Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 23 Species on Oahu and Designation of Critical Habitat for 124 Species
Federal RegisterSep 18, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2010-0043: 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AV49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 23 Species on Oahu and Designation of Critical Habitat for 124 Species
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list 23 species on the island of Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also designate 42,804 acres (17,322 hectares) as critical habitat. This designation includes critical habitat for these 23 species, 2 plant species that are already listed as endangered, and revised critical habitat for 99 plant species that are already listed as endangered or threatened. In this final rule we are also recognizing taxonomic revision of the scientific names of nine plant species and revising the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants accordingly. This final rule will implement the Federal protections provided by the Act.
DATES:
This rule becomes effective on October 18, 2012.
ADDRESSES:
This final rule and final economic analysis are available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581. The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical habitat maps were generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation, and are available at
http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands
, at
http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2010-0043, and at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office. Any additional tools or supporting information that we developed for this critical habitat designation are also available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble or at
http://www.regulations.gov
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES
above). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule.
This is a final rule to list 23 species as endangered under the Act, including 20 native Hawaiian plant species and 3 Hawaiian damselflies. In addition, the rule designates critical habitat for these 23 species, critical habitat for 2 additional plant species that are already listed as endangered, and revised critical habitat for 99 plant species that are already listed as endangered or threatened. These species are on the island of Oahu, in the Hawaiian Islands. In this final rule, we also recognize taxonomic revision of the scientific names of nine plant species and revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants accordingly.
The basis for our action.
Under the Endangered Species Act, we determine that a species is endangered or threatened based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the 23 Oahu species are currently in danger of extinction throughout all their ranges, as the result of the following current and ongoing threats:
• All of these species face threats from the present destruction and modification of their habitats, primarily from introduced ungulates, such as feral pigs and goats, and the spread of nonnative plants.
• Six of these species face threats from habitat destruction and modification from fire.
• Fourteen species face threats from destruction and modification of their habitats from hurricanes, landslides, rockfalls, and flooding.
• The projected effects of climate change will likely exacerbate the effects of the other threats to these species.
• There is a serious threat of widespread impacts of predation and herbivory on 19 of the 20 plant species by nonnative pigs, goats, rats, and invertebrates; and predation on the three damselflies by nonnative fish, bullfrogs, and ants.
• Some of the plant species face the additional threat of trampling.
• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (specifically, inadequate protection of habitat and inadequate protection from the introduction of nonnative species) poses a current and ongoing threat to all 23 species.
• There are current and ongoing threats to nine plant species and the three damselflies due to factors associated with small numbers of populations and individuals.
• The three damselflies face further threats from the loss of native host plants, from habitat degradation and loss due to agriculture and urban development, from stream diversion and channelization, and by dewatering of aquifers.
• These threats are exacerbated by these species' inherent vulnerability to extinction from stochastic events at any time because of their endemism, small numbers of individuals and populations, and restricted habitats.
This rule designates critical habitat for 25 species and revises critical habitat for 99 species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are required to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact and other relevant impacts of an area being considered for designation. The Secretary (of the Interior) may exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
• This rule designates a total of 42,804 acres (ac) (17,322 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat.
• We fully considered comments from the public and peer reviewers on the proposed rule and made additional field visits, in order to refine our designation and remove areas that are not essential to the conservation of the species. We found changes in land use had occurred in certain areas within the proposed critical habitat that preclude these areas from supporting the primary constituent elements, and that these areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat.
• A total of 307 ac (124 ha) have been removed in this final designation from the area originally proposed, as a result of refinement in unit areas made in response to public comments and additional field visits. These areas do
not meet the definition of critical habitat.
• In addition, Department of Defense lands on Naval Station Pearl Harbor Lualualei Branch (NAVMAG PH Lualualei) and Naval Radar Transmittal Facility at Lualualei (NRTF Lualualei) (380 acres; 154 hectares) with a completed and effective integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) have been exempted from this final designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
• All lands being designated as critical habitat are either (1) currently considered to be occupied by one or more of the 124 species, and contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species by supporting the life-history needs of the species and that may require special management, or (2) areas outside the geographical areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, which the Secretary has determined are essential for the conservation of the species.
Peer reviewers support our methods.
We obtained opinions from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for these species prior to August 2, 2011, are outlined in our proposed rule (76 FR 46362), which was published on that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on October 3, 2011. In addition, we published a public notice of the proposed rule on August 6, 2011, in the local Honolulu Star Advertiser newspaper. On April 12, 2012 (77 FR 21936) we made available the draft economic analysis (DEA) on proposed critical habitat designation, and opened a 30-day comment period on the DEA, as well as reopened the comment period on the entire August 2, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 46362). This second comment period closed on May 14, 2012.
Background
An Ecosystem-Based Approach To Listing 23 Species on Oahu
On the island of Oahu, as on most of the Hawaiian Islands, native species that occur in the same habitat types (ecosystems) depend on many of the same biological features and on the successful functioning of that ecosystem to survive. We have therefore organized the species addressed in this final rule by common ecosystems. Although the listing determination for each species is analyzed separately, we have organized the specific analysis for each species within the context of the broader ecosystem in which it occurs, to avoid redundancy. In addition, native species that share ecosystems often face a suite of common factors that may pose threats to them, and ameliorating or eliminating these threats requires similar management actions. Effective management of these threats often requires implementation of conservation actions at the ecosystem scale, to enhance or restore critical ecological processes and provide for long-term viability of those species in their native environment. Thus, by taking this approach, we hope not only to organize this rule efficiently, but also to more effectively focus conservation management efforts on the common threats that occur across these ecosystems, restore ecosystem functionality for the recovery of each species, and provide conservation benefits for associated native species, thereby potentially precluding the need to list other species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
) that occur in these shared ecosystems.
We are listing
Bidens amplectens, Cyanea calycina, Cyanea lanceolata, Cyanea purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra gracilis, Cyrtandra kaulantha, Cyrtandra sessilis, Cyrtandra waiolani, Doryopteris takeuchii, Korthalsella degeneri, Melicope christophersenii, Melicope hiiakae, Melicope makahae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
cornuta, Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens, Pleomele forbesii, Psychotria hexandra ssp. oahuensis, Pteralyxia macrocarpa, Tetraplasandra lydgatei,
and
Zanthoxylum oahuense;
and the blackline (
Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum
), crimson (
M. leptodemas
), and oceanic (
M. oceanicum
) Hawaiian damselflies, endemic to the island of Oahu, as endangered species. These 23 species (20 plants and 3 damselflies) are found in 7 ecosystem types: coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff (Table 1).
Table 1—The 23 Species and the Ecosystems Upon Which They Depend
Ecosystem
Species
Coastal
Plants:
Bidens amplectens
.
Lowland Dry
Plants:
Bidens amplectens, Doryopteris takeuchii, Pleomele forbesii
.
Lowland Mesic
Plants:
Cyanea calycina, Cyanea lanceolata, Melicope makahae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens, Pleomele forbesii, Pteralyxia macrocarpa, Tetraplasandra lydgatei
Animals: oceanic Hawaiian damselfly.
Lowland Wet
Plants:
Cyanea calycina, Cyanea lanceolata, Cyanea purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra gracilis, Cyrtandra kaulantha, Cyrtandra sessilis, Cyrtandra waiolani, Melicope hiiakae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
cornuta, Psychotria hexandra ssp. oahuensis, Pteralyxia macrocarpa, Zanthoxylum oahuense
Animals: blackline Hawaiian damselfly, crimson Hawaiian damselfly, oceanic Hawaiian damselfly.
Montane Wet
Plants:
Cyanea calycina, Melicope christophersenii
.
