ranch and its partners built additional ungulate 
exclosure fences, propagated and outplanted native plants, and removed 
nonnative plants and feral ungulates within the fenced exclosures (Van 
Dyke 2011, in litt.). Within 5 years of fence construction and 
nonnative species management activities, these three areas have been 
transformed from nonnative grasslands to a native species-dominated, 
self-sustaining, dryland forest.
    Community volunteer participation is a key element to the success 
of these projects, and monthly volunteer trips often exceed 50 
participants from a pool of 700 interested Maui residents, including 
school groups, Hawaiian native dance groups, canoe clubs, and other 
special interest groups.
    In 1998, Ulupalakua Ranch entered a 10-year partnership with Ducks 
Unlimited (a private conservation organization) and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 
to create four wetland complexes (completed in 2001) suitable for two 
endangered birds, the Hawaiian goose or nene and Hawaiian duck or koloa 
(Anas wyvilliana) (NRCS 2001, pp. 1-2). While the endangered nene and 
koloa are not addressed in this rule, the establishment of wetland 
complexes for these endangered birds

[[Page 17938]]

demonstrates the willingness of Ulupalakua Ranch to protect and 
conserve native plants and animals on their lands, and their value as a 
conservation partner.
    Ulupalakua Ranch is an active member of the LHWRP, a coalition 
formed in 2003 by 11 private and public landowners and supporting 
agencies (LHWRP 2011, in litt). The partnership oversees and manages 
more than 43,000 ac (17,400 ha) of land on the leeward slopes of 
Haleakala crater, from Makawao to Kaupo, between 3,500 and 6,500 ft 
(1,067 and 1,980 m) elevation. The partnership's goals are to: (1) 
Restore native koa forests to provide increased water quantity and 
quality, (2) conserve unique endemic plants and animals, (3) protect 
important Hawaiian cultural resources, and (4) allow diversification of 
Maui's rural economy. The reestablishment of native koa forest will 
restore habitat for the 46 plants and 2 forest birds. The LHWRP also 
provides public outreach regarding the importance of watershed and 
other natural resources protection by supporting volunteers who 
participate in tree planting, nonnative plant removal, and seed 
collection activities.
    Between 1999 and 2007, the Service and the DOFAW Natural Area 
Reserves Fund provided funding for habitat restoration at Puu Makua. 
Ulupalakua Ranch and its partners, which include USGS-BRD, the LHWRP, 
and volunteers, built a 100-ac (40-ha) ungulate exclosure, removed 
feral ungulates and controlled nonnative plants within the fenced 
exclosure, and outplanted native plants. This project provides public 
outreach through ongoing volunteer participation to control nonnative 
plants and outplant native plants.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were three 
informal section 7 consultations conducted regarding projects on 
Ulupalakua Ranch lands receiving Federal funding. One project, funded 
through NRCS, was for the development of a riparian conservation plan 
and riparian restoration, and we concurred that this project was not 
likely adversely affect the listed Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus 
cinereus semotus), and would not affect any plant critical habitat that 
was adjacent to the project area. One project, funded through the 
Emergency Conservation Program, FSA, included actions for restoration 
of fences, and we concurred that the project was not likely adversely 
affect the listed Hawaiian hoary bat or the listed Blackburn's sphinx 
moth (Manduca blackburni). The last project, funded through NRCS, was 
for a second riparian conservation plan, and we concurred it was not 
likely to adversely affect any listed species. We did conduct one 
formal consultation in 2008 on Ulupalakua Ranch lands on the 
construction of a communications tower funded by the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). The consultation resulted in 
recommended mitigation measures for the listed Hawaiian hoary bat and 
Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis), and determined 
the project was not likely to adversely affect the Maui silversword. 
The project was not within critical habitat for the Maui silversword.
    Because all three of the informal consultations resulted in a not 
likely to adversely affect determination, we believe that, although 
there is a likelihood of a Federal nexus, little if any conservation 
benefit to the species would result from designation of critical 
habitat. With regard to the one formal consultation, we have no 
information to suggest that any similar project is likely to occur in 
this area again, thus we anticipate little if any additional 
conservation benefit as a result of future section 7 consultation as a 
result of critical habitat on these lands. In addition, all of the 
agreements and partnerships discussed above will either lead to 
maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead to 
emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby 
benefitting the conservation of the 46 plants and the 2 forest bird 
species, and their habitat.
Haleakala Ranch Company
East Maui Watershed Partnership Management Plan and Partners for Fish 
and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 8,716 ac (3,527 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are under management by 
Haleakala Ranch. Haleakala Ranch is a proven conservation partner, as 
evidenced, in part, by a history of voluntary management actions and 
agreements that provide for the conservation of 55 plants and the 2 
forest birds and their habitat. For the reasons described below, we 
conclude that the benefits of excluding Haleakala Ranch lands on east 
Maui outweigh the benefits of including these lands in critical 
habitat.
    Four plant species included in this rule (Argyroxiphium sandwicense 
ssp. macrocephalum, Canavalia pubescens, Geranium arboreum, and 
Hibiscus brackenridgei) and the akohekohe and kiwikiu are reported from 
this area. The area falls within seven critical habitat units for 
plants (Maui--Lowland Dry-- Unit 1, Maui--Lowland Dry-- Unit 2, Maui--
Montane Wet-- Unit 1, Maui--Montane Mesic-- Unit 1, Maui--Montane Dry-- 
Unit 1, Maui--Subalpine-- Unit 1, and Maui--Alpine-- Unit 1), and six 
units for the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 10--Montane 
Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 10--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--
Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 18--Montane 
Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 24--Subalpine, and Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 24--Subalpine). These units are occupied by the 
plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum, Asplenium 
dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, Bidens. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana, Cyanea. duvalliorum, C. horrida, 
C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. 
oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea neowawraea, Geranium 
arboreum, G. multiflorum, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Huperzia mannii, 
Melicope adscendens, M. balloui, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia pilosa, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis,, and 
by the birds akohekohe and kiwikiu. This area contains unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to Adenophorus periens, Alectryon 
macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. campylotheca ssp. 
waihoiensis, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. samuelii, 
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea copelandii ssp. 
haleakalaensis, C. glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. 
kunthiana, Geranium hanaense, Melanthera kamolensis, Melicope 
knudsenii, M. mucronulata, M. ovalis, Nototrichium humile, Peperomia 
subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. mannii, Platanthera holochila, 
Schiedea haleakalensis, S. jacobii, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
incompletum, Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
    Haleakala Ranch is involved in several important voluntary 
conservation agreements with the Service and is currently carrying out 
activities on its lands for the conservation of rare and endangered 
species and their habitats. Haleakala Ranch is a member of the EMWP, 
which was formed in 1991, as a model for large-scale forest protection 
in Hawaii. The members agree to pool resources and implement a 
watershed management program to protect 100,000 ac (40,469 ha) of 
forest across east Maui

