Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, Hawaii

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH10

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, Hawaii

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for three of the 37 species known historically from the Hawaiian island of Lanai. The three species are

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa,

and

Tetramolopium remyi.

A total of approximately 320 hectares (789 acres) of land on Lanai fall within the boundaries of the six critical habitat units designated for the three species. This critical habitat designation provides additional protection under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation.

DATES:

This rule becomes effective on February 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12), there are 37 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported from the island of Lanai (Table 1). Seven of these species are endemic to the island of Lanai, while 30 species are reported from one or more other islands, as well as Lanai. Each of the 37 species is described in more detail below in the section, “Discussion of Plant Taxa.” Although we considered designating critical habitat on Lanai for each of the 37 plant species, for the reasons described below, the final designation includes critical habitat for only 3 of 37 plant species. Species that also occur on other islands may have critical habitat designated on other islands in subsequent rulemakings.

Table 1.—Summary of Island Distribution of 37 Species From Lanai

Species

Island distribution

Kauai

Oahu

Molokai

Lanai

Maui

Hawaii

N.W. Isles, Kahoolawe, Niihau

Abutilon eremitopetalum

(NCN)

C

Adenophorus periens

(pendant kihi fern)

C

H

C

R

R

C

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

(kookoolau)

C

C

Bonamia menziesii

(NCN)

C

C

H

C

C

C

Brighamia rockii

(pua ala)

C

H

H

Cenchrus agrimonioides

(kamanomano, sandbur, agrimony)

C

H

C

R

NW Isles (H)

Centaurium sebaeoides

(awiwi)

C

C

C

C

C

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

(oha wai)

C

C

Ctenitis squamigera

(pauoa)

H

C

C

C

C

H

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana

(haha)

C

C

C

C

Cyanea lobata

(haha)

H

C

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

(NCN)

C

Cyperus trachysanthos

(puukaa)

C

C

H

H

Ni (C)

Cyrtandra munroi

(haiwale)

C

C

Diellia erecta

(NCN)

C

C

C

H

C

C

Diplazium molokaiense

(NCN)

H

H

H

H

C

Gahnia lanaiensis

(NCN)

C

Hedyotis mannii

(pilo)

C

C

C

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

(kopa)

C

Hesperomannia arborescens

(NCN)

C

C

H

C

Hibiscus brackenridgei

(mao hau hele)

H

C

H

C

C

C

Ka (R)

Isodendrion pyrifolium

(wahine noho kula)

H

H

H

H

C

Ni (H)

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

(kamakahala)

C

Mariscus fauriei

(NCN)

C

H

C

Melicope munroi

(alani)

H

C

Neraudia sericea

(NCN)

C

H

C

Ka (H)

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

(NCN)

H

Portulaca sclerocarpa

(poe)

C

C

Sesbania tomentosa

(ohai)

C

C

C

H

C

C

Ni (H), Ka (C), NW Isles (C)

Silene lanceolata

(NCN)

H

C

C

H

C

Solanum incompletum

(popolo ku mai)

H

H

H

H

C

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

(NCN)

C

C

C

C

C

C

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

(NCN)

C

H

Tetramolopium remyi

(NCN)

C

H

Vigna o-wahuensis

(NCN)

H

C

C

C

C

Ni (H), Ka (C)

Viola lanaiensis

(NCN)

C

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

(ae)

C

C

H

C

C

Key

C (Current)—occurrence last observed within the past 30 years.

H (Historical)—occurrence not seen for more than 30 years.

R (Reported)—reported from undocumented observations.

* NCN—No Common Name.

The Island of Lanai

Lanai is a small island totaling about 360 square kilometers (sq km) (139 sq miles (mi) in area. Hidden from the trade winds in the lee or rain shadow of the more massive West Maui Mountains, Lanai was formed from a single shield volcano built by eruptions at its summit and along three rift zones. The principal rift zone runs in a northwesterly direction and forms a broad ridge whose highest point, Lanaihale, has an elevation of 1,027 meters (m) (3,370 feet (ft)). The entire ridge is commonly called Lanaihale, after its highest point. Annual rainfall on the summit of Lanaihale is 760 to 1,015 millimeters (mm) (30 to 40 inches (in)), but is considerably less, 250 to 500 mm (10 to 20 in), over much of the rest of the island (Department of Geography 1998).

Geologically, Lanai is part of the four-island complex comprising Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe, known collectively as Maui Nui (Greater Maui). During the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, when sea levels were about 160 m (525 ft) below their present level, these four islands were connected by a broad lowland plain. This land bridge allowed the movement and interaction of each island's flora and fauna and contributed to the present close relationships of their biota (Department of Geography 1998).

Changes in Lanai's ecosystem began with the arrival of the first Polynesians about 1,500 years ago. In the 1800s, goats (

Capra hircus

), pigs (

Sus scrofa

), and sheep (

Ovis aries

) were first introduced to the island. Native vegetation was soon decimated by these nonnative ungulates, and erosion from wind and rain caused further damage to the native forests. Formal ranching was begun in 1902, and by 1910, the Territorial forester helped to revegetate the island. By 1911, a ranch manager from New Zealand, George Munro, instituted forest management practices to recover the native forests and bird species which included fencing and eradication of sheep and goats from the mountains. Mouflon sheep (

Ovis musimon

) and axis deer (

Axis axis

) were introduced to Lanai in 1954 and 1920 respectively, leading to renewed impacts on the native vegetation. By the 1920s, Castle and Cooke had acquired more than 98 percent of the island and established a 6,500 ha (16,000 ac) pineapple plantation surrounding its company town, Lanai City. In the early 1990s, the pineapple plantation closed, and two luxury hotels were developed by the private landowner, sustaining the island's economy today (Hobdy 1993).

There are no military installations on the island of Lanai.

Discussion of Plant Taxa

Species Endemic to Lanai

Abutilon eremitopetalum

(NCN)

Abutilon eremitopetalum

is a long-lived shrub in the mallow family (Malvaceae) with grayish-green, densely hairy, and heart-shaped leaves. It is the only

Abutilon

species on Lanai whose flowers have green petals hidden within the calyx (the outside leaf-like part of the flower) (Bates 1999).

Abutilon eremitopetalum

is known to flower during February. Little else is known about the life history of this species. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).

Historically,

Abutilon eremitopetalum

was found in small, widely scattered colonies in the ahupuaa (geographical areas) of Kalulu, Mahana, Maunalei, Mamaki, and Paawili on the northern, northeastern, and eastern parts of Lanai. Currently, about seven individuals are known from a single occurrence on privately owned land in Kahea Gulch on the northeastern part of the island (Caum 1933; Geographic Decision Systems International (GDSI) 2000; Hawaii Natural Heritage Program (HINHP) Database 2000; Service 1995).

Abutilon eremitopetalum

is found in lowland dry forest at elevations between 108 and 660 m (354 and 2,165 ft), on a moderately steep north-facing slope on red sandy soil and rock, usually near gulch bottoms.

Erythrina sandwicensis

(wiliwili) and

Diospyros sandwicensis

(lama) are the dominant trees in open forest of the area. Other associated native species include

Dodonaea viscosa

(aalii), Nesoluma polynesicum (keahi),

Psydrax odorata

(alahee),

Rauvolfia sandwicensis

(hao),

Sida fallax

(ilima), or

Wikstroemia

sp. (akia) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995).

The threats to

Abutilon eremitopetalum

are habitat degradation

and competition by encroaching nonnative plant species such as

Lantana camara

(lantana),

Leucaena leucocephala

(koa haole), and

Pluchea carolinensis

(sourbush); browsing by axis deer; soil erosion caused by feral ungulate grazing on grasses and forbs; and the small number of extant individuals, as the limited gene pool may depress reproductive vigor, or a single natural or man-caused environmental disturbance could destroy the only known existing occurrence. Fire is another potential threat because the area is dry much of the year (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

(NCN)

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii,

a long-lived perennial and a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a palm-like tree 1 to 7 m (3 to 23 ft) tall with elliptic or oblong leaves that have fine hairs covering the lower surface. The following combination of characters separates this species from the other members of the genus on Lanai: calyx lobes are oblong, narrowly oblong, or ovate in shape, and the calyx and corolla (petals of a flower) are both more than 5 mm (0.2 in) wide (Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686).

Limited observations suggest

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

flowers during the month of July. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

has been documented from the summit of Lanaihale and the upper parts of Mahana, Kaiholena, and Maunalei Valleys of Lanai. There are currently only two occurrences containing 74 individuals. One occurrence is located north of Lanaihale and the second occurrence is north of Puu Aalii (puu = summit or hill) on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686).

The habitat of

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

is lowland wet

Metrosideros polymorpha

(ohia) forest or

Diplopterygium pinnatum

(uluhe lau nui)-

M. polymorpha

shrubland between elevations of 738 and 1,032 m (2,421 and 3,385 ft). It has been observed to grow on flat to moderate or steep slopes, usually on lower gulch slopes or gulch bottoms, often at edges of streambanks, probably due to vulnerability to ungulate damage at more accessible locations. Associated vegetation includes

Antidesma platyphyllum

(hame),

Broussaisia arguta

(kanawao),

Cheirodendron trigynum

(olapa),

Clermontia

sp. (oha wai),

Cyrtandra

sp. (haiwale),

Dicranopteris linearis

(uluhe),

Dubautia

sp. (naenae),

Freycinetia arborea

(ieie),

Hedyotis

sp. (NCN),

Ilex anomala

(kawau),

Labordia

sp. (kamakahala),

Melicope

sp. (alani),

Perrottetia sandwicensis

(olomea),

Pipturus albidus

(mamaki),

Pneumatopteris sandwicensis

(NCN),

Psychotria

sp. (kopiko),

Sadleria

sp. (amau), or

Scaevola chamissoniana

(naupaka kuahiwi) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995; Joel Lau, HINHP, pers. comm., 2001).

The threats to

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

are browsing by axis deer; competition with the nonnative plant

Hedychium gardnerianum

(kahili ginger); and the small number of extant individuals, as the limited gene pool may depress reproductive vigor, or any natural or man-caused environmental disturbance could destroy the existing occurrences (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Gahnia lanaiensis

(NCN)

Gahnia lanaiensis,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a tall (1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft)), tufted, grass-like plant. This sedge may be distinguished from grasses and other genera of sedges on Lanai by its spirally arranged flowers, its solid stems, and its numerous, three-ranked leaves.

Gahnia lanaiensis

differs from the other members of the genus on the island by its achenes (seed-like fruits), which are 3.6 to 4.6 mm (0.14 to 0.18 in) long and purplish-black when mature (Koyama 1999).

July has been described as the “end of the flowering season” for

Gahnia lanaiensis.

Plants of this species have been observed with fruit in October. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Degener

et al.

, 1964; 56 FR 47686).

Gahnia lanaiensis

is known from one occurrence containing 47 individuals on privately owned land along the summit of Lanaihale in the Haalelepaakai area and on the eastern edge of Hauola Gulch. The occurrence is found between 915 and 1,030 m (3,000 and 3,380 ft) in elevation. This distribution encompasses the entire known historic range of the species (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

The habitat of

Gahnia lanaiensis

is lowland wet forest (shrubby rainforest to open scrubby fog belt or degraded lowland mesic forest), wet

Diplopterygium pinnatum-Dicranopteris linearis-Metrosideros polymorpha

shrubland, or wet

M. polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis

shrubland at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft). It occurs on flat to gentle ridgecrest topography in moist to wet clay or other soil substrate in open areas or in moderate shade. Associated species include native mat ferns,

Coprosma

sp. (pilo),

Doodia

sp. (okupukupu laulii),

Hedyotis terminalis

(manono),

Ilex anomala, Leptecophylla tameiameiae

(pukiawe),

Lycopodium

sp. (wawaeiole),

Sadleria

spp. (amau),

Scaevola

sp. (naupaka), or

Sphenomeris chinensis

(palaa) (Service 1995).

The primary threats to this species are the small number of plants and their restricted distribution, which increase the potential for extinction from naturally occurring events. In addition,

Gahnia lanaiensis

is threatened by habitat destruction resulting from the planned development of the island, and competition with

Leptospermum scoparium

(manuka), a weedy tree introduced from New Zealand, which is spreading along Lanaihale, but has not yet reached the area where

Gahnia

is found (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995).

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

(kopa)

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae), is a few-branched subshrub from 0.6 to 6 m (2 to 10 ft) long, with weakly erect or climbing stems that may be somewhat square, smooth, and glaucous (with a fine waxy coating that imparts a whitish or bluish hue to the stem). The species is distinguished from others in the genus by the distance between leaves and the length of the sprawling or climbing stems, and the variety

remyi

is distinguished from

H. schlechtendahliana

var.

schlechtendahliana

by the leaf shape, presence of narrow flowering stalks, and flower color (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown for

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

(Service 2001).

Historically,

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

was known from five locations on the northwestern portion of Lanaihale. Currently, this species is known from eight individuals in two occurrences on privately owned land on Kaiholeha-Hulupoe Ridge, Kapohaku drainage, and Waiapaa drainage on Lanaihale (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

typically grows on or near ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland

with a mixture of dominant plant species that may include

Metrosideros polymorpha, Dicranopteris linearis,

or

Leptecophylla tameiameiae

at elevations between 558 and 1,032 m (1,830 and 3,385 ft). Associated plant species include

Dodonaea viscosa, Dubautia

spp.,

Myrsine

sp. (kolea),

Sadleria

spp., or

Sphenomeris chinensis

(HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).