Dry Cliff
Plants:
Korthalsella degeneri, Melicope makahae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens, Pleomele forbesii, Pteralyxia macrocarpa
.
Wet Cliff
Plants:
Cyanea calycina, Cyanea purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra kaulantha, Cyrtandra sessilis, Melicope christophersenii, Psychotria hexandra
ssp.
oahuensis, Pterlyxia macrocarpa
Animals: crimson Hawaiian damselfly, oceanic Hawaiian damselfly.
Most of these species are found in multiple ecosystems. For each species, we identified and evaluated those factors that pose threats to the species and that may be common to all of the species at the ecosystem level (see discussion below in Summary of Factors Affecting the 23 Species). For example, climate change is considered a threat to each species within each ecosystem. As a result, this threat factor is considered to be a multiple ecosystem threat, as
each individual species within each ecosystem faces a threat that is essentially identical in terms of the nature of the impact, its severity, its imminence, and its scope. We further identified and evaluated any threat factors that may be unique to certain species, that is, threat factors that do not apply to all species under consideration within the same ecosystem. For example, the threat of predation by nonnative fish is unique to the three damselflies in this rule; it is not applicable to any of the other species being listed. We have identified such threat factors, which apply only to certain species within the ecosystems addressed here, as species-specific threats.
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Determining Physical or Biological Features of Critical Habitat
Under the Act, we are required to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently with the publication of a final determination that a species is endangered or threatened. In this rule, we are designating critical habitat for the 23 Oahu species which we have found to meet the definition of an endangered species. We are also designating critical habitat for two Oahu plants that are already listed as endangered species but for which critical habitat has not been previously designated. In addition, we are revising critical habitat for 99 Oahu plants already listed as endangered or threatened species. When critical habitat was designated for these 99 Oahu plant species in 2003 (68 FR 35950; June 17, 2003), it was based primarily on the specific localities where the species were known to occur. We are revising critical habitat for these species because since then, we have learned that many native Hawaiian plants and animals can thrive when reintroduced into historical habitats when threats are effectively managed. For this reason, we believe it is important to designate unoccupied habitat where it is essential for the recovery of the species. Based on new information on plant occurrences and a better understanding of the species' biological requirements, the physical or biological features have been more precisely identified, and now include elevation, precipitation, substrate, canopy, subcanopy, and understory characteristics. We believe the added precision will be helpful in identifying the special management considerations or protections needed in specific occupied areas to recover the species. In addition, because the 2003 designation focused on discrete areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, the result was an overlapping and confusing patchwork of critical habitat areas for the 99 plant species that was difficult for the public to interpret. Although this revision of critical habitat is solely based on our determination of the lands that meet the statutory definition of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1532(5) and other applicable provisions (e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1533(4)(b)(2)), we believe the end result will provide for greater public understanding of the conservation and recovery needs of each of the species in the specific areas addressed in this rule.
In this rule, we are designating critical habitat for 124 species in 62 multiple-species critical habitat units. Although critical habitat is identified for each species individually, we have found that the conservation of each depends, at least in part, on the successful functioning of the physical or biological features of the commonly shared ecosystem. Each critical habitat unit identified in this rule contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of those individual species that occupy that particular unit, or contains areas essential to the conservation of those individual species that do not presently occupy that particular unit, but depend on that ecosystem type for recovery purposes. Where the unit is not known to be occupied by a particular species, we believe it is still essential for the conservation of that species. The designation of unoccupied habitat allows for the expansion of its range and reintroduction of individuals into areas where it occurred historically, and provides areas for recovery in the case of a stochastic event at one or more locations where the species occurs.
Each of the designated areas represents critical habitat for multiple species, based upon their shared habitat requirements, and takes into account any species-specific conservation needs as appropriate (see discussion below in Methods). For example, the presence of a perennial stream is essential for the conservation of the blackline Hawaiian damselfly, but is not a requirement shared by all species within the same ecosystem; however, a functioning ecosystem is also essential to the damselfly because the ecosystem provides other physical or biological features that support the damselfly's specific life-history requirements.
The Island of Oahu
The island of Oahu is the third oldest and third largest of the eight main Hawaiian Islands, located southeast of Kauai and northwest of Molokai and Lanai (Foote
et al.
1972, p. 19; Department of Geography, University of Hawaii at Hilo (UHH) 1998, pp. 7-10). It was formed from two shield volcanoes, the Koolau Volcano and the Waianae Volcano, that ceased erupting about 1 to 2 million years ago, and is about 600 square (sq) miles (mi) (1,557 sq kilometers (km)) in area (Macdonald and Abbot 1970, p. 265; Foote
et al.
1972, p. 19; Department of Geography, UHH 1998, pp. 7-10; Rowland and Garcia 2004, p. 1). Two mountain ranges resulted from these eruptions, the western Waianae range and eastern Koolau range. Oahu is characterized by the fact that the two mountain ranges are aligned perpendicular to the prevailing trade winds, so that distinctive leeward and windward climates result, with the Waianae range in the rain shadow of the Koolau range (Department of Geography, UHH 1998, pp. 7-10; Wagner
et al.
[adapted from Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980) 1999, p. 39). The maximum elevation on Oahu is 4,025 feet (ft) (1,225 meters (m)) at the summit of Mount Kaala in the Waianae Mountains, and this higher elevation area is not affected by the Koolau rain shadow (Blumenstock and Price 1972, p. 156; Wagner
et al.
[adapted from Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980) 1999, pp. 39-41). The maximum elevation is relatively low compared to the higher Hawaiian Islands. Consequently, Oahu does not have dry alpine areas, as the mountains do not reach the height of the temperature inversion layer (Wagner
et al.
[adapted from Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980)] 1999, pp. 38, 40). Rainfall ranges from less than 20 inches (in) (50 centimeters (cm)) to more than 250 in (635 cm) per year (Department of Geography, UHH 1998, p. 7). Temperatures in the Hawaiian Islands differ by an average of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (22 degrees Celsius (°C)) throughout the year. Since temperature decreases with increasing elevation, microclimates range from tropical to sub-arctic across the island chain (Wagner
et al.
[adapted from Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980)] 1999, pp. 37-38), although the sub-arctic zone does not occur on Oahu.
The current soil classification system for the Hawaiian Islands distinguishes soil types based on their measurable physical and chemical properties, and environmental factors that influenced their formation. Widely ranging geological ages of rocks, different rates of weathering, and microclimates create these highly variable soils (Sherman 1972, pp. 205-207). Most soils are volcanic in origin; a few formed from organic material and sand (Foote
et al.
1972, p. 1). On Oahu, sizable areas of highly weathered, red-colored oxisols (nutrient-poor soils, red or yellowish) occur on the Schofield Plateau; in contrast, the Koolau and Waianae mountain ranges have large areas of rocky, unweathered entisols (soils with few or no horizontal layers) due to erosion (Gavenda
et al.
1998, p. 92).
Because of its age and relative isolation, species diversity and endemism are high in the Hawaiian archipelago (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). However, the flora and fauna of Oahu have undergone extreme alterations because of past and present land use and other activities. Land with rich soils was altered by the early Hawaiians and, more recently, converted to agricultural use (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45) or pasture. Intentional and inadvertent introduction of alien plant and animal species has contributed to the reduction in range of native species on the island (throughout this rule, the terms “alien,” “feral,” “nonnative,” and “introduced” all refer to species that are not naturally native to the Hawaiian Islands). Most of the taxa included in this rule persist on steep slopes, precipitous cliffs, valley headwalls, and other regions where unsuitable topography has prevented urbanization and agricultural development, or where inaccessibility has limited encroachment by nonnative plant and animal species.
Oahu Ecosystems
The seven Oahu ecosystems that support the species addressed in this rule are described in the following sections.