[[Page 17939]]

(EMWP 2009). The management program includes: (1) Control of feral pigs 
by public hunting in the privately owned lower watershed areas; (2) 
control of the invasive plant Miconia; and (3) construction of ungulate 
exclosure fences to protect 12,000 ac (4,856 ha) of lowland and montane 
wet forest (Tri-Isle Resource Conservation and Development Council, 
Inc. 2011). In partnership with the Division of Forestry and Wildlife 
(DOFAW), Haleakala Ranch controls feral ungulates (e.g., axis deer and 
goats) on their lands in lowland dry habitat at Waiopae, on the south 
coast of east Maui. In addition to feral ungulate control, Haleakala 
Ranch and DOFAW control invasive plants that threaten wild populations 
of two endangered plants, Alectryon macrococcus and Melanthera 
kamolensis.
    In 1999, Haleakala Ranch entered into an agreement with the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife, USGS-BRD, and DHHL, for habitat 
protection at Puu o Kali, on the west slope of Haleakala. This 
agreement funded management actions to conserve and protect native 
dryland forest, including construction of a fence to exclude nonnative 
axis deer and feral goats, nonnative plant control, and propagation and 
outplanting of native plants. The project area was accessed through 
cooperation of the landowner, Haleakala Ranch. Currently, 236 ac (96 
ha) are protected within the fenced area, and all axis deer and goats 
were removed from the fenced area. The continued protection of this 
area and maintenance of the fenced area is assured into the foreseeable 
future through the combined efforts of multiple partners, including the 
State, DHHL, and private landowners.
    In 2001, the Service and NRCS provided funding for management 
actions to conserve and protect the endangered plant Geranium arboreum 
and subalpine habitat on Puu Pahu on the northwestern slopes of 
Haleakala (USFWS 2007b). These management actions include construction 
of ungulate exclosure fences and removal of ungulates within the fenced 
area. The first increment of the fence is completed and encloses 
approximately 670 ac (271 ha) (Higashino 2011, in litt.). Upon project 
completion, the fenced area will adjoin the fenced area of Haleakala 
National Park at 7,500 ft (2,290 m), and will exclude ungulates and 
allow for their removal from an area larger than 670 ac (271 ha) (USFWS 
2007b).
    In 1983, Haleakala Ranch granted a permanent conservation easement 
on 5,140 ac (2,080 ha) of ranch lands to TNC for Waikamoi Preserve. The 
establishment of this preserve demonstrates the willingness of 
Haleakala Ranch to protect and conserve native plants and animals on 
their lands. In addition, in 2009, Haleakala Ranch entered into a safe 
harbor agreement (SHA) with the Hawaii DLNR and the Service, to 
establish a population of the endangered Hawaiian goose on their lands 
at Waiopae. While the endangered nene is not a species addressed in 
this final rule, the establishment of a SHA for this endangered bird 
demonstrates the willingness of Haleakala Ranch to protect and conserve 
native plants and animals on their lands, and is further evidence of 
their value as a proven conservation partner.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there was one 
informal section 7 consultation conducted regarding a project on 
Haleakala Ranch lands receiving Federal funding through the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership, for ungulate and weed control within a fenced 
area at Puu Pahu. We concurred that their actions would not have any 
adverse effects to any listed species within the project area. Because 
there was only one informal consultation, which resulted in a not 
likely to adversely affect determination, we believe that there is a 
likelihood of a Federal nexus; however, there would be little 
conservation benefit resulting from designation of critical habitat. 
All of these agreements, partnerships, and management actions will 
either lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, 
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, 
thereby benefitting the conservation of the 55 plants and the 2 forest 
bird species, and their habitat.
East Maui Irrigation Company, Ltd.
East Maui Watershed Partnership Management Plan, Haiku Uka Watershed 
Protection Project
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 6,721 ac (2,720 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are managed by East 
Maui Irrigation Company, Ltd. (EMI). East Maui Irrigation Company is a 
proven conservation partner, as demonstrated, in part, by their ongoing 
management and restoration agreements for EMI lands at Haiku Uka on 
east Maui, and their participation in the EMWP, which provide for the 
conservation of 47 plants and the 2 forest birds and their habitat. For 
the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the benefits of 
excluding EMI lands outweigh the benefits of including them in critical 
habitat.
    Nine plant species included in this rule (Asplenium peruvianum var. 
insulare, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalensis, C. hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Geranium multiflorum, and Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense), and the akohekohe and kiwikiu are reported from EMI lands. 
The area falls within 6 critical habitat units for plants (Maui--
Lowland Wet-- Unit 1, Maui--Montane Wet-- Unit 1, Maui--Montane Wet-- 
Unit 2, Maui--Montane Mesic-- Unit 1, Maui--Subalpine-- Unit 2, and 
Maui--Wet Cliff-- Unit 1), and 12 critical habitat units for the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 2--Lowland Wet, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 2-Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 10--
Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 10--Montane Wet, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 11--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 11--Montane 
Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--
Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 25--Subalpine, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 25--Subalpine, Palmeria dolei--Unit 30--
Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 30--Wet Cliff). These 
units are occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis, Clermontia lindseyana,, C. 
samuelii, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. copelandii ssp. haleakalensis, C. 
duvalliorum, C. hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, C. horrida, C. kunthiana, 
C. maritae, C. mceldowneyi, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. 
oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium arboreum, G. multiflorum, 
Huperzia mannii, Melicope adscendens, M. balloui, M. ovalis, Neraudia 
sericea, Phyllostegia pilosa, and Schiedea haleakalensis, and by the 
birds akohekohe and kiwikiu. This area contains unoccupied habitat that 
is essential to the conservation of 20 other plant species (Adenophorus 
periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, C. 
peleana, Cyanea glabra, Geranium hanaense, Mucuna sloanei var. 
persericea, Peperomia subpetiolata, Phyllostegia bracteata, P. 
haliakalae, P. mannii, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea jacobii, Solanum 
incompletum, Wikstroemia villosa, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense).