The primary threats to

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

are habitat degradation and destruction by axis deer; competition with nonnative plant species, such as

Leptospermum scoparium, Myrica faya

(firetree),

Psidium cattleianum

(strawberry guava), or

Schinus terebinthifolius

(Christmasberry); and random environmental events or reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of remaining individuals and occurrences (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

(kamakahala)

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis,

a short-lived perennial in the logan family (Loganiaceae), is an erect shrub or small tree 1.2 to 15 m (4 to 49 ft) tall. The stems branch regularly into two forks of nearly equal size. This subspecies differs from the other species in this endemic Hawaiian genus by having larger capsules (a dry, generally many seeded fruit) and smaller corollas (petals, whorl of flower parts) (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 2001).

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

was historically known from the entire length of the summit ridge of Lanaihale. Currently,

L. tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

is known from only one occurrence on privately owned land at the southeastern end of the summit ridge of Lanaihale. This occurrence totals 3 to 8 scattered individuals (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001).

The typical habitat of

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

is gulch slopes in lowland mesic forest. Associated native species include

Alyxia oliviformis

(maile),

Bobea elatior

(ahakea launui),

Clermontia

spp.,

Coprosma

spp.,

Cyrtandra grayana

(haiwale),

Dicranopteris linearis, Diospyros sandwicensis, Diplopterygium pinnatum, Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis acuminata

(au),

Melicope

spp.,

Myrsine lessertiana

(kolea),

Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum

(hoawa),

Pleomele fernaldii

(hala pepe),

Pouteria sandwicensis

(alaa),

Psychotria

spp.,

Sadleria cyatheoides

(amau),

Scaevola chamissoniana,

or

Xylosma hawaiiense

(maua) at elevations between 550 and 1,013 m (1,804 and 3,323 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

is threatened by axis deer and several nonnative plant species. The species is also threatened by random environmental factors or reduced reproductive vigor because of the small population (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

(NCN)

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

is a robust, erect to decumbent (reclining, with the end ascending), glabrous, short-lived perennial herb in the mint family (Lamiaceae). Its leaves are thin and narrow, often red-tinged or with red veins, and toothed at the edges. The flowers are white, occasionally tinged with purple, and are variable in size, about 1 to 2.5 centimeters (cm) (0.4 to 1.0 in) long. This variety is very similar to

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

glabra;

it may be difficult to differentiate between the two species without flowers (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

is known from only two collections from Lanai (one near Kaiholena) and was last collected in 1914 (two fertile specimens). A report of this plant from the early 1980s probably was erroneous and should be referred to as

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

glabra

(Robert Hobdy, Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), pers. comm., 1992; Service 1995).

Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant species associated with

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

on the island of Lanai (Service 1995).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

on the island of Lanai (Service 1995).

Viola lanaiensis

(NCN)

Viola lanaiensis,

a short-lived perennial of the violet family (Violaceae), is a small, erect, unbranched or little-branched subshrub. The leaves, which are clustered toward the upper part of the stem, are lance-shaped with a pair of narrow, membranous stipules (leaf-like appendages arising from the base of a leaf) below each leaf axis. The flowers are small and white with purple-tinged or purple veins, and occur singly or up to four per upper leaf axil. The fruit is a capsule, about 1.0 to 1.3 cm (0.4 to 0.5 in) long. It is the only member of the genus on Lanai (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Viola lanaiensis

. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).

Viola lanaiensis

was known historically from scattered sites on the summit, ridges, and upper slopes of Lanaihale (from near the head of Kaiolena and Hookio Gulches to the vicinity of Haalelepaakai, a distance of about 4 km (2.5 mi)), at elevations of approximately 850 to 975 m (2,790 to 3,200 ft). An occurrence of

V. lanaiensis

was known in the late 1970s along the summit road near the head of Waialala Gulch where an occurrence of approximately 20 individuals flourished. That occurrence has since disappeared due to habitat disturbance. Two occurrences are currently known from privately owned land on southern Lanai: In Kunoa Gulch, between Kunoa and Waialala Gulches; and in the upper end of the northernmost drainage of Awehi Gulch, in Hauola Gulch and along Hauola Trail. It is estimated that the occurrences total less than 80 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

The habitat of

Viola lanaiensis

is

Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis

lowland wet forest or lowland mesic shrubland. The species has been observed on moderate to steep slopes from lower gulches to ridgetops, at elevations between 639 and 1,032 m (2,096 and 3,385 ft), with a soil and decomposed rock substrate in open to shaded areas. It was once observed growing from crevices in drier soil on a mostly open rock area near a recent landslide. Associated vegetation includes ferns and short windswept shrubs or other diverse mesic community members, such as

Antidesma

spp. (hame),

Carex

sp. (NCN),

Coprosma

spp.,

Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis centranthoides

(NCN),

Hedyotis terminalis, Ilex anomala, Leptecophylla tameiameiae, Myrsine

spp.,

Nestegis sandwicensis

(olopua),

Psychotria

spp.,

Scaevola chamissoniana,

or

Xylosma

sp. (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

The main threats to

Viola lanaiensis

include browsing and habitat disturbance by axis deer; encroaching

nonnative plant species, such as

Leptospermum

sp. (NCN); depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool; the probable loss of appropriate pollinators; and predation by slugs (

Midax gigetes

) (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Multi-Island Species

Adenophorus periens

(pendent kihi fern)

Adenophorus periens,

a member of the grammitis family (Grammitidaceae), is a small, pendant, epiphytic (not rooted on the ground), and short-lived perennial fern. This species differs from other species in this endemic Hawaiian genus by having hairs along the pinna (leaflet) margins, pinnae at right angles to the midrib axis, placement of the sori on the pinnae, and by the degree of dissection of each pinna (Linney 1989).

Little is known about the life history of

Adenophorus periens,

which seems to grow only in closed canopy dense forest with high humidity. Its breeding system is unknown, but outbreeding is very likely to be the predominant mode of reproduction. Spores (minute, reproductive dispersal unit of ferns and fern allies) may be dispersed by wind, water, or perhaps on the feet of birds or insects.

Adenophorus periens

spores lack a thick resistant coat, which may indicate their longevity is brief, probably measured in days at most. Additional information on reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors is not known (Linney 1989; Service 1999).

Historically,

Adenophorus periens

was known from Kauai, Oahu, and the island of Hawaii, with undocumented reports from Lanai and Maui. Currently, it is known from several locations on Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii. On Lanai, it was last seen in the 1860s (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

This epiphytic species, usually growing on

Metrosideros polymorpha

trunks, is found in riparian banks of stream systems in well-developed, closed canopy that provides deep shade or high humidity in

M. polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium pinnatum

wet forests, open

M. polymorpha

montane wet forest, or

M. polymorpha-D. linearis

lowland wet forest at elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and 3,385 ft). Associated native plant species include

Broussaisia arguta, Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia

spp.,

Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis terminalis, Machaerina angustifolia

(uki),

Melicope

spp.,

Psychotria

spp.,

Sadleria

spp., or

Syzygium sandwicensis

(ohia ha) (Linney 1989; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; Kenneth Wood, National Tropical Botanical Garden, pers. comm., 2001).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Adenophorus periens

on the island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in the 1860s.

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

(kookoolau)

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha,

a short-lived member of the aster family (Asteraceae), is an erect perennial herb. This subspecies can be distinguished from other subspecies by the shape of the seeds, the density of the flower clusters, the numbers of ray and disk florets per head, differences in leaf surfaces, and other characteristics (Ganders and Nagata 1999; 57 FR 20772).

Bidens micrantha

is known to hybridize with other native

Bidens,

such as

B. mauiensis

and

B. menziesii,

and possibly

B. conjuncta

. Little else is known about the life history of

B. micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, and specific environmental requirements are unknown (Ganders and Nagata 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Historically,

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

was known from Lanai and Maui. Currently, this species remains on East Maui and there is one Lanai occurrence in the Waiapaa Gulch area on privately owned land (Ganders and Nagata 1999; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2002).

The habitat of

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

is gulch slopes in dry

Dodonaea viscosa

shrubland at elevations between 409 and 771 m (1,342 and 2,529 ft) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

The threats to this species on Lanai include habitat destruction by axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition from a variety of nonnative plant species; depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool; and fire (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Bonamia menziesii

(NCN)

Bonamia menziesii,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the morning-glory family (Convolvulaceae), is a vine with twining branches that are fuzzy when young. This species is the only member of the genus that is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and differs from other genera in the family by its two styles (narrowed top of ovary), longer stems and petioles (a stalk that supports a leaf), and rounder leaves (Austin 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Bonamia menziesii.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Bonamia menziesii

was known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, West Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, this species is known from Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Lanai. On Lanai, the three occurrences, containing a total of 14 individual plants, are found on privately owned land in the Ahakea and Kanepuu Units of Kanepuu Preserve, and on Puhielelu Ridge (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

Bonamia menziesii

is found in dry

Nestegis sandwicensis-Diospyros sandwicensis

forest and dry

Dodonaea viscosa

shrubland at elevations between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft). Associated species include

Bobea

sp. (ahakea),

Dianella sandwicensis

(uki uki),

Diospyros sandwicensis, Erythrina sandwicensis, Hedyotis terminalis, Melicope

sp.,

Metrosideros polymorpha, Myoporum sandwicense

(naio),

Nesoluma polynesicum, Nestegis sandwicensis

(olopua),

Pisonia

sp. (papala kepau),

Pittosporum

sp. (hoawa),

Pouteria sandwicensis, Psydrax odorata,

or

Rauvolfia sandwicensis

(HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).

The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation and possible predation by mouflon sheep and axis deer; depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool; competition with a variety of nonnative plant species, such as

Lantana camara, Leucaena leucocephala

or

Schinus terebinthifolius

; and a nonnative beetle (

Physomerus grossipes

) (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Brighamia rockii

(pua ala)

Brighamia rockii,

a long-lived perennial member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), grows as an unbranched stem-succulent with a thickened stem that tapers from the base. This species is a member of a unique endemic Hawaiian genus with only one other species, found on Kauai, from which it differs by the color of its petals, its longer calyx (fused sepals) lobes, and its shorter flower stalks (Lammers 1999).

Observations of

Brighamia rockii

have provided the following information: The reproductive system is protandrous, meaning male flower parts are produced before female parts, in this case, separated by several days; only five

percent of the flowers produce pollen; very few fruits are produced per inflorescence; there are 20 to 60 seeds per capsule; and plants in cultivation have been known to flower at nine months of age. This species was observed in flower during August. Little else is known about the life history of

Brighamia rockii.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).

Historically,

Brighamia rockii

ranged along the northern coast of East Molokai from Kalaupapa to Halawa, may possibly have grown on Maui, and was last seen on Lanai in 1911. Currently, it is extant only on Molokai (HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; K. Wood,

in litt.

2000).

On Lanai,

Brighamia rockii

occurred on sparsely vegetated ledges of steep, rocky, dry cliffs, at elevations between 119 and 756 m (390 and 2,480 ft) with native grasses, sedges, herbs and shrubs (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

Threats to

Brighamia rockii

on the island of Lanai included habitat destruction from axis deer and mouflon sheep, competition with nonnative plants, and depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool (Service 1996b).

Cenchrus agrimonioides

(kamanomano (= sandbur, agrimony))

Cenchrus agrimonioides

is a short-lived perennial member of the grass family (Poaceae) with leaf blades that are flat or folded and have a prominent midrib. There are two varieties,

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

laysanensis

and

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

agrimonioides.

They differ from each other in that var.

agrimonioides

has smaller burs, shorter stems, and narrower leaves. This species is distinguished from others in the genus by the cylindrical to lance-shaped bur and the arrangement and position of the bristles (O'Connor 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Cenchrus agrimonioides.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown. This species has been observed to produce fruit year-round (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

Historically,

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

agrimonioides

was known from Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and an undocumented report from the Island of Hawaii. Historically,

C. agrimonioides

var.

laysanensis

was known from Laysan, Kure, and Midway, all within what is now the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. This variety was never known from the island of Lanai. Currently,

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

agrimonioides

is known from Oahu and Maui. On Lanai it was last seen in 1915 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

agrimonioides

was found on slopes in mesic

Metrosideros polymorpha

forest or shrubland at elevations between 583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).

The major threats to

Cenchrus agrimonioides

var.

agrimonioides

on Lanai included competition with nonnative plant species; browsing and habitat degradation by axis deer, mouflon sheep, and cattle (

Bos taurus

); and depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

Centaurium sebaeoides

(awiwi)

Centaurium sebaeoides,

a member of the gentian family (Gentianaceae), is an annual herb with fleshy leaves and stalkless flowers. This species is distinguished from

Centaurium erythraea,

which is naturalized in Hawaii, by its fleshy leaves and the unbranched arrangement of the flower cluster (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Centaurium sebaeoides

has been observed flowering in April. Flowering may be induced by heavy rainfall. Occurrences are found in dry areas, and plants are more likely to be found following heavy rains. Little else is known about the life history of

Centaurium sebaeoides.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Centaurium sebaeoides

was historically and is currently known from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. On Lanai, there is one occurrence containing between 20 and 30 individual plants in Maunalei Valley on privately owned land (HINHP Database 2000).

This species is found on dry ledges at elevations between 39 and 331 m (128 and 1,086 ft). Associated species include

Hibiscus brackenridgei

(HINHP Database 2000).

The major threats to this species on Lanai are competition from nonnative plant species, grazing and habitat destruction caused by axis deer and mouflon sheep, depressed reproductive vigor, and natural or human-caused environmental disturbance that could easily be catastrophic to the only known population due to the small number of remaining individuals and the limited and scattered distribution of the species (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; R. Hobdy in

litt.

2002).

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

(oha wai)

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub or tree with oblong to lance-shaped leaves with petioles.

Clermontia oblongifolia

is distinguished from other members of the genus by its calyx and corolla, which are similar in color and are each fused into a curved tube that falls off as the flower ages.