Coastal
The coastal ecosystem is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, with the highest species diversity in the least populated coastal areas of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and Kauai, and their associated islets. On Oahu, the coastal ecosystem includes mixed herblands, shrublands, and grasslands, from sea level to 980 ft (300 m) in elevation, generally within a narrow zone above the influence of waves to within 330 ft (100 m) inland, sometimes extending further inland if strong prevailing onshore winds drive sea spray and sand dunes into the lowland zone (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2006a). The coastal vegetation zone is typically dry, with annual rainfall of less than 20 in (50 cm), however windward rainfall may be high enough (up to 40 in (100 cm)) to support mesic-associated and sometimes wet-associated vegetation (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 54-66). Biological diversity is low to moderate in this ecosystem, but may include some specialized plants and animals such as nesting seabirds and the rare native plant
Sesbania tomentosa
(ohai) (TNC 2006a). The plant
Bidens amplectens,
which is listed as endangered in this final rule, is reported from this ecosystem on Oahu (Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program (HBMP) 2008; TNC 2007).
Lowland Dry
The lowland dry ecosystem includes shrublands and forests generally below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation that receive less than 50 in (130 cm) annual rainfall, or are in otherwise prevailingly dry substrate conditions. Areas consisting of predominantly native species in the lowland dry ecosystem are now rare; however, this ecosystem is found on the islands of Hawaii, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and Kauai, and is best represented on the leeward sides of the islands (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67). On Oahu, this ecosystem is typically found on the leeward side of the Waianae Mountains, and the leeward southern coast, including Diamond Head Crater (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67; TNC 2006b). Biological diversity is low to moderate in this ecosystem, and includes specialized animals and plants such as the Hawaiian owl or pueo (
Asio flammeus sandwichensis
) and
Santalum ellipticum
(iliahialoe) (Wagner
et al.
1999, pp. 1,220-1,221; TNC 2006b). The plants
Bidens amplectens, Doryopteris takeuchii,
and
Pleomele forbesii,
which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem on Oahu (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Lowland Mesic
The lowland mesic ecosystem includes a variety of grasslands, shrublands, and forests, generally below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation, that receive between 50 and 75 in (130 and 190 cm) annual rainfall, or are in otherwise mesic substrate conditions (TNC 2006c). In the Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is found on Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kauai, on both windward and leeward sides of the islands. On Oahu, this ecosystem is typically found on the leeward slopes of both the Waianae and Koolau Mountains (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 75; TNC 2006c). Biological diversity is high in this system (TNC 2006c). The plants
Cyanea calycina, C. lanceolata, Melicope makahae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens, Pleomele forbesii, Pteralyxia macrocarpa,
and
Tetraplasandra lydgatei,
and the oceanic Hawaiian damselfly, which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Lowland Wet
The lowland wet ecosystem is generally found below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation on the windward sides of the main Hawaiian Islands, except Kahoolawe and Niihau (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 85; TNC 2006d). These areas include a variety of wet grasslands, shrublands, and forests that receive greater than 75 in (190 cm) annual precipitation, or are in otherwise wet substrate conditions (TNC 2006d). On Oahu, this system is best developed in wet valleys and slopes along the summit of the Koolau Mountains, with a small area located on the windward side of the summit of the Waianae Mountains (TNC 2006d). Biological diversity is high in this system (TNC 2006d). The plants
Cyanea calycina, C. lanceolata, C. purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra gracilis, C. kaulantha, C. sessilis, C. waiolani, Melicope hiiakae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
cornuta, Psychotria hexandra
ssp.
oahuensis, Pteralyxia macrocarpa,
and
Zanthoxylum oahuense,
and the blackline, crimson, and oceanic Hawaiian damselflies, which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Montane Wet
The montane wet ecosystem is composed of natural communities (grasslands, shrublands, forests, and bogs) found at elevations between 3,300 and 6,600 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual precipitation is greater than 75 in (190 cm) (TNC 2006e). This system is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Niihau and Kahoolawe (only the islands of Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii have areas above 4,020 ft (1,225 m) (TNC 2006e). On Oahu, this ecosystem is found only at the summit of the Waianae Mountains (TNC 2007). Biological diversity is moderate to high (TNC 2006e). Due to the restricted distribution of this ecosystem on Oahu, only the plants
Cyanea calycina
and
Melicope christophersenii,
which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Dry Cliff
The dry cliff ecosystem is composed of vegetation communities occupying steep slopes (greater than 65 degrees) in areas that receive less than 75 in (190 cm) of rainfall annually, or are in otherwise dry substrate conditions (TNC 2006f). This ecosystem is found on all
of the main Hawaiian Islands except Niihau, and on the island of Oahu is best represented along the leeward slopes of the Waianae Mountains (TNC 2006f). A variety of shrublands occur within this ecosystem (TNC 2006f). Biological diversity is low to moderate (TNC 2006f). The plants
Korthalsella degeneri, Melicope makahae, Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens, Pleomele forbesii,
and
Pteralyxia macrocarpa,
which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Wet Cliff
The wet cliff ecosystem is generally composed of shrublands on near-vertical slopes (greater than 65 degrees) in areas that receive more than 75 in (190 cm) of annual precipitation, or in otherwise wet substrate conditions (TNC 2006g). This system is found on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, and Kauai. On Oahu, this ecosystem is typically found along the entire length of the summit of the Koolau Mountains and at the summit of Mt. Kaala in the Waianae Mountains (TNC 2006g). Biological diversity is low to moderate (TNC 2006g). The plants
Cyanea calycina, C. purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra kaulantha, C. sessilis, Melicope christophersenii, Psychotria hexandra
ssp.
oahuensis, Pteralyxia macrocarpa,
and the crimson and oceanic Hawaiian damselflies, which are listed as endangered in this final rule, are reported from this ecosystem (HBMP 2008; TNC 2007).
Description of the 23 Species
Below is a brief description of each of the 23 species, presented in alphabetical order by genus. Plants are presented first, followed by animals.
Plants
Bidens amplectens
(kookoolau), a perennial or sometimes annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is restricted to windward cliffs and crests along the northern portion of the Waianae Mountains on the island of Oahu, in the coastal and lowland dry ecosystems, at elevations between 300 and 1,400 ft (90 and 430 m) (Ganders and Nagata 1999, p. 271; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). This species intergrades with
B. torta
and forms hybrid swarms from near Kaena Point along the Waianae summit ridges to the head of Makua Valley (a hybrid swarm occurs where there is no reproductive barrier between distinct populations, or where a barrier has broken down). Pure
B. amplectens
is restricted to the windward cliffs and crests of the Waianae range (Ganders and Nagata 1999, p. 271).
Bidens amplectens
was historically known from five locations spanning 7 mi (11 km) in the northern Waianae Mountains including Makaleha Valley, Uluhulu Gulch, Puu Pueo to Alau Gulch, Manini Gulch to Alau Gulch, and Nihoa Gulch (HBMP 2008). At last observation, there were fewer than 1,000 individuals in four locations separated by less than 4 mi (6 km): Kealia Trail on the east side of Haili Gulch; Kapuna-Kamimi Ridge on the road to the Pahole Natural Area Reserve (NAR); Kealia east of Kawaiu Gulch; and from Kuaokala to Keawaula Ridge (Lau 2001, in litt.; HBMP 2008).