[[Page 17940]]

    East Maui Irrigation Company, Ltd., a subsidiary of Alexander and 
Baldwin, owns and operates a ditch system that diverts more than 60 
billion gallons per year of surface water from east Maui to central 
Maui for agricultural, domestic, and other uses. In 1991, EMI, along 
with the major landowners and land managers (TNC, Maui County, DLNR, 
and private ranches) of the windward slope of east Maui (encompassing 
approximately 100,000 ac (40,500 ha)), formed the EMWP. The EMWP 
prepared a management plan in 1993, to protect the biological and water 
resources within the partnership lands (EMWP 2009, App. B). The plan 
identified five priority management activities: (1) Watershed resource 
monitoring, (2) feral animal control, (3) invasive weed control, (4) 
management infrastructure, and (5) public education and awareness 
programs.
    In 1993, EMI and DLNR entered into a right-of-entry agreement to 
permit the use of EMI roads by public hunters in the area of Haiku Uka, 
with the intention of increasing hunting activities to control feral 
pigs, goats, and axis deer in the Koolau FR. In 1996, constituents of 
the EMWP prepared an ungulate exclusion fencing strategy to preserve 
and protect 12,000 ac (4,856 ha) of land (called the core area) on the 
east Maui slope between Hanawi NAR and Koolau Gap, including the Haiku 
Uka area, and TNC's Waikamoi Preserve (EMWP 2009, p. 3). Approximately 
7,000 ac (2,833 ha) of the core area consists of State forest reserve 
and EMI lands, and approximately 5,000 ac (2,024 ha) are within TNC's 
Waikamoi Preserve. In 2005 and 2006, the Service and others provided 
funding for the construction of an ungulate exclusion fence at 3,600 ft 
(1,100 m) elevation and for improving hunter access to EMWP lands. The 
fence extends from Hanawi Natural Area Reserve west to Koolau Gap, and 
protects approximately 7,000 ac (2,833 ha) of native forest, including 
forest in Haiku Uka. The Waikamoi Preserve and Haleakala National Park 
fences provide the upper boundary of the fenced area (TNC 2006l). The 
fence was completed in 2006, and the enclosed area of 7,000 ac (2,833 
ha) is divided into five units (Honomanu, Koolau Gap, Waluanui, 
Wailuaiki, and Kopiliua), which are managed through the cooperation of 
landowners, including EMI, and other partners (EMWP 2009, pp. 3-17). 
Fencing is one of the most effective strategies currently available to 
address the threat of ungulates, but it is also costly and difficult to 
install in the steep, mountainous terrain of Hawaii. The completion of 
almost 7 mi (11 km) of fencing around an area of 7,000 ac (2,833 ha) 
for ungulate management represents a significant contribution to the 
conservation of the Maui Nui species.
    The 1993 EMWP management plan was revised in 2006, and included 
recommendations for improving threat assessment and feral pig control, 
and developing more cost-effective methods for natural resource 
assessments. In 2008 and 2009, the Service provided funding for feral 
pig reduction and fence monitoring on EMI lands in Haiku Uka (USFWS 
2008; Van Dyke 2011, in litt.).
    The 2006 EMWP management plan was revised in 2009, to provide long-
term protection of the east Maui watershed resources such as ground and 
surface water, native plants and animals and their habitat, hunting 
opportunities, commercial harvests, cultural resources, and ecotourism. 
The 2009 EMWP management plan provides detailed management objectives 
for protection of the east Maui watershed resources, and recommends 
that the effectiveness of ongoing management actions be evaluated and 
modified, as needed, after 5 years (EMWP 2009, pp. 3-17, + appendices). 
The 2009 EMWP management plan describes specific management actions for 
the protection of the EMWP lands, including Haiku Uka. These management 
actions include ungulate (i.e., feral pigs) control through hunting, 
fencing, fence maintenance, and research on effective feral animal 
control actions; weed control by controlling existing weeds, preventing 
the introduction of new weeds, and supporting research on weed control; 
development of a management program for rare and endangered species 
that includes surveys, species monitoring, propagation and outplanting 
of rare plants and release of rare birds, as well as implementing 
threat abatement actions; monitoring changes in vegetation (both native 
and nonnative), native forest birds, stream animals, stream flow, and 
rainfall; monitoring changes in cultural resources, and maintaining and 
expanding public support for the east Maui watershed; and maintaining 
existing and developing new funding sources (EMWP 2009, pp. 13-17).
    As of 2009, the majority of feral ungulates (i.e., feral pigs) were 
removed from the five management units (described above). In addition, 
there are few to no feral pigs in Haiku Uka due to their control by 
hunting and the construction of exclusion fences (Jokiel 2009, pers. 
comm.). While native forest dominates Haiku Uka, weed control is 
ongoing, particularly within disturbance corridors where new weed 
species are likely to be introduced (e.g., camps, trails, and 
helicopter landing zones).
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
EMI lands. We believe that there is a low likelihood of a Federal nexus 
to provide a benefit to the species from designation of critical 
habitat. EMI has allowed access to their lands to encourage public 
hunting for the control of feral pigs, goats, and axis deer that pose 
significant threats to the Maui Nui species. They are founders and 
active members of the EMWP, and have made significant contributions to 
the protection of the 47 plants and the 2 forest birds on their lands 
by assisting in the maintenance of exclosure fences and participating 
in watershed resource monitoring and invasive weed control. EMI allowed 
the construction of a significant ungulate exclosure fence extending 
from Hanawi Natural Area Reserve west to Koolau Gap, resulting in 
substantial conservation benefits to the Maui Nui species and their 
habitat. All of these management actions will either lead to 
maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead to 
emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby 
benefitting the conservation of the 47 plants and the 2 forest bird 
species, and their habitat.
Nuu Mauka Ranch
Native Watershed Forest Restoration at Nuu Mauka Conservation Plan, 
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership Management Plan, 
and Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 2,094 ac (848 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by Nuu Mauka Ranch. 
The ongoing management under the Native Watershed Forest Restoration 
Conservation Plan, LHWRP management plan, and the Southern Haleakala 
Forest restoration project agreement for Nuu Mauka Ranch lands on east 
Maui provide for the conservation of 46 plants and the 2 forest birds 
and their habitat, and demonstrate the positive benefits of the 
conservation partnership that has been established with Nuu Mauka 
Ranch. For the reasons described below, we have determined that the 
benefits of excluding these lands outweigh the benefits of including 
them in critical habitat.
    The area falls within four critical habitat units for plants 
(Maui--Lowland