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

is reported from Maui and Lanai, while the other two subspecies of this species are only known from Oahu and Molokai (Lammers 1988, 1999; 57 FR 20772).

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

is known to flower from November to July. Little else is known about the life history of

C. oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Rock 1919; Service 1997).

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

was historically and is currently known from Lanai and Maui. On Lanai, an unknown number of individuals has been reported from Kaiholena Gulch on privately owned land (HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999; 57 FR 20772).

This plant typically grows in gulch bottoms in mesic forests at elevations between 700 and 1,032 m (2,296 and 3,385 ft) (HINHP Database 2000).

The threats to this species on Lanai are its vulnerability to extinction from a single natural or human-caused environmental disturbance; depressed reproductive vigor; and habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Ctenitis squamigera

(pauoa)

Ctenitis squamigera

is a short-lived perennial fern and a member of the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae). It has a rhizome (horizontal stem), creeping above the ground and densely covered with scales similar to those on the lower part of the leaf stalk. It can be readily distinguished from other Hawaiian species of

Ctenitis

by the dense covering

of tan-colored scales on its frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).

Little is known about the life history of

Ctenitis squamigera.

Its reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998a).

Historically,

Ctenitis squamigera

was recorded from Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is found on Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Lanai. On Lanai, there are two occurrences totaling 42 individual plants on privately owned land in the Waiapaa-Kapohaku area on the leeward (southwestern) side of the island, and in the Lopa and Waiopa Gulches on the windward (northeastern) side (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).

This species is found in the forest understory at elevations between 640 and 944 m (2,099 and 3,096 ft) in diverse mesic forest and scrubby mixed mesic forest. Associated native plant species include

Alyxia oliviformis, Antidesma

spp.,

Blechnum occidentale

(NCN),

Boehmeria grandis

(akolea),

Carex meyenii

(NCN),

Coprosma

spp.,

Cyrtandra

spp.,

Doodia

spp.,

Freycinetia arborea, Melicope

spp.,

Metrosideros polymorpha, Microlepia

sp. (NCN),

Myrsine

spp.,

Nephrolepis

sp. (kupukupu),

Nestegis sandwicensis, Peperomia

sp. (ala ala wai nui),

Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum

spp.,

Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, Psychotria

spp.,

Sadleria

spp.,

Selaginella

sp. (lepelepe a moa),

Syzygium sandwicensis, Wikstroemia

spp., or

Xylosma

sp. (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).

The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition with nonnative plant species, especially

Psidium cattleianum

and

Schinus terebinthifolius;

fire; decreased reproductive vigor; and extinction from naturally occurring events due to the small number of existing populations and individuals (Culliney 1988; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025).

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana

(haha)

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub with pinnately divided leaves. This species is distinguished from others in this endemic Hawaiian genus by the pinnately lobed leaf margins and the width of the leaf blades. This subspecies is distinguished from the other two subspecies by the shape and size of the calyx lobes, which overlap at the base (Lammers 1999).

On Molokai, flowering plants have been reported in July and August. Little else is known about the life history of

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana

was historically and is currently known from Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently on Lanai there are two occurrences with at least three individuals on privately owned land in Kaiholena Gulch and Waiakeakua Gulch (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108;).

This species is typically found in mesic forest, often dominated by

Metrosideros polymorpha

or

Metrosideros polymorpha

and

Acacia koa

(koa), or on rocky or steep slopes of streambanks, at elevations between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft). Associated native species include

Antidesma

spp.,

Bobea

spp.,

Myrsine

spp.,

Nestegis sandwicensis, Psychotria

spp., or

Xylosma

sp. (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).

The threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation and/or destruction caused by axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition with various nonnative plants; random naturally occurring events causing extinction due to the small number of existing individuals; fire; landslides; and predation by rats (

Rattus rattus

) and various species of slugs (Service 1999; 59 FR 53108).

Cyanea lobata

(haha)

Cyanea lobata,

a short-lived member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a sparingly branched perennial shrub with smooth to somewhat rough stems and oblong, irregularly lobed leaves. This species is distinguished from other species of

Cyanea

by the size of the flower and the irregularly lobed leaves with petioles (Lammers 1990).

Cyanea lobata

is known to flower from August to February, even in individuals as small as 50 cm (20 in) in height. Little else is known about the life history of

Cyanea lobata.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Degener 1936; Rock 1919; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Historically,

Cyanea lobata

was known from Lanai and West Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1934 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

This species occurs in gulches in mesic to wet forest and shrubland at elevations between 664 and 1,032 m (2,178 and 3,385 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:

Antidesma

spp.,

Athyrium

spp. (akolea);

Cyrtandra

spp.,

Freycinetia arborea, Metrosideros polymorpha, Morinda trimera

(noni kuahiwi),

Peperomia

spp.,

Pipturus albidus, Pleomele fernaldii

(halapepe),

Psychotria

spp.,

Touchardia latifolia

(olona), or

Xylosma

spp. (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; and R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).

The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Cyperus trachysanthos

(puukaa)

Cyperus trachysanthos,

a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a short-lived perennial grass-like plant with a short rhizome. The stems are densely tufted, obtusely triangular in cross-section, tall, sticky, and leafy at the base. This species is distinguished from others in the genus by the short rhizome, the leaf sheath with partitions at the nodes, the shape of the glumes (floral bracts), and the length of the stems (Koyama 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Cyperus trachysanthos.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Cyperus trachysanthos

was known on Niihau and Kauai, and from scattered locations on Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai. Currently it is found on Kauai, Niihau and Oahu. It was last observed on Lanai in 1919 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

Cyperus trachysanthos

is usually found in seasonally wet sites (mud flats, wet clay soil, or wet cliff seeps) on seepy flats or talus slopes in

Heteropogon contortus

(pili) grassland at elevations between 0 and 46 m (0 and 151 ft).

Hibiscus tiliaceus

(hau) is often found in association with this species (Koyama 1999; 61 FR 53108; J. Lau and K. Wood, pers. comms., 2001).

On Lanai, the threats to this species included the loss of wetlands and habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy in litt. 2002).

Cyrtandra munroi

(haiwale)

Cyrtandra munroi

is a short-lived perennial and a member of the African

violet family (Gesneriaceae). It is a shrub with opposite, elliptic to almost circular leaves that are sparsely to moderately hairy on the upper surface and covered with velvety, rust-colored hairs underneath. This species is distinguished from other species of the genus by the broad opposite leaves, the length of the flower cluster stalks, the size of the flowers, and the amount of hair on various parts of the plant (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

The reproductive biology of some species of

Cyrtandra

has been studied, but not

C. munroi

specifically. The studies of other members of the genus suggest that a specific pollinator may be necessary for successful pollination. Seed dispersal may be via birds, which eat the fruits. Flowering time, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).

Cyrtandra munroi

was historically and is currently known from Lanai and Maui. Currently on Lanai there are a total of two occurrences containing 17 individuals on privately owned land in the Kapohaku-Waiapaa area, and in the gulch between Kunoa and Waialala gulches (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

The habitat of this species is diverse mesic forest, wet

Metrosideros polymorpha

forest, and mixed mesic

M. polymorpha

forest, typically on rich, moderately steep gulch slopes at elevations between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft). It occurs on soil and rock substrates on slopes from watercourses in gulch bottoms and up the sides of gulch slopes to near ridgetops. Associated native species include

Alyxia oliviformis, Bobea elatior, Clermontia

spp.,

Coprosma

spp.,

Cyrtandra grayana, Dicranopteris linearis, Diospyros sandwicensis, Diplopterygium pinnatum, Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis acuminata

(au),

Melicope spp., Myrsine lessertiana, Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele fernaldii, Pouteria sandwicensis, Psychotria

spp.,

Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana,

or

Xylosma hawaiiense

(HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995).

The threats to this species on Lanai are browsing and habitat disturbance by axis deer; competition with the nonnative plant species

Leptospermum scoparium, Melinis minutiflora

(molasses grass),

Myrica faya, Paspalum conjugatum

(Hilo grass),

Pluchea carolinensis, Psidium cattleianum,

or

Rubus rosifolius

(thimbleberry); depressed reproductive vigor; and loss of appropriate pollinators (Service 1995; 57 FR 20772).

Diellia erecta

(NCN)

Diellia erecta,

a short-lived perennial fern in the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), grows in tufts of three to nine lance-shaped fronds emerging from a rhizome covered with brown to dark gray scales. This species differs from other members of the genus in having large brown or dark gray scales, fused or separate sori along both margins, shiny black midribs that have a hardened surface, and veins that do not usually encircle the sori (Degener and Greenwell 1950; Wagner 1952).

Little is known about the life history of

Diellia erecta.

Its reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Diellia erecta

was known on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is known from Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii and was recently rediscovered on Kauai. On Lanai it was last seen in 1929 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).

This species is found in brown granular soil with leaf litter and occasional terrestrial moss on north-facing slopes in deep shade and on steep slopes or gulch bottoms in

Pisonia

spp. forest at elevations between 651 and 955 m (2,135 and 3,132 ft). Associated native plant species include native grasses or ferns (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; J. Lau and K. Wood, pers. comms., 2001).

The major threats to

Diellia erecta

on Lanai included habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition with nonnative plant species (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Diplazium molokaiense

(NCN)

Diplazium molokaiense,

a short-lived perennial fern and a member of the spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), has a short prostrate rhizome and green or straw-colored leaf stalks with thin-textured fronds. This species can be distinguished from other species of

Diplazium

in the Hawaiian Islands by a combination of characteristics, including venation pattern, the length and arrangement of the sori, frond shape, and the degree of dissection of the frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).

Little is known about the life history of

Diplazium molokaiense.

Its reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998a).

Historically,

Diplazium molokaiense

was found on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently, this species is known only from Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1914 (HINHP Database 2000).

This species occurs in shady, damp places in wet forests at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998a; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

The primary threats to

Diplazium molokaiense

on Lanai included habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition with nonnative plant species (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998a; 59 FR 49025).

Hedyotis mannii

(pilo)

Hedyotis mannii

is a short-lived perennial and a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae). It has smooth, usually erect stems 30 to 60 cm (1 to 2 ft) long, which are woody at the base and four-angled or -winged. It is distinguished from other species by its growth habit, its quadrangular or winged stems, the shape, size, and texture of its leaves, and its dry capsule, which opens when mature (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of this plant. Reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996b).

Hedyotis mannii

was once widely scattered on Lanai, West Maui, and Molokai. After a hiatus of 50 years, this species was rediscovered in 1987 by Steve Perlman on Molokai. In addition, an occurrence was discovered on Maui and two occurrences, now numbering between 35 and 40 individual plants, were discovered on Lanai in 1991 on privately owned land in Maunalei and Hauola gulches (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b).

Hedyotis mannii

typically grows on dark, narrow, rocky gulch walls and on steep streambanks in wet forests between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332 and 3,385 ft) in elevation. Associated plant species include

Carex meyenii, Dryopteris sandwicensis, Freycinetia arborea, Sadleria

spp., or

Scaevola chamissoniana

(HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

The primary threats to

Hedyotis mannii

are the limited number of individuals which makes it extremely vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events; habitat degradation caused by axis deer and mouflon sheep; and nonnative plants, such as

Melinis minutiflora, Psidium cattleianum,

and

Rubus rosifolius

(57 FR 46325).

Hesperomannia arborescens

(NCN)

Hesperomannia arborescens,

a long-lived perennial of the aster family (Asteraceae), is a small shrubby tree that usually stands 1.5 to 5 m (5 to 16 ft) tall. This member of an endemic Hawaiian genus differs from other

Hesperomannia

species in having the following combination of characteristics: Erect to ascending flower heads, thick flower head stalks, and usually hairless and relatively narrow leaves (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

This species has been observed in flower from April through June and in fruit during March and June. Little else is known about the life history of

Hesperomannia arborescens.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482).

Hesperomannia arborescens

was formerly known from Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai. This species is now known from Oahu, Molokai, and Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1940 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482).

Hesperomannia arborescens

is found on slopes or ridges in lowland mesic or wet forest at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:

Antidesma

spp.,

Bobea

spp.,

Cheirodendron

spp. (olapa),

Cibotium

spp. (hapuu),

Clermontia

spp.,

Coprosma

spp.,

Dicranopteris linearis,

Freycinetia arborea, Isachne distichophylla

(ohe),

Machaerina

spp. (uki),

Melicope

spp.,

Metrosideros polymorpha, Myrsine sandwicensis

(kolea),

Pipturus albidus, Psychotria

spp.,

Sadleria

spp. (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).

The major threats to

Hesperomannia arborescens

on Lanai included habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition with nonnative plant species (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482).

Hibiscus brackenridgei

(mao hau hele)

Hibiscus brackenridgei,

a short-lived perennial and a member of the mallow family (Malvaceae), is a sprawling to erect shrub or small tree. This species differs from other members of the genus in having the following combination of characteristics: Yellow petals, a calyx consisting of triangular lobes with raised veins and a single midrib, bracts attached below the calyx, and thin stipules (leaf bracts) that fall off, leaving an elliptical scar.

Two subspecies are currently recognized,

Hibiscus brackenridgei

ssp.

brackenridgei

and

H. brackenridgei

ssp.

mokuleianus

(Bates 1999).

Hibiscus brackenridgei

is known to flower continuously from early February through late May, and intermittently at other times of year. Intermittent flowering may possibly be related to day length. Little else is known about the life history of this plant. Pollination biology, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Hibiscus brackenridgei

was known from the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and the island of Hawaii.

Hibiscus brackenridgei

was collected from an undocumented site on Kahoolawe, though the subspecies has never been determined. Currently,

H. brackenridgei

ssp.

mokuleianus

is only known from Oahu.