Cyanea calycina
(haha), an unbranched shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found in both the Waianae and Koolau Mountains of Oahu in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (Lammers 1999, p. 483; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 17; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). In the Waianae Mountains,
C. calycina
occurs in
Acacia-Metrosideros-Dicranopteris
(koa-ohia-uluhe) forests at elevations between 1,800 and 3,920 ft (550 and 1,195 m), and in the Koolau Mountains this species occurs in wet
Metrosideros-Dicranopteris
forest and shrubland at elevations between 1,830 and 3,000 ft (558 and 900 m) (HBMP 2008). Currently,
C. calycina
is found from Pahole in the northern portion of the Waianae Mountains south along the summit to Palawai, in 18 occurrences totaling at least 170 individuals (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008). In the Koolau Mountains,
C. calycina
was known historically from nine locations along the entire length of the range (HBMP 2008). Currently, 22 occurrences totaling between 155 and 169 individuals are known, from the most northern point at Kamananui Gulch along the summit ridges south to Konahuanui (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008). The combined 40 occurrences total 325 to 339 individuals.
Cyanea lanceolata
(haha) is an unbranched shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae) that occurs in the southeastern Koolau Mountains in the lowland mesic and lowland wet ecosystems, at elevations between 1,000 and 2,500 ft (305 and 760 m) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 483; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 17; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically, this species was wide-ranging along the Koolau Mountains, from the northern Schofield-Waikane area to Wailupe at the southern end of the range, in at least 17 occurrences (HBMP 2008). Currently, there are 4 known occurrences, totaling fewer than 60 individuals, sparsely scattered over a much smaller area of the southern Koolau range. These occurrences include Kului-Hawaii Loa, Wailupe, Mauumae, and Waialae Nui, with an unconfirmed report of individuals in Pia Valley (HBMP 2008; Lau 2008, in litt.).
Cyanea purpurellifolia
(haha) is an unbranched shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae) that occurs in the Koolau Mountains in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems, at elevations between 1,860 and 2,160 ft (570 and 660 m) (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically, this species was known from a few individuals in the vicinity of Kaluanui Valley and north to Maakua-Papali Ridge (Lammers 1999, p. 484; Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 17; HBMP 2008). Currently,
C. purpurellifolia
occurs in the northern Koolau Mountains from Maakua-Kaipapau to Punaluu-Kaluanui Ridge, in 5 occurrences totaling approximately 20 individuals (Plant Extinction Prevention (PEP) Program 2008, pp. 20-21; HBMP 2008).
Cyrtandra gracilis
(haiwale) (Gesneriaceae, African violet family) is a perennial shrub that is found in
Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis
forest in the lowland wet ecosystem at 1,600 ft (488 m) in elevation, on the leeward side of the southern Koolau Mountains (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 755; National Tropical Botanical Garden (NTBG) Provenance Report 2004; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; PEP Program 2008, p. 16). Presumed extinct since the 1800s, 10 individuals of
C. gracilis
were discovered by botanists in Pia Valley in 2001 (NTBG Provenance Report 2002). Between 2001 and 2008, only six to eight plants were observed at this location (NTBG Provenance Report 2002; PEP Program 2008, p. 16; Bakutis 2008, in litt.). It is apparently extirpated from historical locations in Palolo Valley, Konahuanui Gulch, and Manoa Valley (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 755; HBMP 2008).
Cyrtandra kaulantha
(haiwale) is a perennial shrub in the African violet family (Gesneriaceae) found in dense shade in moist wooded gulches at elevations between 840 and 1,050 ft (255 and 320 m), in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems in the Koolau Mountains (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 763; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008).
Cyrtandra kaulantha
was historically known from the Waiahole Ditch Trail and Kahanaiki Stream areas. It was considered “locally common” and a collection was taken from a “large colony” in 1985 (Takeuchi 1985, in litt.; Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 763; Lau 2006a, in litt.). Prior to October 2005, there were 34 wild individuals in 3 occurrences (15, 8, and 11 individuals, respectively) in the subgulches of
Waianu Valley (Bakutis 2005a, in litt.). In 2005, the third occurrence was discovered crushed by a tree, leaving six living individuals (Bakutis 2005a, in litt.). In March 2006, it was reported that only one individual remained at the second occurrence, and that some individuals in the other two occurrences had fruit (Bakutis 2006a, in litt.). In addition, 4 more individuals were discovered at the site of the first occurrence, bringing the total number of wild individuals to 26 (Bakutis 2006b, in litt.). In May 2006, another tree fall crushed 4 individuals in the third occurrence, leaving 2 remaining; however, a fourth occurrence of 4 individuals was discovered in another subgulch, and 1 new individual was found in the first occurrence, bringing the total number of wild individuals to 27 (Bakutis 2006a, in litt.; Bakutis 2006b, in litt.). All occurrences were visited again in April 2007, with a total of 28 wild individuals observed (PEP Program 2007, p. 17). Outplanting has been conducted in the four subgulches of Waianu Valley, but in areas some distance from the known occurrences. A total of 28 individuals were outplanted between 2005 and 2007. However, due to predation by nonnative slugs, only 12 outplanted individuals remained in 2007 (PEP Program 2007, p. 17).
Cyrtandra kaulantha
is therefore currently found in 5 occurrences totaling 28 wild and 12 outplanted individuals.
Cyrtandra sessilis
(haiwale) (Gesneriaceae, African violet family) is a small shrub that was historically known only from a few collections in wet gulch bottoms and slopes of mesic valleys in the windward Koolau Mountains (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 778). Typical habitat is wet
Metrosideros
forests at elevations between 1,600 and 2,200 ft (490 and 670 m) in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Bakutis 2008, in litt.). In 1993, there were about 200 individuals in the only known occurrence near the summit of the Schofield-Waikane Trail (HBMP 2008). In 2003, there were an estimated 50 individuals in 2 occurrences (Perlman 2003, in litt.).
Cyrtandra sessilis
is currently known from 4 occurrences totaling approximately 83 individuals: 75 individuals along the Waikane-Schofield Trail in Kahana Valley, 1 individual at Lulumahu Gulch, 2 individuals in Wailupe, and 5 individuals at Hawaii Loa Ridge near Pia Valley (Perlman 2003, in litt.; Bakutis 2006c, in litt.; HBMP 2008; Bakutis 2008, in litt.).
Cyrtandra waiolani
(haiwale), a small shrub in the African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is found in rich, partly sunny gulches; shady, moist banks above creeks; and wet gulch bottoms in the lowland wet ecosystem (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 781; HBMP 2008; Lau 2011, in litt.).
Cyrtandra waiolani
was historically known from at least seven locations: five in the southern Koolau Mountains and two in the northern Koolau Mountains, at elevations between 800 and 3,000 ft (240 and 900 m) (HBMP 2008). Plants have not been observed in these areas since then. Individuals likely representing
C. waiolani,
based on vegetative characteristics, were seen in 1994, along the ridge between Kaipapau and Maakua (Lau 2011, in litt.). In 2005, it was thought there was a small chance that individuals found on the Kualono Ridge near Kaaawa could be
C. waiolani,
and cuttings were taken for propagation and positive identification when flowering and fruiting occurred (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR) 2005a; U.S. Army 2006; Bakutis 2008, in litt.; Ching 2009, in litt.; Lau 2009, in litt.); however, these plants were found not to be
C. waiolani
(Lau 2011, in litt.). Many areas within the lowland wet ecosystem in the Koolau Mountains have not been surveyed for this species. The Koolau mountain range is over 35 mi (58 km) in length. Historical surveys that we have records of from the 1800s did not cover the entire mountain range, but collections were made at seven widely distributed locations along the 35-mi (58-km) range. In the 1800s, forests in the Koolau Mountains were more intact at the summits; therefore, we believe that if seven collections were made, there were possibly many more individuals in the wild. The plants were only known from a ridge between Kaipapau and Maakau in 1994, and from Kahana in 2005, but those plants are no longer present, which represents a population decline from seven (and possibly more than seven historically) to zero. Botanists suggest that the species is likely still extant in these areas and may be found with more intensive surveying (Bakutis 2008, in litt; Lau 2009 and 2011, in litt.).