[[Page 17941]]

Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 1, 
and Maui--Subalpine--Unit 1), and four units for two forest birds, the 
akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 18--Montane Mesic, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 18--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 
24--Subalpine, and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 24--Subalpine). These 
units are occupied by the plants Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 
macrocephalum, Asplenium dielerectum, A. peruvianum var. insulare, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Clermontia lindseyana, Cyanea horrida, C. obtusa, 
Cyrtandra ferripilosa, C. oxybapha, Diplazium molokaiense, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Geranium arboreum, G. multiflorum, Huperzia mannii, 
Melicope adscendens, Neraudia sericea, Santalum haleakalae var. 
lanaiense, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis. These areas contain unoccupied 
habitat that is essential to the conservation of 25 other endangered 
plant species (Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens campylotheca ssp. 
pentamera, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia pubescens, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea glabra, C. hamatiflora ssp. 
hamatiflora, C. kunthiana, C. mceldowneyi, Cyperus pennatiformis, 
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Melanthera kamolensis, 
Melicope mucronulata, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia bracteata, P. mannii, Schiedea haleakalensis, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Vigna o-wahuensis, Wikstroemia villosa, 
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense), and to the akohekohe and kiwikiu. None of 
these species currently occurs on Nuu Mauka Ranch lands.
    Nuu Mauka Ranch is involved in several important voluntary 
conservation agreements with the Service and other agencies and is 
currently carrying out activities on their lands for the conservation 
of rare and endangered species and their habitats. In 2008, the Ranch 
worked with the USGS-Pacific Island Ecosystem Research Center and NRCS 
to develop cost-effective, substrate-appropriate restoration 
methodologies for establishment of native koa forests in degraded 
pasturelands (Nuu Mauka Ranch and LHWRP 2012, p. 7). Nuu Mauka Ranch is 
a current partner of the LHWRP, with the main goal of protection and 
restoration of leeward Haleakala's upland watershed (see ``Ulupalakua 
Ranch,'' above, for further discussion). In 2012, Nuu Mauka Ranch 
obtained a conservation district use permit for a watershed protection 
project. The ultimate goal of this project is to improve water quality 
and groundwater recharge through the restoration of degraded 
agricultural land to a native forest community (Nuu Mauka Ranch and 
LHWRP 2012, 11 pp.). Nuu Mauka Ranch has contributed approximately 
$500,000 of their own funds, and received additional funding through 
the Service and NRCS, for construction of a 7.6-mile long deer-proof 
fence to prevent access by deer and goats into a 1,023-ac (414 ha) 
upper elevation watershed area on the south slopes of leeward Haleakala 
(Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project) (Nuu Mauka Ranch and 
LHWRP 2012, 11 pp.). Nuu Mauka Ranch has also prepared a conservation 
plan, ``Native Watershed Forest Restoration at Nuu Mauka'' (2012), and 
has appended it to the LHWRP management plan. Restoration activities 
outlined in the plan include mechanical and chemical control of 
invasive plant species including Grevillea robusta (silk oak), Schinus 
terebinthifolius (Christmas berry), Tecoma stans (yellow elder), and 
Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian tree fern), which are known threats 
to the 48 species and their habitat. Currently, Nuu Mauka Ranch 
conducts removal of feral ungulates from all fenced areas, along with 
fence monitoring and follow-up monitoring to assess erosion rates. 
Also, with fencing and ungulate removal completed, the plan includes 
continued restoration activities, such as replanting and seed 
scattering of common native plant species.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
Nuu Mauka Ranch lands, therefore in general we believe that there is a 
low likelihood of a Federal nexus to provide a benefit to the species 
from designation of critical habitat. However, as Federal funding has 
contributed to conservation projects on Nuu Mauka Ranch lands in the 
past (fence construction for exclusion of ungulates), it is possible 
that in the future such a conservation project may trigger consultation 
under Section 7. As consultation for a project designed to provide 
conservation benefit is most likely to result in a not likely to 
adversely affect determination, and the benefit accruing from the 
funded conservation project would be likely relatively greater than the 
regulatory benefit of critical habitat, the incremental benefit of 
critical habitat is reduced under such circumstances. Overall, these 
conservation actions, the Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration 
Project, and Nuu Mauka Ranch's conservation plan will lead to 
maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead to 
emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby 
benefitting the conservation of the 46 plants and the 2 forest bird 
species, and their habitat.
Kaupo Ranch
Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership Management Plan and 
Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 931 ac (377 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned or managed by Kaupo 
Ranch. Kaupo Ranch has undertaken voluntary conservation measures on 
their lands, demonstrating their value as a partner through 
participation in the LHWRP management plans and the Southern Haleakala 
Forest Restoration Project for Kaupo Ranch lands on east Maui. These 
actions provide positive conservation benefits for 26 plant species and 
their habitat. We have determined that the benefits of excluding Kaupo 
Ranch lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including 
them, for the reasons discussed below.
    Kaupo Ranch lands fall within three critical habitat units for 
plants (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, Maui--Montane Dry--Unit 1, and 
Maui--Coastal--Unit 7). These units are occupied by the plants Bonamia 
menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Flueggea neowawraea, Santalum 
haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Spermolepis hawaiiensis. These areas 
contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 21 
other endangered plant species (Alectryon macrococcus, Bidens micrantha 
ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia pubescens, Colubrina 
oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyperus pennatiformis, Geranium 
arboretum, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Melanthera 
kamolensis, Melicope adscendens, M. knudsenii, M. mucronulata, Neraudia 
sericea, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense). None of these species currently occurs on Kaupo Ranch 
lands.
    Kaupo Ranch is a current partner of the LHWRP, with the main goal 
of protection and restoration of leeward Haleakala's upland watershed 
(LHWRP 2006, 65 pp.). Kaupo Ranch has been a long time cooperator with 
HNP, providing access to the park's Kaupo Gap hiking trail across their 
private