Hibiscus brackenridgei

ssp.

brackenridgei

is currently known from Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. On Lanai, there are two occurrences containing an unknown number of individuals on privately owned land; one occurrence is known from Keamuku Road, one from a fenced area on the dry plains of Kaena Point. Outplanted individuals that were initially planted in Kanepuu Preserve now appear to be reproducing naturally (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; Wesley Wong, Jr.,

in litt.

1998).

Hibiscus brackenridgei

ssp.

brackenridgei

occurs in lowland dry to mesic forest and shrubland between 0 and 645 m (0 and 2,116 ft) in elevation. Associated plant species include

Dodonaea viscosa, Isachne distichophylla, Psydrax odorata,

or

Sida fallax

(HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).

The primary threats to

Hibiscus brackenridgei

ssp.

brackenridgei

on Lanai are habitat degradation; possible predation by axis deer, mouflon sheep, and rats; competition with nonnative plant species; fire; and susceptibility to extinction caused by naturally occurring events or reduced reproductive vigor (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy

in litt.

2002).

Isodendrion pyrifolium

(wahine noho kula)

Isodendrion pyrifolium,

a short-lived perennial of the violet family (Violaceae), is a small, branched shrub with elliptic to lance-shaped leaf blades. The papery-textured blade has moderately hairy veins. Below the petiole are oval, hairy stipules. The fruit is a three-lobed, oval capsule.

Isodendrion pyrifolium

is distinguished from other species in the genus by its smaller, green-yellow flowers, and hairy stipules and leaf veins (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

During periods of drought, this species will drop all but the newest leaves. After sufficient rains, the plants produce flowers with seeds ripening one to two months later. Little else is known about the life history of

Isodendrion pyrifolium.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Isodendrion pyrifolium

was historically found on six of the Hawaiian Islands: Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently it is found only on the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1870 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

On Lanai,

Isodendrion pyrifolium

occurred in dry shrubland at elevations between 132 and 574 m (433 and 1,883 ft) with one or more of the following associated native plant species:

Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta

or

Melanthera

spp. (nehe), or

Wikstroemia oahuensis

(akia) (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; J. Lau and R. Hobdy, pers. comms., 2001).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Isodendrion pyrifolium

on the island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in 1870.

Mariscus fauriei

(NCN)

Mariscus fauriei,

a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a short-lived perennial plant with somewhat enlarged underground stems and three-angled, single or grouped aerial stems 10 to 50 cm (4 to 20 in) tall. This species differs from others in the genus in Hawaii by its smaller size and its more narrow, flattened, and more spreading spikelets (flower clusters) (Koyama 1990; 59 FR 10305).

Little is known about the life history of

Mariscus fauriei.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (USFWS 1996a).

Historically,

Mariscus fauriei

was found on Molokai, Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. It currently occurs on Molokai and the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1929 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).

Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant species

associated with

Mariscus fauriei

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996a).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Mariscus fauriei

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996a).

Melicope munroi

(alani)

Melicope munroi,

a long-lived perennial of the rue (citrus) family (Rutaceae), is a sprawling shrub up to 3 m (10 ft) tall. The new growth of this species has minute hairs. This species differs from other Hawaiian members of the genus in the shape of the leaf and the length of the inflorescence (flower cluster) stalk (Stone

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Melicope munroi.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 2001).

Historically, this species was known from the Lanaihale summit ridge of Lanai and above Kamalo on Molokai. Currently,

Melicope munroi

is known only from the Lanaihale summit ridge on Lanai. There are two occurrences totaling an estimated 35 individual plants on privately owned land on the Lanaihale summit, head of Hauola gulch, Waialala gulch, and the ridge of Waialala gulch (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).

Melicope munroi

is typically found on slopes in lowland wet shrublands, at elevations of 701 and 1,032 m (2,299 and 3,385 ft). Associated native plant species include

Broussaisia arguta, Cheirodendron trigynum, Coprosma

spp.,

Dicranopteris linearis, Diplopterygium pinnatum, Machaerina angustifolia,

other

Melicope

spp., or

Metrosideros polymorpha

(HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001).

The major threats to

Melicope munroi

on Lanai are trampling, browsing, and habitat degradation by axis deer and competition with the nonnative plant species

Leptospermum scoparium

and

Psidium cattleianum.

In addition, the limited number of individuals in the two remaining occurrences makes it extremely vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events (HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).

Neraudia sericea

(NCN)

Neraudia sericea,

a short-lived perennial member of the nettle family (Urticaceae), is a 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) tall shrub with densely hairy branches. The lower leaf surface is densely covered with irregularly curved, silky gray to white hairs along the veins.

Neraudia sericea

differs from the other four species of this endemic Hawaiian genus by the density, length, color, and posture of the hairs on the lower leaf surface and by its mostly entire leaf margins (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Neraudia sericea.

Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Neraudia sericea

was historically found on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe. Currently, this species is extant on Molokai and Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1913 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Neraudia sericea

generally occurs in gulch slopes or gulch bottoms in dry-mesic or mesic forest at elevations between 693 and 869 m (2,273 and 2,850 ft). Associated native species include

Diospyros sandwicensis, Dodonaea viscosa, Metrosideros polymorpha,

or

Nestegis sandwicensis

(HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

The primary threats to

Neraudia sericea

on Lanai included habitat degradation by pigs (

Sus scrofa

), and goats (currently axis deer and mouflon sheep), and competition with nonnative plant species (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Portulaca sclerocarpa

(poe)

Portulaca sclerocarpa

of the purslane family (Portulacaceae) is a short-lived perennial herb with a tuberous taproot and has stems up to about 20 cm (8 in) long. The succulent, grayish-green leaves are almost circular in cross-section. The petals are white, pink, or pink with a white base. The hardened capsules open very late or not at all, and contain dark reddish-brown seeds. This species differs from other native and naturalized species of the genus in Hawaii by its woody taproot, its narrow leaves, and the colors of its petals and seeds. Its closest relative,

P. villosa,

differs mainly in its thinner-walled, opening capsule (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

This species has been observed in flower during March, June, and December. The presence of juveniles indicated that pollination and germination were occurring. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a).

Portulaca sclerocarpa

was historically and is currently found on the island of Hawaii, and on an islet (Poopoo Islet) off the south coast of the island of Lanai. The Lanai occurrence on privately owned land contains about 10 plants. Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop, 1 ha (2.4 ac) in area and approximately 200 m (600 ft) from the south shoreline, and is considered part of the island of Lanai (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996a).

This species grows on exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal communities at elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

The major threats to

Portulaca sclerocarpa

on Lanai are herbivory by the larvae of a nonnative sphinx moth (

Hyles lineata

); competition from nonnative plants; and fire (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; Frank Howarth, Bishop Museum,

in litt.

2000).

Sesbania tomentosa

(ohai)

Sesbania tomentosa,

a member of the pea family (Fabaceae), is typically a sprawling short-lived perennial shrub, but may also be a small tree. Each compound leaf consists of 18 to 38 oblong to elliptic leaflets, which are usually sparsely to densely covered with silky hairs. The flowers are a salmon color tinged with yellow, orange-red, scarlet or, rarely, pure yellow.

Sesbania tomentosa

is the only endemic Hawaiian species in the genus, differing from the naturalized

S. sesban

by the color of the flowers, the longer petals and calyx, and the number of seeds per pod (Geesink

et al.

, 1999).

The pollination biology of

Sesbania tomentosa

has been studied by David Hopper, University of Hawaii. His findings suggest that although many insects visit

Sesbania

flowers, the majority of successful pollination is accomplished by native bees of the genus

Hylaeus,

and that occurrences at Kaena Point on Oahu are probably pollinator-limited. Flowering at Kaena Point is highest during the winter-spring rains, and gradually declines throughout the rest of the year. Other aspects of this plant's life history are unknown (Service 1999).

Currently,

Sesbania tomentosa

occurs on six of the eight main Hawaiian Islands (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii) and on two islands in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Nihoa and Necker). Although once found on Niihau and Lanai, it is no longer extant on those islands. It was last seen on Lanai in 1957 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).

Sesbania tomentosa

is found on sandy beaches, dunes, or pond margins at elevations between 44 and 221 m (144 and 725 ft). It commonly occurs in coastal dry shrublands or mixed coastal

dry cliffs with the associated native plant species

Chamaesyce celastroides

(akoko),

Cuscuta sandwichiana

(kaunaoa),

Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon contortus, Myoporum sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis

(hinahina kahakai),

Scaevola sericea

(naupaka kahakai),

Sida fallax, Sporobolus virginicus

(akiaki),

Vitex rotundifolia

(kolokolo kahakai), or

Waltheria indica

(uhaloa) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).

The primary threats to

Sesbania tomentosa

on Lanai included habitat degradation caused by competition with various nonnative plant species; lack of adequate pollination; seed predation by rats, mice (

Mus musculus

) and, potentially, nonnative insects; and fire (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Silene lanceolata

(NCN)

Silene lanceolata,

a member of the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is an upright, short-lived perennial plant with stems 15 to 51 cm (6 to 20 in) long, which are woody at the base. The flowers are white with deeply lobed, clawed petals. This species is distinguished from

S. alexandri

by its smaller flowers and capsules and its stamens, which are shorter than the sepals (Wagner

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Silene lanceolata.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).

The historical range of

Silene lanceolata

includes five Hawaiian Islands: Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii.

Silene lanceolata

is presently extant on the islands of Molokai, Oahu, and Hawaii. It was last observed on Lanai in 1930 (GDSI 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).

Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant species associated with

Silene lanceolata

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996b).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Silene lanceolata

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996b).

Solanum incompletum

(popolo ku mai)

Solanum incompletum,

a short-lived perennial member of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), is a woody shrub. Its stems and lower leaf surfaces are covered with prominent reddish prickles or sometimes with yellow fuzzy hairs on young plant parts and lower leaf surfaces. This species differs from other native members of the genus by being generally prickly and having loosely clustered white flowers, curved anthers about 2 mm (0.08 in) long, and berries 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) in diameter (Symon 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Solanum incompletum.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Historically,

Solanum incompletum

was known on Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. According to David Symon (1999), the known distribution of

Solanum incompletum

also extended to the islands of Kauai and Molokai. Currently,

Solanum incompletum

is only known from the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1925 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).

On Lanai,

Solanum incompletum

occurred on broad, gently sloping ridges in dry,

Dodonaea viscosa

shrubland, at elevations between 151 and 372 m (495 and 1,220 ft) with one or more of the following associated native plant species:

Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta

or

Melanthera

spp., or

Wikstroemia oahuensis

(Service 1999; J. Lau, pers comm., 2001).

On Lanai, the threats to

Solanum incompletum

included habitat destruction by goats and pigs (more recently axis deer) and competition with various nonnative plants (Service 1999).

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

(NCN)

Spermolepis hawaiiensis,

a member of the parsley family (Apiaceae), is a slender annual herb with few branches. Its leaves are dissected into narrow, lance-shaped divisions.

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

is the only member of the genus native to Hawaii. It is distinguished from other native members of the family by being a non-succulent annual with an umbrella-shaped inflorescence (Constance and Affolter 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Spermolepis hawaiiensis.

Reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

was known from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Based on recent collections, it is now known to be extant on those four islands, Molokai, and Maui. On Lanai, this species is known from three occurrences of 570 to 620 individuals on privately owned land in the southern edge of Kapoho Gulch, Kamiki Ridge, and approximately 274 m (900 ft) downslope of Puu Manu (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2000).

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

is known from gulch slopes and ridge tops in dry forests dominated by

Diospyros sandwicensis

or shrublands dominated by

Dodonaea viscosa

at elevations between 402 and 711 m (1,319 and 2,332 ft). Associated native plant species include

Nesoluma polynesicum, Nestegis sandwicensis, Psydrax odorata,

or

Rauvolfia sandwicensis

(HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2000; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

The primary threats to

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

on Lanai are habitat degradation by axis deer, competition with various nonnative plants, such as

Lantana camara;

and erosion, landslides, and rockslides due to natural weathering, which result in the death of individual plants as well as habitat destruction (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2000).

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

(NCN)

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum,

a member of the aster family (Asteraceae), is an erect shrub 12 to 36 cm (4.7 to 14 in) tall, branching near the ends of the stems. The leaves are lance-shaped and wider at the leaf tip. This species can be distinguished from the other extant species on Oahu by its hermaphroditic disk flowers and its inflorescence of six to 12 heads (Lowrey 1999).

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

is a short-lived perennial that has been observed producing flowers and fruit from April through July. No further information is available on reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, or limiting factors (Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).

Historically,

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

was known from Oahu and Lanai. It currently occurs only on Oahu. It was last seen on Lanai in 1928 (Environmental Division of the Army Database 2001; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).

Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant species associated with

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

on the island of Lanai (Service 1998b).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

on the island of Lanai (Service 1998b).

Tetramolopium remyi

(NCN)

Tetramolopium remyi,

a short-lived perennial member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is a many branched, decumbent or occasionally erect shrub up to about 38 cm (15 in) tall. The

stems, leaves, flower bracts, and fruit are covered with sticky hairs.

Tetramolopium remyi

has the largest flower heads in the genus. Two other species of the genus are known historically from Lanai, but both have purplish rather than yellow disk florets and from four to 60 rather than one flower head per branch (Lowrey 1999).

Tetramolopium remyi

flowers between April and January. Field observations suggest that the population size of the species can be profoundly affected by variability in annual precipitation. The adult plants may succumb to prolonged drought, but apparently there is a seedbank in the soil that can replenish the population during favorable conditions. Such seed banks are of great importance for arid-dwelling plants to allow populations to persist through adverse conditions. Success in greenhouse cultivation of these plants with much higher water availability implies that, although these plants are drought-tolerant, perhaps the dry conditions in which they currently exist are not optimum. Individual plants are probably not long-lived. Pollination is hypothesized to be by butterflies, bees, or flies. Seed dispersal agents, environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Lowrey 1986; Service 1995).