Doryopteris takeuchii
(no common name (NCN)) is a fern in the Pteridaceae family (Palmer 2003, p. 133). It occurs in dry shrubland on the slopes of Diamond Head Crater, a volcanic tuff cone on the southern coast of Oahu, at elevations between 140 and 300 ft (43 and 91 m) (NTBG 2007a, p. 1). This area consists of pockets of native and nonnative species in the lowland dry ecosystem (TNC 2007). Little is known of the historical distribution of
D. takeuchii.
Currently, there are 50 to 100 plants along the main trail to the summit, with individuals on the Kuilei cliffs and the southwest-facing gulches above Munro Trail on the outer slopes of the crater, totaling 160 to 200 individuals on Diamond Head (NTBG 2007, p. 1; Lau 2011, in litt.).
Korthalsella degeneri
(hulumoa), a subshrub (a perennial with stems that are woody at the base) in the mistletoe family (Viscaceae), is parasitic on the native trees
Sapindus oahuensis
(kaulu) and
Nestegis sandwicensis
(olopua) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 1,339). This species occurs in diverse forest in the dry cliff ecosystem at elevations between 1,100 and 1,500 ft (335 and 460 m) in the Waianae Mountains (U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). In 1938,
K. degeneri
was recorded from Makua Valley, but little else is known of its historical range (HBMP 2008). Currently,
K. degeneri
is known from Makaha Valley. In addition, individuals of this species may also occur in Makua Valley and at Kahanahaiki. Confirmation of the identification of these individuals is difficult because another related species,
Korthalsella platycaula,
is also found in Makua Valley (Lau 2001b and 2011, in litt.; U.S. Army 2006).
Melicope christophersenii
(alani), a shrub or tree in the rue family (Rutaceae), occurs in wet forest and shrubland in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems at elevations between 2,400 and 4,000 ft (730 and 1,200 m) in the Waianae Mountains (Stone
et al.
1999, pp. 1,184-1,185; U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically,
M. christophersenii
was known from a few scattered locations in the Mt. Kaala area of the Waianae Mountains, and as far south as Puu Kaua (HBMP 2008). Currently, there are 3 occurrences totaling approximately 250 individuals in the Waianae summit area, with the southernmost occurrence at Puu Hapapa (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008).
Melicope hiiakae
(alani) is a small tree in the rue family (Rutaceae) that occurs in wet forest in the lowland wet ecosystem in the Koolau Mountains, between elevations of 1,300 and 2,260 ft (400 and 700 m) (U.S. Army 2006; NTBG 2007, p. 3; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically,
M. hiiakae
was found along the entire length of the Koolau range (HBMP 2008). Currently, there are 10 scattered occurrences totaling fewer than 60 individuals from Kawailoa to Waimalu (NTBG 2007, p. 3; HBMP 2008; Lau 2011, in litt.).
Melicope makahae
(alani), a shrubby tree in the rue family (Rutaceae), occurs in mesic forest and shrubland in the lowland mesic and dry cliff ecosystems
in the Waianae Mountains, at elevations between 2,200 and 2,900 ft (670 and 890 m) (Stone
et al.
1999, p. 1,194; U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008; Lau 2011, in litt.). Historically,
M. makahae
was found in the Waianae Mountains on the west side of Mt. Kaala in Makaha Valley (Stone 1963, p. 410; TNC 2007). Currently, there are 4 occurrences totaling fewer than 200 individuals north and west of the summit area of the Waianae Mountains (HBMP 2008).
Platydesma cornuta
var.
cornuta
(NCN) is a palmoid (leaves dividing or radiating from one point) shrub in the rue family (Rutaceae) (Stone
et al.
1999, pp. 1,209-1,210). It occurs in wet forest, shrubland, and gulches in the lowland wet ecosystem of the Koolau Mountains, at elevations between 1,900 and 2,500 ft (580 and 760 m) (U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically, this species was found along the entire length of the Koolau range, and at elevations below 800 ft, from Pupukea to Wailupe Valley (HBMP 2008). Currently, 9 occurrences (totaling 32 individuals) are restricted to the summit area of the northern Koolau Mountains, with only 1 occurrence (16 individuals) near the summit of the southern Koolau Mountains (HBMP 2008).
Platydesma cornuta
var.
decurrens
(NCN), a palmoid shrub in the rue family (Rutaceae), occurs in the lowland mesic and dry cliff ecosystems of the Waianae Mountains, at elevations between 1,990 and 3,000 ft (600 and 900 m) (Stone
et al.
1999, pp. 1,209-1,210; U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically, this species was wide-ranging in the Waianae Mountains, from the Mokuleia Forest Reserve south to Kaluaa (TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Currently,
P. cornuta
var.
decurrens
is found in 15 occurrences scattered from Pahole to Palawai Gulch, totaling 259 to 309 individuals (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008).
Pleomele forbesii
(hala pepe) is a tree in the asparagus (Asparagaceae) family (Smithsonian Department of Botany 2008). It occurs in mesic and dry forest and shrubland in the lowland dry, lowland mesic, and dry cliff ecosystems in the Waianae and Koolau Mountains, at elevations between 800 and 2,900 ft (240 and 900 m) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 1,352; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically,
P. forbesii
was found in at least 11 locations, totaling an unknown number of individuals, in the Waianae Mountains (HBMP 2008). Currently, there are approximately 19 occurrences totaling 290 to 307 individuals, from Keawaula, Kaluakauila, Kuaokala, Kahanahaiki, the east and south rim of Makua Valley, the rim of Waianae Kai Valley, Keaau, Makaha, Kamaileunu, Kolekole Pass, Puu Hapapa, Puukaua, Ekahanui, Halona, Palawai, and Nanakuli, in the Waianae Mountains, and one occurrence of a few individuals in the Koolau Mountains (Lau 2011, in litt.; HBMP 2008).
Psychotria hexandra
ssp.
oahuensis
(kopiko), a tree in the coffee family (Rubiaceae), occurs in wet forest and shrubland in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems of the Koolau Mountains, at elevations between 1,080 and 2,000 ft (330 and 600 m) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 1,166; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Two varieties of this subspecies, var.
hosakana
and var.
oahuensis,
were historically known only from the northern Koolau Mountains, while var.
rockii
was known only from the southern Koolau Mountains (Lau 2011, in litt.). This species is currently known from three occurrences: one occurrence of 8 to 9 individuals in Maakua Gulch; one individual at Opaeula Gulch; and an estimated fewer than 10 individuals scattered between Kaipapau and Kaluanui, just south of Maakua Gulch (Bakutis 2005, in litt.; U.S. Army 2006; PEP Program 2007, p. 25; HBMP 2008). A single individual was outplanted within a fenced area in Makaua Valley (February 2007) and has been observed to be healthy in subsequent monitoring visits (PEP Program 2007, p. 25).
Pteralyxia macrocarpa
(kaulu) is a tree in the dogbane family (Apocynaceae). It occurs in the Waianae and Koolau Mountains, in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems, at elevations between 1,100 and 2,800 ft (340 and 850 m) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 220; U.S. Army 2006; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). Historically, this species was found along the entire length of the Koolau range and on the summit ridges of the Waianae Mountains (HBMP 2008). Currently,
P. macrocarpa
is found from Kapuhi Gulch to North Palawai Gulch in the Waianae Mountains, in approximately 31 occurrences totaling between 233 and 289 individuals. In the Koolau Mountains, 7 occurrences totaling 47 individuals occur in the most northern portion of this range, while only 11 individuals in 2 occurrences are found in the southernmost portion of the range (U.S. Army 2006; HBMP 2008).