[[Page 17942]]

lands (Kean 2012, pers. comm.). This trail extends from the park's 
boundary near the summit of Haleakala through Kaupo Ranch lands to the 
coast. The Ranch was also a cooperator with the Service in the creation 
of Nuu Makai Wetland Reserve, contributing 87 ac (35 ha) of their ranch 
lands in the coastal area to support landscape-scale wetland protection 
(The Conservation Registry and USFWS 2012, in litt.). In addition, 
Kaupo Ranch participated in the construction of an ungulate exclusion 
fence on the upper portion of their lands, bordering HNP, that protects 
50 ac (20 ha) of native montane dry forest habitat (Southern Haleakala 
Forest Restoration Project) and acts as a buffer to the lower boundary 
of the montane mesic ecosystem that provides habitat for forest birds 
(DLNR 2012, in litt.). Additional conservation actions in this fenced 
area include weed control and outplanting of native plants. While these 
actions do not directly address the Maui Nui species in this final 
rule, they demonstrate the willingness of Kaupo Ranch to protect and 
conserve native habitat on their lands and to provide outreach and 
support to the neighboring national park, and their value as a partner 
in conservation.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there was one 
informal consultation conducted regarding a project receiving Federal 
funding through NRCS's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 
on Kaupo Ranch lands for brush management and prescribed grazing to 
improve ranching operations; however, we concurred that the project 
would not likely adversely affect the listed Hawaiian hoary bat or the 
listed Hawaiian goose. We believe that there is a low likelihood of a 
Federal nexus that would provide a benefit to the species from 
designation of critical habitat, because past history indicates that 
any action likely to trigger consultation would likely be designed to 
benefit the species, and would not result in additional conservation 
measures. In contrast, conservation actions taken through the LHWRP 
management plan, cooperation with Haleakala National Park to provide 
additional public access, creation and protection of a wetland, and 
construction of an ungulate-exclusion fence to protect dry forest 
habitat, along with other conservation actions by Kaupo Ranch discussed 
above, will either lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for 
the species, or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not 
present, thereby benefitting the conservation of the 25 plants and 
their habitat.
Wailuku Water Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership Management Plan, and Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 7,410 ac (2,999 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned or managed by 
Wailuku Water Company on west Maui, and under management as part of the 
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (WMMWP). We believe that the 
ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan and 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Agreements for Wailuku Water Company 
lands on west Maui provide important conservation benefits for 51 
plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat. We have concluded that the 
benefits of excluding these lands outweigh the benefit of including 
them in critical habitat, for the reasons discussed below.
    The Wailuku Water Company lands fall within 10 critical habitat 
units for plants (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5, Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 6, 
Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 5, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6, Maui--Montane 
Wet--Unit 7, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 8, Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 5, 
Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 6, Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 7, and Maui--Wet 
Cliff--Unit 6) and 12 critical habitat units for the two forest birds, 
the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 6--Lowland Wet, 
Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 6--Lowland Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 
15--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane Wet, 
Palmeria dolei--Unit 16--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 
16--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 22--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 22--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 23--Montane 
Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 23--Montane Mesic, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 35--Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 35--Wet 
Cliff). These units are occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, 
Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea kunthiana, Cyrtandra munroi, C. oxybapha, Geranium 
hillebrandii, Gouania hillebrandii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Kadua 
coriacea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Platanthera holochila, Remya mauiensis, 
Sanicula purpurea, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schiedea 
salicaria, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Tetramolopium capillare. These 
areas contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation 
of 29 other endangered plant species (Acaena exigua, B. micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, 
Cyanea asplenifolia, C. glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, C. obtusa, 
Cyrtandra filipes, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. 
humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, 
Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, Neraudia sericea, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia 
bracteata, Plantago princeps, Pteris lidgatei, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Wikstroemia villosa, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense), and the akohekohe and kiwikiu. The plant 
species Alectryon macrococcus, Cyanea kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, 
Cyrtandra oxybapha, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Remya mauiensis, 
Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, and Schiedea salicaria are reported 
from Wailuku Water Company lands on west Maui.
    Wailuku Water Company is one of the founding members and a funder 
of the WMMWP, created in 1998. This partnership serves to protect over 
47,000 ac (19,000 ha) of forest and watershed vegetation on the summit 
and slopes of the west Maui mountains (WMMWP 2013). Management 
priorities of the watershed partnership are: (1) Feral animal control, 
(2) nonnative plant control, (3) human activities management, (4) 
public education and awareness, (5) water and watershed monitoring, and 
(6) management coordination (WMMWP 2013). Four principal streams, 
Waihee, Waiehu, Iao, and Waikapu, are part of the watershed area owned 
by the Wailuku Water Company on west Maui, which primarily provide 
water for agricultural use (WMMWP 2013). Conservation actions described 
in the WMMWP management plan are partly funded by Service grants 
through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, with at least three 
grants recently funding projects on Wailuku Water Company lands (WMMWP 
2010, 2011, 2012). Wailuku Water Company's conservation commitments 
include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and 
removal of ungulates, (2) regular monitoring for ungulates after 
fencing, (3) monitoring of habitat recovery through photopoints and 
vegetation succession analyses, and (4)

[[Page 17943]]