Historically, the species was known from Maui and Lanai. Currently,

Tetramolopium remyi

is known only from one occurrence on Lanai on privately owned land near Awehi Road, with a total of approximately 150 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

Tetramolopium remyi

is found in red, sandy, loam soil in dry

Dodonaea viscosa-Heteropogon contortus

communities at elevations between 65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft). Commonly associated native species include

Bidens mauiensis

(kookoolau),

Melanthera lavarum

(nehe),

Waltheria indica,

or

Wikstroemia oahuensis

(HINHP Database 2000).

Browsing by axis deer and mouflon sheep and competition from nonnative species, primarily

Andropogon virginicus

(broomsedge) and

Panicum maximum

(guinea grass), are the main threats to the species on Lanai. Fire is also a potential threat (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Vigna o-wahuensis

(NCN)

Vigna o-wahuensis,

a member of the legume family (Fabaceae), is a slender, twining, short-lived perennial herb with fuzzy stems. Each leaf is made up of three leaflets, which vary in shape from round to linear. This species differs from others in the genus by its thin yellowish petals, sparsely hairy calyx, and thin pods, which may or may not be slightly inflated (Geesink

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Vigna o-wahuensis.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).

Historically,

Vigna o-wahuensis

was known from Niihau, Oahu, and Maui. Based on recent collections,

Vigna o-wahuensis

is now known to be extant on the islands of Molokai, Maui, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii. On Lanai, one occurrence with at least one individual is known from Kanepuu on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; J. Lau,

in litt.

2000).

On Lanai,

Vigna o-wahuensis

is found in

Nestegis sandwicensis

or

Diospyros sandwicensis

dry forest at elevations between 98 and 622 m (321 and 2,040 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).

Threats to

Vigna o-wahuensis

on Lanai include habitat degradation by mouflon sheep and axis deer; competition with various nonnative plant species; fire; and random naturally occurring events causing extinction and or reduced reproductive vigor of the only remaining individual on Lanai (Service 1999).

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

(ae)

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

is a medium-sized tree in the rue (citrus) family (Rutaceae) with pale to dark gray bark, and lemon-scented leaves, composed of three small leaflets. A long-lived perennial tree,

Z. hawaiiense

is distinguished from other Hawaiian members of the genus by several characteristics: Three leaflets all of similar size, one joint on the lateral leaf stalk, and sickle-shaped fruits with a rounded tip (Stone

et al.

, 1999).

Little is known about the life history of

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.

Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a).

Historically,

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

was known from five islands: Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently,

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

is found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1947 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).

Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant species associated with

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996a).

Nothing is known of the threats to

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

on the island of Lanai (Service 1996a).

A summary of occurrences and landownership for the 37 plant species reported from the island of Lanai is given in Table 2.

Table 2.—Summary of Existing Occurrences on Lanai, and Landownership for 37 Species Reported From Lanai

Species

Number of current

occurrences

Landownership

Federal

State

Private

Abutilon eremitopetalum

1

X

Adenophorus periens

0

Bidens micrantha

1

X

Bonamia menziesii

3

X

Brighamia rockii

0

Cenchrus agrimonioides

0

Centaurium sebaeoides

1

X

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

1

X

Ctenitis squamigera

2

X

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana

2

X

Cyanea lobata

0

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

2

X

Cyperus trachysanthos

0

Cyrtandra munroi

2

X

Diellia erecta

0

Diplazium molokaiense

0

Gahnia lanaiensis

1

X

Hedyotis mannii

2

X

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

2

X

Hesperomannia arborescens

0

Hibiscus brackenridgei

3

X

Isodendrion pyrifolium

0

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

1

X

Mariscus fauriei

0

Melicope munroi

2

X

Neraudia sericea

0

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

0

Portulaca sclerocarpa

1

X

Sesbania tomentosa

0

Silene lanceolata

0

Solanum incompletum

0

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

3

X

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

0

Tetramolopium remyi

1

X

Vigna o-wahuensis

1

X

Viola lanaiensis

2

X

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

0

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on these plants began as a result of section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. In that document,

Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cyanea lobata

(as

C. baldwinii

),

Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii

(as

H. thyrsoidea

var.

thyrsoidea

),

Hesperomannia arborescens

(as

H. arborescens

var.

bushiana

and var.

swezeyi

),

Hibiscus brackenridgei

(as

H

.

brackenridgei

var.

brackenridgei

, var.

mokuleianus

, and var. “from Hawaii”),

Neraudia sericea

(as

N

.

kahoolawensis

),

Portulaca sclerocarpa

,

Sesbania tomentosa

(as

S

.

hobdyi

and

S

.

tomentosa

var.

tomentosa

),

Silene lanceolata

,

Solanum incompletum

(as

S

.

haleakalense

and

S

.

incompletum

var.

glabratum

, var.

incompletum

, and var.

mauiensis

),

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

,

Vigna o-wahuensis

(as

V

.

sandwicensis

var.

heterophylla

and var.

sandwicensis

),

Viola lanaiensis

, and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

(as

Z

.

hawaiiense

var.

citiodora

) were considered endangered;

Cyrtandra munroi

,

Diellia erecta

,

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

, and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

(as

Z

.

hawaiiense

var.

hawaiiense

and var.

velutinosum

) were considered threatened; and

Abutilon eremitopetalum

,

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

(as

B

.

distans

and

B

.

micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

),

Ctenitis squamigera

,

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

,

Diplazium molokaiense

,

Isodendrion pyrifolium

,

Melicope munroi

(as

Pelea munroi

),

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

, and

Tetramolopium remyi

were considered to be extinct. On July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the

Federal Register

(40 FR 27823) of our acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and gave notice of our intention to review the status of the plant taxa named therein. As a result of that review, on June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register

(41 FR 24523) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act for approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including all of the above taxa except

Cyrtandra munroi

,

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

, and

Melicope munroi

. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975,

Federal Register

publication (40 FR 27823).

General comments received in response to the 1976 proposal were summarized in an April 26, 1978,

Federal Register

publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals already over 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice in the

Federal Register

(44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final, along with four other proposals that had expired. We published updated Notices of Review for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82479), September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39525), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6183), September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), and February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596). We listed the 37 species as endangered between 1991 and 1999. A summary of the listing actions can be found in Table 3(a).

Table 3(

a

).—Summary of Listing Actions for 37 Plant Species From Lanai

Species

Federal status

Proposed rule

Date

Federal

Register

Final rule

Date

Federal

Register

Proposed designation or non-designation of critical habitat

Date

Federal Register

Abutilon eremitopetalum

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Adenophorus periens

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

11/07/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 83158

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

E

05/24/91

56 FR 23842

05/15/92

57 FR 20772

12/18/00

65 FR 79192

Bonamia menziesii

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

11/7/00, 12/18/00, 12/27/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

67 FR 3940

Brighamia rockii

E

09/20/91

56 FR 47718

10/08/92

57 FR 46325

12/29/00

65 FR 83158

Cenchrus agrimonioides

E

10/02/95

60 FR 51417

10/10/96

61 FR 53108

12/18/00

65 FR 79192

Centaurium sebaeoides

E

09/28/90

55 FR 39664

10/29/91

56 FR 55770

11/07/00, 12/18/00, 12/27/00, 12/29/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

65 FR 83158,

67 FR 3940

Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis

E

05/24/91

56 FR 23842

05/15/92

57 FR 20772

12/18/00, 12/27/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086

Ctenitis squamigera

E

06/24/93

58 FR 34231

09/09/94

59 FR 49025

12/18/00, 12/27/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

65 FR 83158

Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana

E

10/02/95

60 FR 51417

10/10/96

61 FR 53108

12/18/00, 12/27/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

65 FR 83158

Cyanea lobata

E

05/24/91

56 FR 23842

05/15/92

57 FR 20772

12/18/00

65 FR 79192

Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Cyperus trachysanthos

E

10/02/95

60 FR 51417

10/10/96

61 FR 53108

11/07/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

67 FR 3940

Cyrtandra munroi

E

05/24/91

56 FR 23842

05/15/92

57 FR 20772

12/18/00, 12/27/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086

Diellia erecta

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

11/07/00, 12/18/00, 12/29/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158,

67 FR 3940

Diplazium molokaiense

E

06/24/93

58 FR 34231

09/09/94

59 FR 49025

12/18/00

65 FR 79192

Gahnia lanaiensis

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Hedyotis mannii

E

09/20/91

56 FR 47718

10/08/92

57 FR 46325

12/18/00, 12/27/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

65 FR 83158

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi

E

05/15/97

62 FR 26757

09/03/99

64 FR 48307

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Hesperomannia arborescens

E

10/14/92

57 FR 47028

03/28/94

59 FR 14482

12/18/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158

Hibiscus brackenridgei

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

12/18/00

65 FR 79192

Isodendrion pyrifolium

E

12/17/92

57 FR 59951

03/04/94

59 FR 10305

01/28/02

67 FR 3940

Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis

E

05/15/97

62 FR 26757

09/03/99

64 FR 48307

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Mariscus fauriei

E

12/17/92

57 FR 59951

03/04/94

59 FR 10305

12/29/00

65 FR 83158

Melicope munroi

E

05/15/97

62 FR 26757

09/03/99

64 FR 48307

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Neraudia sericea

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

12/18/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/29/00

65 FR 83158

Portulaca sclerocarpa

E

12/17/92

57 FR 59951

03/04/94

59 FR 10305

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Sesbania tomentosa

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

11/07/00, 12/18/00, 12/29/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158,

67 FR 3940

Silene lanceolata

E

09/20/91

56 FR 47718

10/08/92

57 FR 46325

12/29/00

65 FR 83158

Solanum incompletum

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

01/28/02

67 FR 3940

Spermolepis hawaiiensis

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

11/07/00, 12/18/00, 12/27/00, 12/29/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 82086,

65 FR 83158,

67 FR 3940

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

E

09/28/90

55 FR 39664

10/29/91

56 FR 55770

Tetramolopium remyi

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Vigna o-wahuensis

E

09/14/93

58 FR 48012

11/10/94

59 FR 56333

12/18/00, 12/29/00

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158

Viola lanaiensis

E

09/17/90

55 FR 38236

09/20/91

56 FR 47686

12/27/00

65 FR 82086

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

E

12/17/92

57 FR 59951

03/04/94

59 FR 10305

11/07/00, 12/18/00, 12/29/00, 01/28/02

65 FR 66808,

65 FR 79192,

65 FR 83158,

67 FR 3940

Key: E= Endangered.

At the time each plant was listed, we found that designation of critical habitat was prudent for three of these plants (

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis,

and

Melicope munroi

) and not prudent for the other 34 plants because it would not benefit the plant or would increase the degree of threat to the species. The not prudent findings for these species, along with others, were challenged in

Conservation Council for Hawaii

v.

Babbitt,

2F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998). On March 9, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii directed us to review the prudency findings for 245 listed plant species in Hawaii, including 34 of the 37 species reported from Lanai. Among other things, the court held that in most cases we did not sufficiently demonstrate that the species are threatened by human activity or that such threats would increase with the designation of critical habitat. The court also held that we failed to balance any risks of designating critical habitat against any benefits (

id.

at 1283-85).

Regarding our determination that designating critical habitat would have no additional benefits to the species above and beyond those already provided through the section 7 consultation requirement of the Act, the court ruled that we failed to consider the specific effect of the consultation requirement on each species (

id.

at 1286-88). In addition, the court stated that we did not consider benefits outside of the consultation requirements. In the court's view, these potential benefits include substantive and procedural protections. The court held that, substantively, designation establishes a “uniform protection plan” prior to consultation and indicates where compliance with section 7 of the Act is required. Procedurally, the court stated that the designation of critical habitat educates the public, State, and local governments and affords them an opportunity to participate in the designation (

id.

at 1288). The court also stated that private lands may not be excluded from critical habitat designation even though section 7 requirements apply only to Federal agencies. In addition to the potential benefit of informing the public, State, and local governments of the listing and of the areas that are essential to the species' conservation, the court found that there may be Federal activity on private property in the future, even though no such activity may be occurring there at the present (

id.

at 1285-88).

On August 10, 1998, the court ordered us to publish proposed critical habitat designations or non-designations for at least 100 species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations or non-designations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002 (

Conservation Council for Hawaii

v.

Babbitt,

24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Haw. 1998)).

At the time we listed

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis,

and

Melicope munroi

(64 FR 48307), we found that designation of critical habitat was prudent and stated that we would develop critical habitat designations for these three taxa, along with seven others, by the time we completed designations for the other 245 Hawaiian plant species. This timetable was challenged in

Conservation Council for Hawaii

v.

Babbitt,

Civ. No. 99-00283 HG (D. Haw. Aug. 19, 1999, Feb. 16, 2000, and March 28, 2000). The court agreed, however, that it was reasonable for us to integrate these ten Maui Nui (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the schedule established for designating critical habitat for the other 245 Hawaiian plants, and ordered us to publish proposed critical habitat designations for the ten Maui Nui species with the first 100 plants from the group of 245 by November 30, 2000, and to publish final critical habitat designations by November 30, 2001.