Tetraplasandra lydgatei
(NCN), a tree in the ginseng family (Araliaceae), is found in mesic forest in the lowland mesic ecosystem at elevations between 800 and 1,600 ft (240 and 490 m) in the Koolau Mountains (Motley 2005, p. 107; TNC 2007). In 2005, Motley formally recognized
T. lydgatei
as distinct from
T. oahuensis
(Motley 2005; p. 105), and all known populations were surveyed at that time (PEP Program 2007, pp. 27-28). Formerly found from Niu Valley to the Halawa Ridge Trail, its distribution is now limited to two wild occurrences: one on the eastern slope of Hawaii Loa Ridge and another on Kulepeamoa Ridge. These occurrences total 8 individuals (HBMP 2008).
Zanthoxylum oahuense
(ae), a small tree in the rue family (Rutaceae), occurs in wet forest in the lowland wet ecosystem at elevations between 2,060 and 2,720 ft (630 and 830 m) (Wagner
et al.
1999, p. 1,216; TNC 2007; HBMP 2008). This species was historically known from 17 locations scattered along the entire length of the Koolau Mountains (HBMP 2008). Currently,
Z. oahuense
is found in the Koolau Mountains from Halawa-Kalauao ridge to ridges in Moanalua-Kamananui-Manaiki, and further east at Hawaiiloa Ridge, in 5 occurrences totaling 21 to 25 individuals (U.S Army 2006; HBMP 2008; Lau 2011, in litt.).
Animals
The crimson Hawaiian damselfly (
Megalagrion leptodemas
) is a medium-sized, slender and delicate species, with adults measuring from 1.4 to 1.6 in (36 to 41 mm) in length and having a wingspan of 1.5 to 1.6 in (39 to 42 mm). The species exhibits minimal striping and patterns. Males are primarily red and black in color, with females appearing somewhat paler and with green coloration present on the abdomen laterally (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 65).
The crimson Hawaiian damselfly breeds in the slow reaches of streams and seep-fed pools (Williams 1936, p. 306; Zimmerman 1948a, p. 369; Polhemus 1994a, p. 7; Polhemus 1994b, p. 37). Crimson Hawaiian damselfly naiads, the aquatic life-history stage, frequent open water, resting horizontally, or on submerged vegetation (Williams 1936, p. 309). Adults perch on streamside vegetation and patrol along the stream corridor, staying close to breeding pools (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 65).
Between 1991 and 2003, over 150 sites were surveyed on the island of Oahu for native damselflies, and results indicate that one lowland species, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, has been extirpated from Oahu, and the orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly has been reduced to a single remnant population (Polhemus 2007, pp. 233-235). The crimson Hawaiian damselfly was known historically from approximately eight areas where it is now extirpated, including the windward side of the Waianae Mountains and scattered locations in the Koolau
Mountains (Polhemus 1994a, p. 7; Polhemus 1994b, pp. 37-38; Englund 1999, pp. 228-229, 231; Polhemus 2007, pp. 234, 238). In 2003, this species was not found during surveys of Kahana Stream and may be extirpated from this stream system (Englund
et al.
2003, p. 6). Currently, only three occurrences of the crimson Hawaiian damselfly are known, all from the Koolau Mountains in the lowland wet and wet cliff ecosystems at Moanalua, north Halawa, and Maakua (TNC 2007; Polhemus 2008a, in litt.; HBMP 2008; Preston 2011, in litt.). This species was last observed in the lowland wet ecosystem at Waiawa in the late 1990s (Englund 1999, p. 229). All colonies of this damselfly are constrained to portions of streams not occupied by nonnative predatory fish—that is, stream portions above geologic or manmade barriers (e.g., waterfalls, steep gradients, dry stream midreaches, or constructed diversions). No estimates of population size for the crimson Hawaiian damselfly are available.
The blackline Hawaiian damselfly (
Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum
) is a moderately-sized and delicate subspecies (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 73). It occurs in the slow sections or pools along mid-reach and headwater sections of perennial upland streams and in seep-fed pools along overflow channels bordering such streams. The adults measure from 1.4 to 1.8 in (35 to 45 mm) in length and have a wingspan of 1.7 to 1.9 in (45 to 50 mm). Naiads remain concealed and are found under stones or in mats of algae (Williams 1936, p. 318; Zimmerman 1948a, pp. 371-372).
The blackline Hawaiian damselfly was known historically from the Koolau and Waianae Mountains, from sea level to over 2,400 ft (730 m) (Williams 1936, p. 318; Polhemus 1994a, pp. 6-12). Currently, this species is found in the lowland wet ecosystem on the windward and leeward sides of the Koolau Mountains, in the headwaters and upper reaches of 17 streams: Koloa, Kaipapau, Maakua, upper Kaluanui, Palaa, Helemano headwaters, Poamoho, Kahana, Waiahole, Waiawa, Kaalaea, Waihee, Kahaluu, north Halawa, Heeia, Kalihi, and Maunawili (TNC 2007; Polhemus 2008a, in litt.; Wolff 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2008; Preston 2011, in litt.). Like the crimson Hawaiian damselfly, all colonies of the blackline Hawaiian damselfly are constrained to portions of streams not occupied by nonnative predatory fish—that is, stream portions above geologic or manmade barriers (e.g., waterfalls, steep gradients, dry stream midreaches, or constructed diversions). Currently, the 17 stream colonies are estimated to total 800 to 1,000 individuals, with approximately 50 individuals per stream (Polhemus 2008c, in litt.).
The oceanic Hawaiian damselfly (
Megalagrion oceanicum
) is a comparatively large and robust species. The adults measure from 1.8 to 1.9 in (47 to 50 mm) in length and have a wingspan of 2.0 to 2.2 in (51 to 55 mm). Both sexes exhibit prominent patterns including black stripes, but males are bright red in color while females are pale green. Immature individuals of this species are also large with long grasping legs and dagger-like gills (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 77). The oceanic Hawaiian damselfly can be distinguished from other Oahu damselfly species by its large size, black stripes, and fast flight along flowing sections of streams.
Individuals of the immature stage of the oceanic Hawaiian damselfly are found in swiftly flowing sections of streams, usually amid rocks and gravel in stream riffles (stream sections with sufficient gradient to create small standing waves) and small cascades on waterfalls (Williams 1936, pp. 321-322; Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 106). While capable of swimming, the naiads usually crawl among gravel or submerged vegetation. Older naiads frequently forage out of the actual stream channel and have been observed among wet moss on rocks, and wet rock walls and seeps (Williams 1936, pp. 321-323). Adults are very bold and strong flyers, and when disturbed frequently fly upward into the forest canopy overhanging the stream or waterfall (Williams 1936, p. 323; Polhemus 1994b, p. 48).
Historically, the oceanic Hawaiian damselfly occurred on both the leeward and windward sides of the Koolau and Waianae Mountains, and was known, but is currently extirpated, from approximately 16 general localities, including the Waianae Mountains and all leeward streams of the Koolau Mountains (Englund and Polhemus 1994, p. 8). The species now currently occupies 12 sites above 300 ft (100 m) in elevation on the windward side of the Koolau Mountains at Kahawainui, Wailele, Koloa, Kaipapau, Maakua, upper Kaluanui, Kawaiiki, Opaeula, upper Helemano, Makaua, Waihee, and Kahaluu, in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (TNC 2007; Polhemus 2007, pp. 237-239; HBMP 2008; Preston 2011, in litt.). Like the crimson and blackline Hawaiian damselflies, the oceanic Hawaiian damselfly is constrained to portions of streams not occupied by nonnative predatory fish—that is, stream portions above geologic or manmade barriers (e.g., waterfalls, steep gradients, dry stream midreaches, or constructed diversions). No estimates of population size for the oceanic Hawaiian damselfly are available.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
On August 2, 2011, we published a proposed rule to list these 23 Oahu species as endangered throughout their ranges, and to designate critical habitat for 124 species (76 FR 46362). The comment period for the proposal opened on August 2, 2011, and closed on October 3, 2011. We requested that all interested parties submit comments or information concerning the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for the 124 species. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we published a public notice of the proposed rule on August 6, 2011, in the local Honolulu Star Advertiser newspaper, at the beginning of the comment period. On April 12, 2012, we published a document (77 FR 21936) announcing the availability of our draft economic analysis, requesting comments on it until May 14, 2012, and reopening the comment period on the August 2, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 46362) until that time as well.