continued surveys for rare taxa prior to fence installations. In 2009, 
four strategic fences were installed in Waiehu on Wailuku Water Company 
lands through a Service Partnership agreement. Funding for animal 
control checks has been provided, and these checks follow a regular 
schedule. Decontamination protocols are followed for all equipment used 
in the field to prevent introduction of nonnative plant species (WMMWP 
2010). Wailuku Water Company allows surveys for rare taxa on their 
lands. Additional conservation actions in this area include weed 
control and outplanting of native plants (WMMWP 2010).
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there was one 
informal consultation conducted regarding a habitat protection project 
receiving Federal funding through the Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife program on Wailuku Water Company land; however, we concurred 
that the project would not likely adversely affect listed plant 
species. We thus believe there is a low likelihood of a Federal nexus 
to provide a benefit to the species from designation of critical 
habitat. The WMMWP management plan and the commitments by Wailuku Water 
Company to implement the conservation actions listed above will either 
lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead 
to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby 
benefitting the conservation of the 51 plants, the 2 forest birds, and 
their habitat. Through their actions, Wailuku Water Company has enabled 
the implementation of important conservation activities on their lands, 
including fencing and removal of ungulates, and weed control and 
outplanting of native plants. Survey access for rare taxa on private 
lands allows for the collection of important data regarding these 
species that would otherwise not be available. These actions 
demonstrate the willingness of Wailuku Water Company to protect and 
conserve native habitat and the west Maui watershed on their lands, and 
their value as a partner in conservation.
County of Maui, Department of Water Supply (DWS)
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership Management Plan, and Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 3,690 ac (1,493 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by the County 
of Maui DWS on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. 
The County of Maui DWS has demonstrated their value as a conservation 
partner as a founding partner and funder of the WMMWP, which provides 
for important conservation actions that benefit the Maui Nui species 
through implementation of the WMMWP management plan on west Maui. The 
management plans and projects supported by the County of Maui DWS 
provide for the conservation of 39 plants and the 2 forest birds and 
their habitat on their lands. For the reasons discussed below, we have 
determined that the benefits of excluding County of Maui DWS lands 
outweigh the benefits of including them in critical habitat.
    The County of Maui DWS lands fall within three critical habitat 
units for plants (Maui--Lowland Wet--Unit 4, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6, 
and Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6) and six critical habitat units for the two 
forest birds, the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 5--
Lowland Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 5--Lowland Wet, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane 
Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 35--Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--
Unit 35--Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by the plants Alectryon 
macrococcus, Bidens conjuncta, Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea asplenifolia, C. kunthiana, Cyrtandra. munroi, 
Geranium hillebrandii, Myrsine vaccinioides, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula 
purpurea, and Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense. These areas contain 
unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of 27 other 
endangered plant species (Acaena exigua, Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens 
campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia 
menziesii, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea glabra, C. 
lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, Cyrtandra oxybapha, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Peucedanum 
sandwicense, Phyllostegia bracteata, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Tetramolopium capillare, and Wikstroemia 
villosa), and for the akohekohe and kiwikiu. The plant species Bidens 
conjuncta, Cyrtandra filipes, Hesperomannia arborescens, and 
Platanthera holochila are reported from Maui County lands on west Maui.
    Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there was one 
informal consultation conducted regarding a project receiving Federal 
funding through the Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program on Maui County lands for habitat protection; however, 
we concurred that the project would not likely adversely affect listed 
plant species. We believe that there is a low likelihood of a Federal 
nexus to provide a benefit to the species from designation of critical 
habitat. Maui County DWS provides water to approximately 35,000 
customers on Maui and Molokai combined (Maui County 2012). The DWS is a 
founding partner and funder of the WMMWP, with the main goal of 
protection and restoration of west Maui's upland watershed. The Maui 
County DWS provides financial support to both the Maui and Molokai 
watershed partnerships, and to other organizations, private landowners, 
Federal, and State agencies (Maui County 2012). Conservation actions by 
Maui County DWS conducted through the WMMWP are also partly funded by 
Service grants through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
(WMMWP 2010, 2011, 2012; USFWS 2010). Maui County DWS's conservation 
commitments include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic 
fencing and removal of ungulates and removal of invasive nonnative 
plants; (2) regular monitoring to detect changes in management 
programs; (3) reducing the threat of fire; and (4) gaining community 
support for conservation programs. In addition, the DWS received 
funding for installation of an ungulate exclusion fence on the upper 
portion of their lands on west Maui that protects native habitat and 
acts as a buffer to the lower boundary of the habitat for plants and 
the two forest birds. The DWS also received funding in 2010 for feral 
animal removal from their lands (USFWS 2010). Other conservation 
actions in this fenced area include weed control and outplanting of 
native plants. The WMMWP management plan and the commitments by Maui 
County DWS to implement the conservation actions listed above will 
either lead to maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species, 
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where it is not present, 
thereby benefitting the conservation of the 39 plants, the 2 forest 
birds, and their habitat. These actions demonstrate the willingness of 
Maui County DWS to protect and conserve native habitat and the west 
Maui watershed on their lands,

[[Page 17944]]

and their value as a conservation partner.
Kamehameha Schools
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership Management Plan, and Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 1,217 ac (492 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned or managed by 
Kamehameha Schools on west Maui, and under management as part of the 
WMMWP. Kamehameha Schools is an established conservation partner, and 
has participated in the development, implementation, and funding of 
management plans and projects that benefit the Maui Nui species and 
other listed species throughout the Hawaiian islands. In this case, the 
ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan for 
Kamehameha Schools lands on west Maui provide for the conservation of 
43 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat. We have determined that 
the benefits of excluding Kamehameha Schools lands outweigh the 
benefits of including them in critical habitat for the reasons 
discussed below.
    The Kamehameha Schools lands fall within four critical habitat 
units for plants (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5, Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 
2, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6, and Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6) and four 
critical habitat units for the two forest birds, the akohekohe and 
kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Palmeria dolei--Unit 35--Wet Cliff, 
and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 35--Wet Cliff). These units are 
occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium dielerectum, 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. conjuncta, Calamagrostis 
hillebrandii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
kunthiana, C. munroi, Geranium hillebrandii, Gouania hillebrandii, 
Kadua coriacea, Myrsine vaccinioides, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula 
purpurea, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense. These areas contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to 
the conservation of 24 other endangered plant species (Acaena exigua, 
Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea glabra, C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, C. obtusa, 
Cyrtandra filipes, C. oxybapha, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia 
lydgatei, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia bracteata, Plantago princeps, 
Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Schiedea salicaria, Sesbania 
tomentosa, and Tetramolopium remyi), and the akohekohe and kiwikiu. 
Alectryon macrococcus is reported from Kamehameha Schools' lands on 
west Maui.
    Kamehameha Schools was established in 1887, through the will of 
Princess Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop. The trust is used primarily to 
operate a college preparatory program; however, part of Kamehameha 
School's mission is to protect Hawaii's environment through recognition 
of the significant cultural value of the land and its unique flora and 
fauna. Kamehameha Schools has established a policy to guide the 
sustainable stewardship of its lands including natural resources, water 
resources, and ancestral places (Kamehameha Schools 2013). Kamehameha 
Schools is a founder and funder of the WMMWP, and also participates in 
the watershed partnerships for Oahu, Molokai, Kauai, and the island of 
Hawaii (WMMWP 2013). Conservation actions conducted by the WMMWP are 
partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011, 2012). Kamehameha Schools' 
conservation commitments include the following conservation actions: 
(1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring 
for ungulates after fencing; (3) monitoring of habitat recovery; and 
(4) continued surveys for rare taxa prior to new fence installations. 
In addition, Kamehameha Schools participated in the construction of 
strategic ungulate exclusion fences on the upper elevations of their 
lands on west Maui, which protect native habitat and act as a buffer to 
the lower boundary of the lowland mesic, montane wet, and wet cliff 
ecosystems. Other conservation actions in this area include weed 
control and outplanting of native plants. Kamehameha Schools is also 
conducting voluntary actions to promote the conservation of rare and 
endangered species and their lowland dry ecosystem habitats on the 
island of Hawaii, including the installation of fencing to exclude 
ungulates, restoring habitat, conducting actions to reduce rodent 
populations, reestablishing native plant species, and conducting 
activities to reducing the threat of wildfire. The WMMWP management 
plan and the commitments by Kamehameha Schools to implement the 
conservation actions listed above will either lead to maintenance or 
enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead to emergence of 
suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby benefitting the 
conservation of the 43 plants, the 2 forest birds, and their habitat. 
Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
Kamehameha Schools lands, therefore we believe that in general there is 
a low likelihood of a Federal nexus to provide a benefit to the species 
from designation of critical habitat. However, as the WMMWP has 
received Federal funding for conservation projects in the past, it is 
possible that in the future such a conservation project undertaken on 
Kamehameha Schools property may trigger consultation under Section 7. 
As consultation for a project designed to provide conservation benefit 
is most likely to result in a not likely to adversely affect 
determination, and the benefit accruing from the funded conservation 
project would be likely relatively greater than the regulatory benefit 
of critical habitat, the incremental benefit of critical habitat is 
reduced under such circumstances. Overall, the actions described above 
demonstrate the willingness of Kamehameha Schools to protect and 
conserve native habitat and the watershed on their west Maui lands, and 
their value as a partner in conservation.
Makila Land Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership Management Plan, and Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 3,150 ac (1,275 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned and managed 
by Makila Land Company on west Maui, and under management as part of 
the WMMWP. The Makila Land Company is an established partner in the 
WMMWP, and ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management 
plan for Makila Land Company lands on west Maui provide for the 
conservation of 47 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat. For the 
reasons discussed below, we have determined that the benefits of 
excluding Makila Land Company lands outweigh the benefits of including 
them in critical habitat.
    The Makila Land Company lands fall within seven critical habitat 
units for plants (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5,