On November 30, 1998, we published a notice in the

Federal Register

requesting public comments on our reevaluation of whether designation of critical habitat is prudent for the 245 Hawaiian plants at issue (63 FR 65805). The comment period closed on March 1, 1999, and was reopened from March 24, 1999, to May 24, 1999 (64 FR 14209). We received more than 100 responses from individuals, non-profit organizations, the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), county governments, and Federal agencies (U.S. Department of Defense—Army, Navy, Air Force). Only a few responses offered information on the status of individual plant species or on current management actions for one or more of the 245 Hawaiian plants. While some of the respondents expressed support for the designation of critical habitat for 245 Hawaiian plants, more than 80 percent opposed the designation of critical habitat for these plants. In general, these respondents opposed designation because they believed it would cause economic hardship, discourage cooperative projects, polarize

relationships with hunters, or potentially increase trespass or vandalism on private lands. In addition, commenters also cited a lack of information on the biological and ecological needs of these plants which, they suggested, may lead to designation based on guesswork. The respondents who supported the designation of critical habitat cited that designation would provide a uniform protection plan for the Hawaiian Islands, promote funding for management of these plants, educate the public and State government, and protect partnerships with landowners and build trust.

In early February 2000, we hand-delivered a letter to representatives of the private landowner on Lanai requesting any information considered germane to the management of any of the 37 plants on the island, and containing a copy of the November 30, 1998,

Federal Register

notice, a map showing the general locations of the plants on Lanai, and a handout containing general information on critical habitat. On April 4, 2000, we met with representatives of the landowner to discuss their current land management activities. In addition, we met with Maui County DOFAW staff and discussed their management activities on Lanai.

On December 27, 2000, we published the third of the court-ordered proposed critical habitat designations or non-designations for 18 Lanai plants (65 FR 82086). The prudency determinations and proposed critical habitat designations for Kauai and Niihau plants were published on November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808), for Maui and Kahoolawe plants on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), and for Molokai plants on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83158). All of these proposed rules were sent to the

Federal Register

by or on November 30, 2000, as required by the court orders.

In those proposals, we proposed that critical habitat was prudent for 33 species (

Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis,

and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

) that are reported from Lanai as well as on Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Molokai. We proposed that critical habitat was not prudent for one species,

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis,

because it had not been seen recently in the wild, and no genetic material of this species is known to exist.

On December 27, 2000, we proposed designation of critical habitat on approximately 1,953 ha (4,826 ac) of land on the island of Lanai. The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on February 26, 2001. On February 22, 2001, we published a notice (66 FR 11133) announcing the reopening of the comment period until April 2, 2001, on the proposal to designate critical habitat for plants from Lanai and a notice of a public hearing. On March 22, 2001, we held a public hearing at the Lanai Public Library Meeting Room, Lanai. On April 6, 2001, we published a notice (66 FR 18223) announcing corrections to the proposed rule. These corrections included changes to the map of general locations of units and new Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates and increased the total proposed critical habitat to 2,034 ha (5,027 ac).

On October 3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with Earthjustice (representing the plaintiffs in

Hawaii Conservation Council

v.

Babbitt

) requesting extension of the court order for the final rules to designate critical habitat for plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe (August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16, 2002), and Molokai (October 16, 2002), citing the need to revise the proposals to incorporate or address new information and comments received during the comment periods. The joint stipulation was approved and ordered by the court on October 5, 2001. On January 28, 2002, in the Kauai revised proposal, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was prudent for

Isodendrion pyrifolium

and

Solanum incompletum,

two species reported from Lanai as well as Kauai, Maui, and Molokai.

On March 4, 2002, we published a revised proposed rule for the 37 plant species from Lanai (67 FR 9806). Critical habitat for 32 (

Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis,

and

Viola lanaiensis

) of the 37 plant species from the island of Lanai was proposed on approximately 7,853 ha (19,504 ac) of land (67 FR 9806). Critical habitat was not proposed for

Mariscus fauriei, Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum,

and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense

on the island of Lanai because these plants no longer occur on Lanai and we were unable to determine habitat which is essential to their conservation on this island.

The publication of the revised proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on May 3, 2002. On July 15, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 46450) announcing the reopening of the comment period until August 30, 2002, and a notice of a public hearing. On July 16, 2002, we published a notice announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat (67 FR 46626). On July 22, 2002, we held a public information meeting at the Lanai Senior Center, Lanai. On August 1, 2002, we held a public hearing at the Lanai Public Library Meeting Room, Lanai. On July 11, 2002, we submitted joint stipulations with Earthjustice requesting extension of the court orders for the final rules to designate critical habitat for plants from Lanai (December 30, 2002), Kauai and Niihau (January 31, 2003), Molokai (February 28, 2003), Maui and Kahoolawe (April 18, 2003), Oahu (April 30, 2003), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (April 30, 2003), and the island of Hawaii (May 30, 2003), citing the need to conduct additional review of the proposals, address comments received during the public comment periods, and to conduct a series of public workshops on the proposals. The joint stipulations were approved and ordered by the court on July 12, 2002. On November 15, 2002, we published in the

Federal Register

(67 FR 69176) a notice reopening the public comment period for the proposed rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the proposed rule published on March 4, 2002 (67 FR 9806), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal. We also contacted all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. We received one request for a public hearing. We announced the date and time of the public hearing in letters to all interested parties, appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, and elected officials, and in notices published in the

Honolulu Advertiser

and the

Maui News

on March 19, 2002. A transcript of the hearing held in Lanai City, Lanai on August 1, 2002, is available for inspection (see

ADDRESSES

section).

We received individually written letters from 19 parties, including three designated peer reviewers, four State agencies, and 12 individuals, and testimony from three individuals at the August 1, 2002, public hearing. Approximately 275 additional letters were submitted as part of a mailing campaign. Of the 22 parties who did not respond as part of the mailing campaign, five supported the proposed designation, eight were opposed, and nine expressed neither support nor opposition. The eight commenters who opposed the proposal specifically opposed designation of critical habitat on lands they own or manage, and requested that these areas be excluded from critical habitat designation.

We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for

Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis,

and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.

Similar comments were grouped into general issues and are addressed in the following summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

(1)

Comment:

One reviewer questioned whether loss of wetlands is a threat to

Cyperus trachysanthos

because wetlands are not known to exist on Lanai.

Our Response:

Because

Cyperus trachysanthos

requires seasonally wet soils, we feel that the lack of such soils on Lanai does constitute a threat to the species. However, based on information received during the public comment period, we have revised the proposed critical habitat for

C. trachysanthos.

We are no longer proposing critical habitat for this species on Lanai because of the absence of wetland habitat. Furthermore, we were able to locate sites on other islands that: (1) Contain the primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species, (2) are within historical range, and (3) accommodate our recovery goals of 8-10 populations.

(2)

Comment:

One reviewer stated that deer and mouflon sheep are threats to

Centaurium sebaeoides, Cyperus trachysanthos,

and

Sesbania tomentosa,

and that mouflon sheep, not goats and pigs, are a threat to

Hibiscus brackenridgei.

Our Response:

Goats and pigs were replaced with mouflon sheep and axis deer as current threats throughout the “Discussion of plant taxa” section. Goats and pigs are no longer present on Lanai and were mistakenly included as current threats.

(3)

Comment:

One peer reviewer suggested that high nutrient runoff from a nearby golf course be included as a threat to Unit G.

Our Response:

Unit G has been modified to exclude inland areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for

Portulaca sclerocarpa.

Critical habitat is now proposed only for the cliff faces along the shore. These areas are not at risk of nutrient runoff from the nearby golf course.

(4)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed concern that

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis

be assumed extinct, as it is common for Hawaiian plant species that have not been seen for decades to be rediscovered. The recent rediscoveries of

Asplenium fragile

var.

insulare

on Maui and of

Phyllostegia waimeae

on Kauai are cases in point. Critical habitat should be designated for this species.

Our Response:

We continue to believe that it would not be prudent to designate critical habitat for

Phyllostegia glabra

var.

lanaiensis,

a species known only from Kaiholena on Lanai. The species has not been seen on Lanai for over 80 years. This species was last observed on Lanai at Kaiholena in 1914. A report of this plant from the early 1980s was probably erroneous and should be referred to as

P. glabra

var.

glabra

(R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 1992). In addition, this species is not known to be in storage or under propagation. Given these circumstances, we have determined that designation of critical habitat for

P. glabra

var.

lanaiensis

is not prudent because such designation would not be beneficial to the species. If this species is rediscovered, we may reconsider designating critical habitat for this species as new information becomes available (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR 424.13(f)).

(5)

Comment:

The Service should not designate critical habitat for

Adenophorus periens,

which was last seen on Lanai in the 1860s, because nothing is known about its threats. The Service must prove that the designated areas for critical habitat are essential to the conservation of

A. periens

before designating critical habitat.

Our Response:

The Service believes that designation of critical habitat for

Adenophorus periens

is prudent because information about the habitat requirements of

A. periens

exists in the historical literature and, unlike the case of

Phyllostegia glabra,

individuals of this species are currently in cultivation, allowing populations to be restored. According to recovery goals, reestablishment of wild populations within historical range is essential to the recovery of this species (USFWS 1999). However, the Service excluded proposed unit Lanai D, proposed in part as critical habitat for

A. periens

because we believe the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. The landowner has entered into a voluntary memorandum of agreement with the Service to manage the lands in proposed Unit D, as well as adjacent lands, for the conservation benefit of the 28 listed species for which it was proposed as critical habitat. We believe the benefits of these management actions would not occur if critical habitat is designated, are greater than the benefits of including the area as critical habitat. See

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

for a more detailed discussion of the exclusions. Critical habitat for

A. periens

has been proposed within historical range on Kauai, Molokai, Hawaii, and Oahu.

(6)

Comment:

One peer reviewer suggested that a recommendation to

discontinue federally supported hunting programs and remove nonnative animals, particularly axis deer, be incorporated into the proposal.

Our Response:

The Service recognizes that populations of many game mammal species affect the distribution and abundance of many listed endangered plant and animal species to varying degrees, either directly or indirectly. We also recognize that game mammal hunting is a highly valued activity to a portion of the present-day Hawaiian culture. We recognize hunting as an important tool to manage wild populations of game and support hunting as a recreational activity and the maintenance of game mammal hunting programs within the state of Hawaii. However, Federal and state law dictate that hunting programs must be designed and executed in a way that is compatible with endangered species conservation. Game mammal hunting programs must not only prevent extinction, but allow for the recovery of federally listed endangered and threatened species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, a critical habitat designation establishes a geographic area that is important for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations. However, a designation does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other special conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands and will not result in closure of the area to all access or use. A critical habitat designation does not constitute a land management plan. Rather, it triggers the requirement that Federal agencies must consult with the Service on activities they take or fund that might affect critical habitat.

(7)

Comment:

Critical habitat designation should consider the following: (1) The importance of designating the best remaining elements of ecosystems for multi-species recovery, (2) the practicality of managing and protecting scattered units without apparent physical boundaries, and (3) the importance of public/private partnerships for species recovery.

Our Response:

We agree that all these factors are important for the conservation of listed species. We have sought to designate only areas that are essential for the conservation of the species, and which contain primary constituent elements within the best remaining habitats. We also agree that public/private partnerships are often essential for species recovery. As an example, the Service is excluding proposed unit Lanai D, an area proposed as critical habitat for 28 species, because the landowner has entered into a voluntary memorandum of agreement with the Service to manage the lands for the conservation benefit of 28 listed species. We believe there is a higher likelihood of beneficial conservation activities occurring on Lanai without designated critical habitat than there would be with designated critical habitat in this location. See

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

for a more detailed discussion of the excluded areas.

(8)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented that the requirement that 1,000 m separate populations is adequate for small-scale disturbance events, but is inadequate for large-scale disturbances. However, the use of multiple populations with a 1,000-m separation is a good balance between protecting against catastrophes and avoiding isolation of populations. Another peer reviewer commented that although a 1,000-m separation seems a bit arbitrary, it is workable. A third peer reviewer disagreed with the identification of populations as discrete units due to the lack of barriers to breeding on Lanai.

Our Response:

We acknowledge the difficulty in identifying a discrete, quantitative distance between populations, but in the absence of more specific information indicating the appropriate distance to assure limited cross-pollination, we believe that a distance of 1,000 m (3,281 ft) is scientifically reasonable based on our review of current literature (Barret and Kohn 1991; Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; Schierup and Christiansen 1996).

(9a)

Comment:

Two peer reviewers commented that the multi-population approach is essential to the successful recovery of Hawaiian species, but that 8 to10 populations may be too low a goal in some cases. Eight to 10 populations should be considered the low end of what is needed for recovery; species that characteristically have numerous populations containing small numbers of individuals require special consideration. (9b)

Comment:

Another peer reviewer suggested that 8 to 10 populations

on each island

would be most appropriate for multi-island species.

Our Response:

The Service acknowledges that, in general, identification of more than 8 to 10 areas for recovery would improve the likelihood of recovery. However, absent any quantitative scientific modeling for the species, the service concludes that 8 to 10 populations is a goal that has a reasonable likelihood of meeting recovery goals.

(10)

Comment:

It is difficult to comment in an informed manner on critical habitat for species occurring on more than one island because the proposed rule did not provide information on critical habitat proposed on other islands for multi-island species.

Our Response:

For this reason, the Service gave notice on August 20, 2002, reopening simultaneous comment periods for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and the northwestern Hawaiian Islands until September 30, 2002, and for plant species on the islands of Hawaii, and Oahu until November 30, 2002. The new comment periods allowed all the interested parties to review all the proposals together and submit written comments. The comment period for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on Lanai opened on August 15, 2002, and closed on August 30, 2002, overlapping with the reopened comment periods for Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Hawaii and Oahu.

(11a)

Comment:

Two peer reviewers stated that degraded habitat should only be excluded from critical habitat if it lacks the potential to become appropriate habitat in the future or if enough less degraded areas exist to make retention of degraded areas unnecessary. (11b)

Comment:

A third peer reviewer feels that degraded sites should still be included as critical habitat, at the very least as buffer zones and ideally as areas for expansion. (11c)

Comment:

Two peer reviewers commented that excluding degraded areas from critical habitat tends to encourage landowners to let areas decline to the point where they will not be selected as critical habitat.