During the comment periods, we received a total of 55 comment letters. We did not receive any requests for public hearings. Four commenters were peer reviewers, 5 were State of Hawaii agencies, 1 was a Federal agency (U.S. Navy), and 45 were nongovernmental organizations or individuals. Due to the nature of the proposed rule, we received combined comments from the public on both the listing action and the critical habitat; we have therefore addressed these issues in a single comment section.
Four of the comment letters supported the listing and designation of critical habitat for the Oahu species. Thirty-one commenters requested that we exclude 695 ac (281 ha) (representing entire or portions of five different critical habitat units), based on possible economic effects of the designation. We reviewed all comments we received for substantive issues and new data regarding the proposed listing of 23 species and designation of critical habitat for 124 species. We have fully considered all substantive comments in this final rule. Written comments we received during the comment periods are addressed in the following
summary. For readers' convenience, we have combined similar comments into single comments and responses.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the
Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from 13 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on the Oahu plants and damselflies and their habitats, including familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which these species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers who were solicited. These four peer reviewers generally supported our methodology and conclusions. One reviewer supported the listing and critical habitat for the Oahu species, one reviewer supported protection of the stream habitat essential to the Hawaiian damselflies, and all four reviewers provided new information on one or more of the Oahu species, which was incorporated into this final rule. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 23 species and designation of critical habitat for 124 species. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1)
Comment:
One peer reviewer suggested that we use the more current and accepted terms “ferns and lycophytes” instead of “ferns and allies” in the published rule.
Our Response:
We agree that “ferns and lycophytes” is the currently accepted terminology; however, changing the term “ferns and allies” to “ferns and lycophytes” at 50 CFR 17.12 and at 50 CFR 17.99(j) would require a separate rulemaking to amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), not only for the Hawaiian species listings, but for all previously listed species nationwide. This rulemaking would also require an opportunity for public review and comment, which we are unable to accommodate in this final rule.
(2)
Comment:
One peer reviewer disagreed with our statement that “many native Hawaiian plants and animals currently occupy only areas of marginal habitat because the threats are reduced in those areas,” and suggested that the areas where the species currently occur constitute their prime habitat, not marginal habitat.
Our Response:
Prime habitat and marginal habitat are not terms used in the Act. However, we agree that some native Hawaiian plants and animals thrive in areas that are “marginal” (i.e., not dominated by other native species) and have modified our statement in this final rule. The areas designated as critical habitat in this final rule include both occupied and unoccupied habitat.
(3)
Comment:
One peer reviewer expressed concern regarding the potential threat to the three proposed Hawaiian damselflies from the use of biopesticides (pesticides derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and minerals) to combat, for example, mosquitoes.
Our Response:
We do not have sufficient data to evaluate the effects that biopesticides, in particular,
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis
(Bti), may have on Hawaiian damselflies. Therefore, Bti is not considered a current threat to the three proposed Hawaiian damselflies because the specific impacts to these damselflies are unknown at this time.
(4)
Comment:
Two peer reviewers provided information from their recent surveys for species of
Megalagrion
and stated that survey results demonstrated that only streams without nonnative fish provide habitat for native damselflies, and that these streams are crucial for the continued survival of
Megalagrion.
The commenters also stated that, in addition to predation by nonnative fish, siltation of stream gravel beds and other stream modifications resulting from erosion of nearby riparian habitat caused by the actions of feral ungulates is a significant threat to
Megalagrion
species. The commenters recommended that the Service should try to protect the remaining stream habitat that is free of nonnative fish, eliminate nonnative fish in the streams in which they occur, and restore streams and surrounding habitat to provide suitable habitat for Hawaii's
Megalagrion
and other native aquatic species. They also stated that the positive impacts from the removal of nonnative fish and ungulates in aquatic and surrounding habitat will improve overall environmental conditions, that native Hawaiian damselfly larvae may effectively control mosquitoes in place of nonnative fish, and that removal of ungulates in stream areas may reduce the incidence of leptospirosis in Hawaii, which has the largest number of reported cases of this human-health hazard in the United States.
Our Response:
We agree that habitat degradation and destruction by feral ungulates and predation of
Megalagrion
spp. by nonnative fish are significant threats to the three species of damselflies in this rule (see Factor A and Factor C, below). Listing these species as endangered and designating their critical habitat will provide conservation benefits including: Protection from being jeopardized by Federal activities; protections against the adverse modification of critical habitat; restrictions on take and trafficking; a requirement that the Service develop and implement recovery plans; authorization to seek land purchases or exchanges for important habitat; and Federal aid to State conservation departments and cooperative endangered species agreements. Listing also lends greater recognition to a species' precarious status, encouraging conservation effort by other agencies, independent organizations, and concerned individuals.
The Service has identified high-quality stream habitat in the State of Hawaii and participates in several programs that provide for stream habitat restoration. One of these programs is the Hawaii Fish Habitat Partnership, whose members developed a strategic plan for implementation of stream restoration projects. Also, funding for implementation of stream restoration activities is available through the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (which includes Federal, State, and private partners), and through the National Fish Passage Program (Service), which will allow for migration of native fish and invertebrates (while excluding nonnative fish) into essential headwater stream reaches. Currently, there are two stream restoration projects funded by these programs on the windward side of Oahu. In 2009, funding was provided to restore native habitat in Waihee Stream and provide a barrier to prevent nonnative fish passage into the upper reaches of the stream where the blackline Hawaiian damselfly occurs. In 2010 and 2011, funds were provided to initiate restoration of habitat for native fish and the blackline Hawaiian damselfly at the lower elevations of Heeia Stream. Additional funding will be pursued to restore the habitat further upstream and to construct a barrier to prevent nonnative fish passage into the upper elevation watershed.
Comments From the State of Hawaii
(5)
Comment:
The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT), Office of Planning commented that the proposed rule for the Oahu species is subject to Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Federal consistency review, pursuant to section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451
et seq.
) and 15 CFR part 930, subpart C. In their letter, DBEDT stated that Federal consistency review is required
because the Federal agency activity will occur within the Hawaii CZM area, which includes all lands of the State (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A), and will affect coastal uses and resources (i.e., any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone (15 CFR 930.11(b))). In addition, DBEDT cited
Palila
v.
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
[DLNR], 471 F. Supp. 985 (Haw. 1979), as a case where no Federal lands or Federal funds were involved yet Hawaii DLNR was held liable for its non-Federal actions within palila critical habitat.
Our Response:
The
Palila
case was based on section 9 of the Act, which makes it a crime for anyone to “take” (defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt any of these actions) an endangered species. This provision of the Act can be asserted by private citizens or by the Federal Government. In the
palila
lawsuit, private nonprofit organizations claimed that DLNR was taking the Palila by maintaining populations of feral sheep and goats in the bird's habitat. The fact that the bird's habitat was designated critical habitat had no legal relevance to this allegation; the designation played only an informational role in identifying habitat important to the species. There is no regulatory connection between the Act's section 9 prohibition against “take” of a listed species and the designation of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat does not physically alter any coastal resources or uses, initiate any activity or a series of activities with effects on coastal resources or uses, or direct future agency actions that affect or alter coastal resources or uses. The designation of critical habitat simply requires a Federal agency proposing an activity that may itself affect the coastal zone to consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that the activity does not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is the Federal agency activity that results in reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal resources or coastal uses that is subject to the consistency requirement of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). It is also the responsibility of the Federal agency proposing the activity to ensure the agency complies with the CZMA. The designation of critical habitat does not affect coastal resources or uses in this manner, nor does critical habitat designation affect the coastal zone in other ways. Thus, the designation of critical habitat is not a “Federal agency activity” under the CZMA definition, and a consistency determination is not necessary for the designation of critical habitat on Oahu.