[[Page 17945]]

Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 2, Maui--Montane Wet--Unit 6, Maui--Montane 
Mesic--Unit 2, Maui--Montane Mesic--Unit 3, Maui--Dry Cliff--Unit 5, 
and Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6) and 10 critical habitat units for the two 
forest birds, the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 15--
Montane Wet, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 15--Montane Wet, Palmeria 
dolei--Unit 19--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 19--
Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 20--Montane Mesic, Pseudonestor 
xanthophrys--Unit 20--Montane Mesic, Palmeria dolei--Unit 29--Dry 
Cliff, Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 29--Dry Cliff, Palmeria dolei--
Unit 35--Wet Cliff, and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 35--Wet Cliff). 
These units are occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Asplenium 
dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. conjuncta, 
Calamagrostis hillebrandii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea kunthiana, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, 
Cyrtandra. munroi, Diplazium molokaiense, Geranium hillebrandii, 
Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua coriacea, Lysimachia lydgatei, Myrsine 
vaccinioides, Remya mauiensis, Sanicula purpurea, Santalum haleakalae 
var. lanaiense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium capillare, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. These areas contain unoccupied habitat that is 
essential to the conservation of 25 other endangered plant species 
(Acaena exigua, Bonamia menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea 
glabra, C. lobata, C. obtusa, Cyrtandra filipes, C. oxybapha, Dubautia 
plantaginea ssp. humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
H. arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Huperzia mannii, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia bracteata, 
Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Schiedea 
salicaria, Sesbania tomentosa, Stenogyne kauaulaensis, and 
Tetramolopium remyi), and the akohekohe and kiwikiu. The plant species 
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, Gouania hillebrandii, Kadua 
laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Plantago princeps, Remya mauiensis, 
Stenogyne kauaulaensis, Tetramolopium capillare, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense are reported from on Makila Land Company lands on west Maui.
    Makila Land Company has set aside upper elevation areas of their 
property at Puehuehunui and Kauaula on west Maui for conservation and 
protection of rare dry to mesic forest communities. Makila Land Company 
is a long-time cooperator with the WMMWP. Conservation actions 
conducted by the WMMWP are partly funded by Service grants through the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011, 2012). Makila 
Land Company's conservation commitments include the following 
conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; 
(2) regular monitoring for ungulates after fencing; (3) vegetation 
monitoring; and (4) allowing surveys for rare taxa by the State and the 
Service's Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP) staff. Much of the 
area is accessible only by helicopter due to waterfalls and steep 
terrain. The installation of strategic ungulate exclusion fences on the 
higher elevation portions of its lands protect native habitat and act 
as a buffer to the boundaries of the montane wet and wet cliff 
ecosystems' habitat. Additional conservation actions in these fenced 
areas include weed control and outplanting of native plants. The WMMWP 
management plan and the commitments by Makila Land Company to implement 
the conservation actions listed above will either lead to maintenance 
or enhancement of habitat for the species, or lead to emergence of 
suitable habitat where it is not present, thereby benefitting the 
conservation of the 47 plants and 2 forest birds, and their habitat. 
Our records indicate that between 2010 until 2015 there were no 
consultations conducted regarding projects receiving Federal funding on 
Makila Land Company lands. We believe that there is a low likelihood of 
a Federal nexus to provide a benefit to the species from designation of 
critical habitat. The actions described above demonstrate the 
willingness of Makila Land Company to protect and conserve native 
habitat and the west Maui watershed on their lands, and their value as 
a partner in conservation.
Kahoma Land Company
West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership Management Plan, and Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Agreements
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 46 ac (19 ha) of lands from critical habitat, 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned or managed by Kahoma 
Land Company on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. 
The ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan for 
Kahoma Land Company lands on west Maui provide for the conservation of 
26 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat. For the reasons 
discussed below, we have determined that the benefits of excluding 
Kahoma Land Company lands outweigh the benefits of including them in 
critical habitat.
    Kahoma Land Company lands fall within three critical habitat units 
for plants (Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5, Maui--Lowland Mesic--Unit 2, and 
Maui--Wet Cliff--Unit 6) and two critical habitat units for the two 
forest birds, the akohekohe and kiwikiu (Palmeria dolei--Unit 35--Wet 
Cliff and Pseudonestor xanthophrys--Unit 35--Wet Cliff). The area owned 
by Kahoma Land that is overlapped by Maui--Lowland Dry--Unit 5 is so 
small (0.1 ac, 0.05 ha) that it will be excluded, but not included in 
the analysis for lowland dry species here. The two remaining units are 
occupied by the plants Alectryon macrococcus, Ctenitis squamigera, 
Cyrtandra. munroi, Remya mauiensis, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, 
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. These areas contain unoccupied habitat that 
is essential to the conservation of 20 other endangered plant species 
(Asplenium dielerectum, Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera, B. 
conjuncta, Bonamia menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea glabra, 
C. lobata, C. magnicalyx, Cyrtandra filipes, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. 
humilis, Gouania vitifolia, Hesperomannia arborescens, H. arbuscula, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kadua laxiflora, Lysimachia lydgatei, Plantago 
princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, and Tetramolopium 
capillare), and the akohekohe and kiwikiu. None of the plant species 
discussed in this rule currently occurs on Kahoma Land Company lands on 
west Maui.
    Kahoma Land Company is a coalition of Maui residents formed in June 
2000, to acquire former sugar cane land adjacent to Kahoma Valley on 
west Maui. Kahoma Land Company's long-term management goals for this 
area include development of land tracts, diversified agriculture, and 
ecotourism ventures. Approximately 690 ac (279 ha) of the coalition's 
lands are within the WMMWP boundaries between two State Natural Area 
Reserves, and 46 ac (19 ha) are within proposed critical habitat. 
Kahoma Land Company is also a current member of the WMMWP (WMMWP 2013). 
Kahoma Land Company's conservation actions conducted by the WMMWP are 
partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program (WMMWP 2010, 2011, 2012). Its conservation commitments 
include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and 
removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for ungulates after 
fencing;