Our Response:

The Service agrees that “degraded” areas may be necessary for recovery of the species. We have included areas that are “degraded” only if such areas contain the primary constituent elements for the species; we considered if they are able to eventually regain those missing primary constituent elements if properly managed for restoration and no other suitable habitat for the species is available. We revised proposed critical habitat for many species in the proposed rule because we were able to reach our recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for a species in intact areas within its

historical range that contain the primary constituent elements.

(12)

Comment:

One commenter was concerned about the designation of units containing “a badly degraded habitat.” The reviewer criticizes designation of such areas because it is not economically efficient to control threats such as feral ungulates, weeds, and fire. Such designation will create a regulatory burden and restrict future management options for landowners and the State. Another suggested that some species may be endangered because they exist in marginal habitat and that designating more marginal habitat will not improve a species' chance of survival.

Our Response:

We agree that it is in a species' best interest to designate critical habitat in the least degraded areas containing primary constituent elements within historical range. However, in order to reach our recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for a species within historical range it was sometimes necessary to include “degraded” areas when other less degraded areas were not available for the species.

(13a)

Comment:

One peer reviewer stated that it is unlikely that enough land has been identified for the long-term conservation of multiple populations; however, given the need to compromise, the proposed units are reasonable. Peer reviewers stated that the areas seem suitable in size and are ecologically appropriate, provided: (1) They are protected from their primary threats, (2) excluded lands are properly managed and of large enough size to be ecologically sustainable, (3) proposed units E1-3 are consolidated into a single unit and proposed unit D is retained as an entire unit, or the Service can explain why fragmentation and edge-effects are not threats to the species and why there is adequate mid-elevation habitat available in other areas for target species. (13b)

Comment:

Critical habitat for

Hibiscus brackenridgei, Tetramolopium remyi,

and

Sesbania tomentosa

should be larger due to their formerly extensive range. (13c)

Comment:

One peer reviewer stated that removal of significant portions of any of the critical habitat units in the proposed rule is likely to prevent the recovery of, or lead to the extinction of, listed species.

Our Response:

We did not include additional lands in proposed critical habitat because, at the time of the proposal and revised proposal, we concluded that those lands were not essential for the conservation of the 37 Lanai plant species, based on available information concerning status of the species in specific areas and level of habitat degradation. In this final rule, several units and parts of units proposed as critical habitat have been excluded because they are not essential for the conservation of the species or because there are alternatives to a critical habitat designation. We determined them to be non-essential due to their lacking primary constituent elements, or having primary constituent elements but there are other places for these species that have more primary constituent elements, are less degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserve, or on a refuge. A sufficient number (as defined in our recovery plans) of other, more appropriate areas are being designated or proposed as critical habitat within historical range on other islands. In other cases, the Service decided that the benefits of excluding critical habitat outweighed the benefits of including critical habitat. See the descriptions of exclusion of critical habitat under Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2), below.

(14)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that one of the keys to a plant's survival is having the appropriate microclimate, which is created by other plant species in a large enough aggregation to alter the environment. Because of the strong, harsh winds on Lanai, it is essential that critical habitat units, such as proposed units A, B, and C, are large enough to provide habitat for a complete plant community that can provide shelter from the winds.

Our Response:

We agree and have sought to designate critical habitat units that are large enough to accommodate the needs of the species within those units. However, based on information received during the public comment period, we have revised the proposed critical habitat units and have excluded proposed units A, B, and C because they are not essential for the conservation of

Hibiscus brackenridgei, Cyperus trachysanthos, Tetramolopium remyi,

and

Sesbania tomentosa.

Although they possess some of the primary constituent elements for these species, their habitat is largely degraded. We were able to identify an adequate number of sites within the historical range containing more appropriate and less degraded habitat, and/or that are already slated for conservation management and restoration.

(15a)

Comment:

Several commenters, including one peer reviewer, felt that the proposed rule was improved by incorporating clear methodology to designate appropriate unoccupied habitat for plant recovery. (15b)

Comment:

The Service should not designate unoccupied habitat. One commenter stated that the Service is acting outside its authority in designating unoccupied habitat because almost any area in Hawaii is capable of supporting one or more protected species, and the entire State would have to be designated if unoccupied habitat is included. (15c)

Comment:

Unoccupied habitat outside of the Conservation District should not be designated because it is degraded.

Our Response:

Our recovery plans for these species identify the need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild populations within the historical range. Because of the very limited current range of these species, designating only occupied areas would not meet the conservation requirements of the species. Occupied areas, as well as the similar habitat around them within the designated units of critical habitat that may be occupied in the future, provide the essential life-cycle needs of the species and provide some or all of the habitat components essential for the conservation (primary constituent elements) of these species. We have revised the December 27, 2000, proposal to designate critical habitat for 18 species from Lanai to incorporate new information and/or address comments and new information received during the comment periods, including information on areas of potentially suitable unoccupied habitat for some of these species. Expansion of some of these species to areas that were likely to have been historically occupied is essential to the conservation of the species.

When designating unoccupied habitat for these species, we first evaluated lands that are suitable for each species. Of this suitable habitat, we determined what areas are essential for the conservation of each species using the guidelines outlined in the recovery plans (

i.e.

, areas that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, are either in good condition for recovery efforts or could be made good through appropriate management actions), and would provide space needed by the species to reach our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations with a minimum of 100 mature reproducing individuals per population for long-lived perennials, 300 mature reproducing individuals per populations for short-lived perennials, and 500 mature reproducing individuals per population for annuals.

We disagree that all areas outside the Conservation District are degraded and inappropriate for these species. Areas that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, are either in good

condition for recovery efforts or could be made good through appropriate management actions, and would provide space needed by the species to reach our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations with a minimum number of mature reproducing individuals as specified above, were determined to be essential for the conservation of each species, regardless of land-use zoning.

(16a)

Comment:

One peer reviewer praised the Service for its logical and reasonable methodology and for using the best available science, including information such as elevation range, vegetation type, associated species, physical location and community type for determining critical habitat on Lanai. Another reviewer expressed appreciation for the extensive work and review of Lanai data by the Service.

(16b)

Comment:

Other reviewers felt that the Service did not adequately consider recovery science and management in its proposed critical habitat designations and did not have adequate information relating to each species' primary constituent elements.

Our Response:

When developing the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 32 plants from Lanai, we used the best scientific and commercial data available at the time, including but not limited to, information from the known locations, site-specific species information from the HINHP database and our own rare plant database; species information from the Center for Plant Conservation's (CPC) rare plant monitoring database; the final listing rules for these species; information received during the public comment periods and the informational meetings and public hearings held on Lanai on July 22, 2002, and August 1, 2002; recent biological surveys and reports; our recovery plans for these species; GIS information (

e.g.

, vegetation, soils, annual rainfall, elevation contours, landownership); information received in response to outreach materials and requests for species and management information we sent to all landowners, land managers, and interested parties on the island of Lanai; discussions with botanical experts; and recommendations from the Hawaii Pacific Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee (CPC,

in litt.

1999, HINHP database 2000; HPPRCC 1998; Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998c, 1999).

In accordance with our policy on peer review published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinions of appropriate and independent specialists regarding the proposed rule. The purpose of this peer review was to ensure that our designation methodology of critical habitat of Lanai plants was based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. The comments of all of the peer reviewers were taken into consideration in the development of this final designation. We are required under a court-approved settlement agreement to finalize this designation by December 30, 2002. If provided with new information, we may revise the critical habitat designation in the future.

(17)

Comment:

One commenter asked why other federally listed plants on Lanai and historically listed plants were not included in the critical habitat proposal. A peer reviewer asked why critical habitat was not proposed for

Gardenia mannii

when it appears that the proposed critical habitat may provide adequate habitat for the recovery of that species.

Our Response:

The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 32 species found on Lanai was prepared in response to a lawsuit (see “Previous Federal Action” section above). Species listed prior to 1991, such as

Gardenia mannii,

were not covered by this lawsuit and thus not addressed in the proposed rule. Additionally, certain species were not included in the proposed rule because historical records were incomplete and biological experts were unable to provide information about their habitat requirements. These species are:

Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum,

and

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.

(18)

Comment:

One commenter stated that critical habitat for

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

should be included in the final rule, if such habitat is present on Lanai.

Our Response:

Historical records are incomplete and biological experts were unable to provide information about the habitat requirements of

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

on Lanai.

Tetramolopium lepidotum

ssp.

lepidotum

is currently found on Oahu and we have proposed critical habitat for this species on that island.

Issue 2: Effects of Designation

(19)

Comment:

One landowner commented that critical habitat should be consistent with current and ongoing conservation efforts in priority areas so that resources are not directed elsewhere in an uncoordinated manner. This reviewer stated that the Service and landowner should work together to develop an approach that is more likely to lead to species recovery, rather than a passive designation lacking management.

Our Response:

We agree and recognize that the ultimate purpose of critical habitat is to contribute to the conservation of listed species, a purpose that can be best reached by cooperation between the Service and the community. As an example, the Service excluded proposed unit D, proposed for 28 species, from critical habitat designation because we believe the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. The landowner entered into a voluntary memorandum of agreement with the Service to manage the lands in proposed unit Lanai D, as well as adjacent lands, for the conservation benefit of the 28 listed species for which it was proposed as critical habitat. We believe the benefits of these management actions, which would not occur if critical habitat is designated, are greater than the benefits of including the area as critical habitat.

See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

for a more detailed discussion of the exclusions.

(20)

Comment:

One reviewer commented that the designation of critical habitat alone will not prevent the loss of remaining natural habitats and that funds would be better spent on natural resource management activities. Another reviewer stated that if management is not realistic, it makes little sense to designate critical habitat.

Our Response:

Critical habitat designation is one of a number of conservation tools established in the Act that can play an important role in the recovery of a species. For a Federal action to adversely modify critical habitat, the action would have to adversely affect the critical habitat's constituent elements or their management in a manner likely to appreciably diminish or preclude the conservation of the species. Designation of critical habitat is a way to guide Federal agencies in evaluating their actions, in consultation with the Service, such that their actions do not hamper conservation of listed species. There also are educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of landowners, land managers, and the general public about the importance of protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding their essential habitat requirements.

(21)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that it appears that there is an assumption that “natural” areas in the recent past were not impacted by humans. It is unlikely that there was any place in the major Hawaiian Islands that was not at least nominally altered by Hawaiians. There should therefore be a slated role for the Hawaiian

community in the proposed conservation zones.

Our Response:

We agree that Hawaiians may have impacted natural areas prior to European settlement. Further, we believe that native Hawaiians can play an important role in species recovery. We do not anticipate that the critical habitat designation will affect their role in species recovery efforts, and we believe it is likely to be compatible with many of the land management goals of native Hawaiians.

(22)

Comment:

Critical habitat must accommodate the traditional cultural gathering rights of native Hawaiians as reflected in Article XII of the State constitution and upheld by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Ka Paakai o Ka Aina decisions.

Our Response:

Critical habitat designation does not affect activities, including human access, on State or private lands unless some kind of Federal permit, license, or funding is involved and the activities may affect the species. It imposes no regulatory prohibitions on state or other non-Federal lands, nor does it impose any restrictions on State or non-Federal activities that are not funded or authorized by any Federal agencies. Access to Federal lands that are designated as critical habitat is not restricted unless access is determined to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. If we determine that access will result in adverse modification of the critical habitat, we will suggest reasonable or prudent alternatives that allow the proposed activities to proceed. Activities of the State or private landowner or individual, such as farming, grazing, logging, and gathering generally are not affected by a critical habitat designation, even if the property is within the geographical boundaries of the critical habitat, unless there is Federal nexus to the activity. A critical habitat designation has no regulatory effect on access to State or private lands. Recreational, commercial, and subsistence activities, including hunting, on non-Federal lands are not regulated by this critical habitat designation, and may be impacted only where there is Federal involvement in the action and the action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

(23)

Comment:

One native Hawaiian commenter stated that the critical habitat proposal is crucial in guardianship and preservation of not only native plants, but the native species that thrive in such protected habitat.

Our Response:

We agree that conservation of native plants is consistent with the land management goals of many native Hawaiians. Though not intended to replace on the ground management, we agree that critical habitat designation plays a role in the protection of native species. Designation of critical habitat is a way to guide Federal agencies in evaluating their actions, in consultation with the Service, such that their actions do not hamper conservation of listed species. There also are educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Education benefits include the notification of landowners, land managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding their essential habitat requirements.

Issue 3: Site-Specific Biological Comments

(24)

Comment:

The exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve needs to be reassessed because the string of small preserves may not be adequate to provide for the long-term maintenance of habitat. Critical habitat may need to be established around these preserves in order to sustain native plant communities. One peer reviewer was concerned that, given the exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve,

Bonamia menziesii

may not have enough suitable lowland dry forest designated as critical habitat.

Our Response:

We reassessed the exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve and determined that it should be excluded because, in addition to having ongoing management, it is not essential for the conservation of

Bonamia menziesii

or

Hibiscus brackenridgei.

We were able to locate sites on other islands for those two species that: (1) Contain at least one of the primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species, (2) are within historical range, and (3) accommodate our recovery goals of 8-10 populations.

(25a)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that as long as the units are protected from major threats, adequate, although not ideal, habitat is designated within proposed unit A for species recovery. (25b)

Comment:

Other commenters recommended removing unit A from the proposed designation, citing the following reasons: (1)

Hibiscus brackenridgei

is represented by only one individual in the unit, the unit has a small amount of suitable soil, it has habitat proposed in unit D, habitats exist on other islands, and the species has been extensively cultivated

ex situ;

(2) the physical attributes of Kaena Iki have changed substantially over time, the ground water spring dried up and seasonally wet soil habitat is no longer present, making it unsuitable habitat for

Cyperus trachysanthos;

(3) the historical location for

C. trachysanthos

is somewhat ambiguous because “Kaena” is also the name of a locality 2.5 miles to the east-northeast outside proposed unit A; and (4) the former population of

C. trachysanthos

within proposed unit A was likely very small and may be considered an unusual occurrence. (25c)

Comment:

Another reviewer suggested reducing the size of proposed unit A to less than 275 acres in the upper portion of the site near the existing populations of

H. brackenridgei.

The unit should be designed to accommodate just one of the 8 to 10 populations needed statewide.

Our Response:

Unit A was proposed as critical habitat for two species,

Cyperus trachysanthos

and

Hibiscus brackenridgei.

We excluded the proposed critical habitat for

C. trachysanthos

from the final rule because this area no longer contains the suitable habitat of seasonally wet soils. The water source has permanently dried up due to alterations in the watershed properties of the island. Also, this area is not essential for the conservation of

C. trachysanthos,

a multi-island species, because were able to locate sites on other islands that: (1) Contain at least one of the primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species, (2) are within historical range, and (3) accommodate our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations.

Based on information received during the public comment period, we have also excluded unit A as critical habitat for

H. brackenridgei,

a multi-island species. We determined that this area is not essential for the conservation of the species because there are at least eight other places for this species that have more primary constituent elements, are less degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserves, or on a refuge. More appropriate areas on other islands, within historical range, and that provide habitat for 10 populations, are proposed as critical habitat for

H. brackenridgei.

(26a)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that, as long as the units are protected from major threats, adequate, though not ideal, habitat is designated within proposed unit B for species recovery. (26b)

Comment:

Proposed unit B should not be removed from critical habitat designation because recent surveys found no individuals of

Tetramolopium remyi

present in fenced areas, despite favorable environmental conditions. (26c)

Comment:

Proposed unit B should be reduced to less than

235 acres in the upper portion of the site near the existing population. Proposed unit D provides better habitat for many populations of

T. remyi

and recovery is much more likely in this unit.

Our Response:

Unit B was proposed as critical habitat for

Tetramolopium remyi.

Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas not essential to the conservation of this species. The area is highly degraded and is in a game management area where one of the threats (axis deer) is being managed for hunting purposes by the State. The remaining area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species

T. remyi

provides habitat within its historical range for one population of the 8 to 10 outlined in the recovery plan for this species. The designated area is situated around the recently extirpated known individuals, contains at least one of the primary constituent elements, and most likely contains a viable seed bank due to the recent existence of mature, seed-bearing individuals of this species in the area. This unit was renamed Lanai 1—

Tetramolopium remyi.

(27)

Comment:

Two commenters suggested that proposed unit C be removed from critical habitat designation for

Sesbania tomentosa,

citing the following reasons: (1) The species does not currently occur on Lanai; (2) natural recruitment from inter-island dispersal is unlikely; (3) it is not economically efficient to manage the threats in these areas; (4) the historical Lanai population may have been genetically distinct and propagules are not available from the historical population; and (5) suitable unoccupied habitat exists in proposed unit D.

Our Response:

Unit C was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island species

Sesbania tomentosa.

We have excluded this unit from critical habitat because it is not essential for the conservation of the species because there are at least eight other places for this species that have more primary constituent elements or are less degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserve, or on a refuge. More appropriate areas on other islands, within the historical range, and that provide habitat for 10 populations, are proposed as critical habitat for

S. tomentosa.

(28a)

Comment:

Commenters, including peer reviewers, supported the designation of critical habitat in proposed unit D because: (1) This area contains the best remaining habitat on Lanai, (2) supports high rare species diversity, and (3) has existing programs for native species management at Lanaihale. (28b)

Comment:

One reviewer commented that the extension of critical habitat for

Centaurium sebaeoides

into the Lanai Cooperative Game Management Area is reasonable because the habitat in this area is similar to the species' current habitat on Lanai. (28c)

Comment:

Two peer reviewers questioned the removal of the middle portion of proposed unit D, especially when edge effects should be minimized. (28d)

Comment:

Proposed unit D should be divided into three subunits (D-1, D-2, and D-3) in order to make the unit manageable in a practical sense. (27e)

Comment:

D-1 (Lanaihale area) should be removed from critical habitat designation because it is already being managed in a cooperative agreement between the Service and Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC.

Our Response:

Lanai D was proposed as critical habitat for 28 species:

Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia oblongifolia

ssp.

mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana

ssp.

grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia

ssp.

gibsonii, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var.

remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia

var.

lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiense, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis

and

Viola lanaiensis.

Based on additional information and discussions with the landowner, the Service has decided not to designate critical habitat for these species on Lanai. The unit was excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the landowner entered into a voluntary memorandum of agreement with the Service to manage the lands in proposed unit Lanai D, as well as adjacent lands, for the conservation benefit of the 28 listed species for which it was proposed as critical habitat. We believe the benefits of these management actions, which would not occur if critical habitat is designated, are greater than the benefits of including the area as critical habitat. See

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

for a more detailed discussion of the exclusions.

(29a)

Comment:

All commenters agreed that at least portions of proposed units E1-3 are appropriate for critical habitat designation due to the likely presence of many species within the unit. (29b)

Comment:

One peer reviewer argued for consolidation of proposed units E1-E3 in order to reduce edge effect and fragmentation, and remove barriers to gene flow. (29c)

Comment:

Only the upper portions of proposed units E should be included as critical habitat for

Bidens micrantha

because the remainder of proposed unit E is not essential to the conservation of the species.

Our Response:

We acknowledge the potential negative impacts of edge effects on the habitat for

Bidens micrantha.

However, this species' primary constituent elements are found only within ridge habitat and the three proposed E units are actually three ridges. Consolidating the units would add the gulch areas between the ridges that lack the primary constituent elements for

B. micrantha.

No changes were made to these proposed units and they are designated as critical habitat for

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha.

They have been renamed units Lanai 2—

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

—North, Lanai 3—

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

—Middle, and Lanai 4—

Bidens micrantha

ssp.

kalealaha

—South.

(30)

Comment:

Two reviewers suggested removing proposed unit F as critical habitat for

Hibiscus brackenridgei

due to its degraded habitat, marginal soil and rainfall, and physical characteristics that are different from those at currently extant populations. One reviewer believed that designation of such sites is not economically efficient and would create a regulatory burden and restrict future management options for landowners and the State.

Our Response:

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island species

Hibiscus brackenridgei.

Based on information received during the public comment period, we have revised the proposed critical habitat for this species. We have excluded proposed unit F because it does not contain the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of this species. An adequate amount of critical habitat for

Hibiscus brackenridgei

is proposed within historical range on other islands.

(31)

Comment:

One peer reviewer expressed concern that proposed unit G is downslope from a golf course and the high nutrient runoff from the golf course may encourage nonnative plants and threaten the survival of native species within the proposed unit. Three commenters suggested removing proposed unit G as critical habitat for

Portulaca sclerocarpa

because: (1) The species does not occur at this site currently, (2) historical records of its

occurrence at this site are lacking, (3) since the species is confined to vertical cliffs, habitat above the cliff is inappropriate, (4) few available niches exist for this species along the cliffs, (5) the species was likely always rare in this area, and (6) the cliffs are already protected under applicable shoreline setback laws.

Our Response:

Lanai G was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island species

Portulaca sclerocarpa.

Modifications were made to this unit to exclude inland areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements. Although there are no historical records for this species on the main island of Lanai, we believe the species did historically occur there as plants continue to survive just off shore on Poopoo Islet. Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop approximately 200 m (600 ft) from the south shoreline. It is likely that the species disappeared from the main island Lanai as a result of the threats there prior to adequate surveys being conducted. Further, the areas designated as critical habitat on Lanai proper contain one or more of the primary constituent elements and provide additional area for one of the 8 to 10 populations needed for the recovery of this species as outlined in the recovery plan. Critical habitat designated for

P. sclerocarpa

includes only cliff faces along the shore. While it is true the cliffs are already protected under applicable State shoreline setback laws, the specific habitat features for this species are not directly protected by those laws. Actions taken adjacent to the cliffs, which may not be affected by State laws, could appreciable alter the ability of the habitat to support a population of this species. This unit was renamed Lanai 5—

Portulaca sclerocarpa

—Coast.

(32)

Comment:

Commenters supported the designation of critical habitat for

Portulaca sclerocarpa

at proposed unit H. One commenter noted that although surveys found no evidence of the species in proposed unit H, the islets' cliff faces remain appropriate for a species that was likely naturally rare due to the area's few suitable niches.

Our Response:

We agree this species is rare, but this unit continues to support the one extant colony of this species on Lanai. No changes were made to this unit and it is designated as critical habitat for

Portulaca sclerocarpa

. It has been renamed Lanai 6—

Portulaca sclerocarpa

—Isle.

Issue 4: Mapping

(33)

Comment:

The Service should define affected property lines in a manner that allows for the descriptions to be used in real property conveyance documents in the State of Hawaii.

Our Response:

The maps in the

Federal Register

are meant to provide the general location and shape of critical habitat. The legal descriptions are readily plotted and transferable to a variety of mapping formats and were made available electronically upon request for use with GIS programs. At the public hearing, the maps were expanded to wall-size to assist the public in better understanding the proposal. These larger scale maps were also provided to individuals upon request. Furthermore, we provided direct assistance in response to written or telephone questions with regard to mapping and landownership within the proposed designation.

(34)

Comment:

The final proposal should map or identify how many populations are being accommodated in each unit and the acreage allotted for each population.

Our Response:

The final rule identifies the number of populations accommodated in each unit. We do not have the scientific information to precisely identify how many acres each population requires. We did, however, ensure that each population is separated by 1,000 meters or by some distinct geologic feature.

Issue 5: Economic Issues

(35)

Comment:

The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) fails to consider economic impacts of listing and critical habitat that result through interaction with State law, specifically Hawaii's Endangered Species Act. The commenter suggested that

New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association

v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

requires consideration of the impact of listing as well as the impact of designating an area as critical habitat. Instead, the analysis is expressly limited to the impact of Federal agency consultation under the jeopardy standard. However, since Federal listing triggers listing under State law, the Service must consider the impact of take prohibitions under State law (and consequently Federal law, which prohibits destruction of plants in knowing violation of State law).

Our Response:

Possible costs resulting from interplay of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law are discussed in the economic analysis under indirect costs (

e.g.

, possible conservation management mandate for the private landowner and reduction in game mammal populations). The economic analysis considers the economic impacts of section 7 consultations related to critical habitat even if they are attributable co-extensively to the listed status of the species. In addition, the economic analysis examines any indirect costs of critical habitat designation, such as where critical habitat triggers the applicability of a State or local statute. However, where it is the listing of a species that prompts action at the State or local level (

e.g.

, further regulating the take of federally listed species), the impacts are not attributable to critical habitat designation and are not appropriately considered in the economic analysis of critical habitat designation. Take prohibitions under Hawaii law are tied to the Federal listing of the species and do not co-extensively occur because of critical habitat designations. However, our analysis did consider the other ways in which the Federal Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law may interplay.

(36)

Comment:

Two commenters stated that the DEA fails to consider economic impacts of critical habitat that result through interaction with Hawaii's Land Use Law. Critical habitat could result in changes to zoning under State law. HRS § 205-2(e) states that Conservation Districts shall include areas necessary for conserving endangered species. HRS 195D-5.1 states that DLNR shall initiate amendments in order to include the habitat of rare species. Even if DLNR does not act, the Land Use Commission may initiate such changes, or they may be forced by citizen lawsuits. Areas for endangered species are placed in the protected subzone with the most severe restrictions. While existing uses can be grandfathered in, downzoning will prevent landowners from being able to shift uses in the future, will reduce market value, and make the land unmortgageable.

Our Response:

As indicated in the final addendum to the DEA (Addendum), about 362.4 ac of agricultural lands and 8 ac of rural lands are included in the final designation. No agricultural or ranching activities take place on these agricultural lands. Assuming a worst-case scenario, one which is not envisioned, reduction in land values due to redistricting land from the Agricultural or Rural District to Conservation District could range from $50,736 to $163,080 ($140 to $450 per acre) for agricultural lands and $1.3 million to $2.7 million ($160,000 to $334,000 per acre) for rural lands. Under this scenario, even if a landowner has no plans to sell the land, the loss in land value could reduce potential mortgage financing. However, the likelihood of redistricting is not certain and could be small. The State's history

supports the unlikelihood of rezoning or redistricting land based on evaluations of biological value.

(37)

Comment:

The DEA fails to consider economic impacts of critical habitat that result through interaction with State law, specifically Hawaii's Environmental Impact Statement Law. HRS 343-5 applies to any use of conservation land, and a full Environmental Impact Statement is required if any of the significance criteria listed in HAR 11-200-12 apply. One of these criteria is that an action is significant if it “substantially affects a rare, threatened or endangered species or its habitat.” This will result in costly procedural requirements and delays. However, the DEA does not acknowledge that any impact on endangered species habitat will be deemed to be “significant.” Multiple commenters stated that the DEA fails to evaluate the practical effect critical habitat designation will have on development. Special Management Area permits administered by Maui County as required by Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Act, will be harder to get, will result in delays, will cause a decline in property values and may make land impossible to develop.

Our Response:

Adverse impacts on development, including delays for additional studies and agency reviews, increased costs for environmental studies, increased risk of project denials, increased risk of costly mitigation measures, and increa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.