[[Page 17946]]

(3) monitoring of habitat recovery through vegetation succession 
analyses; and (4) continued surveys for rare taxa prior to new fence 
installations. The WMMWP management plan includes actions taken on 
Kahoma lands to control ungulates, including construction of strategic 
fencing. Ungulate control checks are currently underway on Kahoma 
lands, with addition of new check installations (WMMWP 2010, p. 1). 
Additional conservation actions in this area include weed control and 
outplanting of native plants. The WMMWP management plan and the 
commitments by Kahoma Land Company to implement the conservation 
actions listed above will either lead to maintenance or enhancement of 
habitat for the species, or lead to emergence of suitable habitat where 
it is not present, thereby benefitting the conservation of the 26 
plants, the 2 forest birds, and their habitat. Our records indicate 
that between 2010 until 2015 there was one informal consultation 
conducted regarding a project receiving Federal funding through the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program on 
Kahoma Land lands for habitat protection; however, we concurred that 
the project would not likely adversely affect listed plant species. We 
believe that there is a low likelihood of a Federal nexus to provide a 
benefit to the species from designation of critical habitat. The action 
described above demonstrate the willingness of Kahoma Land Company to 
protect and conserve native habitat and the west Maui watershed on 
their lands, and their value as a partner in conservation.
Lanai Resorts, LLC, and Castle & Cooke Properties, Inc.
Lanai Conservation Plan and Lanai Conservation Memorandum of 
Understanding Between Lanai Resorts, LLC, Castle & Cooke Properties, 
Inc., and U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and 
Lanai Natural Resources Plan
    In this final designation, the Secretary has exercised her 
authority to exclude 25,413 ac (10,284 ha) of lands from critical 
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by Lanai 
Resorts, LLC (LR), also known as Pulama Lanai (PL.). Our partnership 
with PL (and Castle & Cooke Properties, Inc. (CCPI), which holds rights 
on PL land for the possible development of a wind farm) provides 
significant conservation benefits to 38 plant and 2 Lanai tree snail 
species on Lanai, as demonstrated by the ongoing conservation efforts 
on the island, the commitment to develop the Lanai Natural Resources 
Plan (LNRP), and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the 
Service and LR and CCPI. For the reasons discussed below, we have 
determined that the benefits of excluding these areas outweigh the 
benefits of including them in critical habitat.
    The areas owned by LR and CCPI fall within 14 critical habitat 
units that were proposed for plants (Lanai--Coastal--Unit 1, Lanai--
Coastal--Unit 2, Lanai--Coastal--Unit 3, Lanai--Lowland Dry--Unit 1, 
Lanai--Lowland Dry--Unit 2, Lanai--Lowland Mesic--Unit 1, Lanai--
Lowland Wet--Unit 1, Lanai--Lowland Wet--Unit 2, Lanai--Montane Wet--
Unit 1, Lanai--Dry Cliff--Unit 1, Lanai--Dry Cliff--Unit 2, Lanai--Dry 
Cliff--Unit 3, Lanai--Wet Cliff--Unit 1, and Lanai--Wet Cliff--Unit 2) 
and 10 critical habitat units that were proposed for 2 Lanai tree 
snails (Partulina semicarinata--Unit 1--Lowland Wet, Partulina 
semicarinata--Unit 2--Lowland Wet, Partulina semicarinata--Unit 3--
Montane Wet, Partulina semicarinata--Unit 4--Wet Cliff, Partulina 
semicarinata--Unit 5--Wet Cliff, Partulina variabilis--Unit 1--Lowland 
Wet, Partulina variabilis--Unit 2--Lowland Wet, Partulina variabilis--
Unit 3--Montane Wet, Partulina variabilis--Unit 4--Wet Cliff, and 
Partulina variabilis--Unit 5--Wet Cliff). These units are occupied by 
the plants Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, 
Bonamia menziesii, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea gibsonii, C. lobata, C. 
munroi, Cyrtandra munroi, Kadua cordata ssp. remyi, K. laxiflora, 
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Pleomele 
fernaldii, Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense, Schenkia sebaeoides, 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Viola lanaiensis, and by the Lanai tree 
snails. These areas contain unoccupied habitat that is essential to the 
conservation of 21 other endangered plant species (Adenophorus periens, 
Asplenium dielerectum, Brighamia rockii, Canavalia pubescens, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Cyperus fauriei, 
C. trachysanthos, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia haliakalae, 
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum 
incompletum, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, T. remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
    In 2001, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved 
its department's (Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) 
participation in a Lanai watershed management program that included the 
Service (through a private stewardship grant), the Hawaii Department of 
Health, and CCPI, which at the time, was the primary landowner of Lanai 
(Leone 2001, in litt). In 2002, the Service and CCPI entered into a 
me