(6)
Comment:
The Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) expressed concerns over the designation of critical habitat on their lands. DHHL requested that we remove Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 10, which overlays lands on which they were developing two on-grid 5 megawatt (MW) solar power generating facilities (DHHL 2011, in litt.). In addition, they requested that we remove any pasture lands from Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 8 and any DHHL lands that overlay Oahu—Lowland Wet—Units 9 and 13, and Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 8 from the final designation, to ensure there are no limitations on their authority over the use and development of their landholdings.
Our Response:
We carefully reviewed the areas proposed as critical habitat that overlap lands owned by DHHL. We determined that proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 10 (43 ac; 17 ha) is essential for the conservation and recovery of 17 plant species that require the physical and biological features of the lowland dry ecosystem. This unit also provides the species-specific primary constituent element of coral outcrop substrate required for the endangered plant
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
(Ewa Plains akoko), which was present in the area in 1998, and is endemic only to the Kalaeloa area. The revised recovery strategy for akoko (“Recovery Needs and Strategy for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
(Ewa Plains akoko)”) (Service 2012, entire) describes the need for several discrete populations distributed across the landscape, in order to recover this species. For
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii,
a plant requiring another individual for pollination (obligate-outcrosser) and living 10 years or less (short-lived perennial), we need to establish and maintain 7 to 8 populations across the 4 units proposed in the lowland dry habitat in Kalaeloa (Oahu—Lowland Dry—Units 8-11), although there may be some flexibility within each unit regarding the precise location and management of each population within the unit (HPPRCC 2011; Guerrant
et al.
2004, pp. 419-441; Neel and Cummings 2003).
We are aware of the planned development of the Kalaeloa Solar One and Two alternative energy facilities (DHHL 2011, in litt.) on lands within, and adjacent to, this unit. The facilities, which are independently owned and operated, are being developed for the purpose of reducing Oahu's dependence on fossil-fuel for power generation. The January 2011 Draft Environmental Assessment prepared for this project states that no Federal funding or Federal authorizations will be required to develop this facility. We are also unaware of any Federal nexus for this project. Accordingly, since a critical habitat designation only triggers a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for activities that have a Federal nexus, the designation of this unit as critical habitat is not anticipated to have an impact on this project as proposed.
Another 52 ac (21 ha) of proposed Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 8 overlap DHHL lands in the Waianae Mountains; however, this area is situated on a steep cliff (greater than 65 degree slope), and does not include any pastureland. Accordingly, the critical habitat designation is not expected to affect any pasture operations. This portion of Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 8 is essential to the conservation and recovery of 45 plant species that require the physical and biological features of the dry cliff ecosystem. Based upon landownership information from the State's GIS database, we determined that proposed Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 9 and Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 8 do not overlap any DHHL lands. We removed 86 ac (35 ha) from proposed Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 13 (which corresponds to the critical habitat units
Megalagrion leptodemas
Unit 8—Lowland Wet;
M. nigrohamatum nigrolineatum
Unit 8—Lowland Wet, and
M. oceanicum
Unit 9—Lowland Wet), portions of which overlap DHHL lands. We determined these unoccupied lands, which are too degraded or modified by buildings and roads to support the species, are not essential for the conservation and recovery of the 45 species for which they were proposed as critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect activities on State or private lands absent a Federal nexus (a program or project authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency), even if such lands are within the geographical boundaries of the critical habitat.
(7)
Comment:
The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) opposed the designation of critical habitat on lands surrounding the Kalaeloa Barber's Point Harbor, specifically in proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8. The HDOT believes the critical habitat designation will result in a significant delay in implementing the expansion of Kalaeloa Barber's Point Harbor, which would be detrimental to the State and local economy. The HDOT Harbors Division is planning to expand the harbor, which would include purchasing 54 ac (22 ha) within the proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 area. The HDOT is concerned that designating the 54-ac
(22-ha) area will impact planning efforts that have been underway for decades, within one of Oahu's and the State of Hawaii's most important industrial areas.
Our Response:
When proposed, Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 was comprised of 292 ac (118 ha). Information gained from site visits and from comments we received during the public comment period (76 FR 46362, August 2, 2011; 77 FR 21936, April 12, 2012) confirmed that 193 ac (78 ha) of this unit are not essential to the conservation of the species because they are too degraded to support the species or be functionally restored to support the essential features and habitat for which this area was proposed as critical habitat (see “Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule,” below). The 54-ac (22-ha) area to be purchased by HDOT is no longer within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
(8)
Comment:
In a separate letter, the HDOT requested clarification regarding the impact of listing the 23 species on State and federally funded highway projects currently undergoing environmental review, existing HDOT roadways, and mitigation requirements for future HDOT projects in or near designated critical habitat.
Our Response:
The listing of the 23 Oahu species and designation of critical habitat would not impact existing HDOT roadways, unless a proposed or ongoing federal action (i.e., a federally funded highway modification) may affect one or more of the 124 Oahu species or designated critical habitat. If an existing or ongoing Federal, federally authorized, or federally funded project is likely to adversely affect one or more of these species or critical habitat, ESA section 7 consultation would be required so the Federal agency can ensure the proposed action(s) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. This would also apply to future HDOT project(s) with a Federal nexus. If such projects would likely result in jeopardy to the listed species or the adverse modification of critical habitat, the Service would identify reasonable and prudent alternatives to minimize such impact. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions identified during formal section 7 consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the purpose of the action and the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction. Reasonable and prudent alternatives must be economically and technical feasible, and avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely modifiying critical habitat.
(9)
Comment:
The HDOT, Harbors Division, Planning Office requested information on how the designation of critical habitat in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 may affect harbor development in the existing Kalaeloa Barber's Point Harbor area and the proposed acquisition area for harbor expansion.
Our Response:
See also our response to Comment (7), above. The designation of critical habitat does not affect activities on State or private lands absent a Federal nexus, even if such lands are within the geographical boundaries of the critical habitat. However, Federal agencies are required to consult with the Service on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In this way, a critical habitat designation provides additional protections beyond classifying a species as endangered or threatened by requiring consideration of the effects of Federal actions on areas essential for the conservation of the species. The area being considered for harbor expansion, which was within proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8, was resurveyed by the Service. Those areas that are too degraded to support the species or be functionally restored to support the essential features and habitat are not essential for the conservation of the species, and have been removed from critical habitat. This includes the proposed acquisition area for harbor expansion.
(10)
Comment:
The Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA), which expects to acquire lands within the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station at Kalaeloa, requested that lands within the Kalaeloa Northern Skeet Range, which are overlapped by Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11, be excluded from critical habitat. According to HCDA, they are developing a preservation plan for akoko, which occurs on this land, in coordination with the Navy, Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (HDOFAW), and the Service; the planned development of the renewable energy project in this area will reduce the State's dependence on foreign oil and generate revenue to develop needed infrastructure in Kalaeloa and fund akoko preservation activities. The HCDA is developing a cadre of volunteers to steward the site.
The HDOFAW concurred with the proposed listing of the 23 Oahu species and the designation of critical habitat for 124 species with the exception of Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11. Hawaii DOFAW recommended that the western third of TMK parcel 91013039 (approximately 60 ac (24 ha)) within the unit be removed from critical habitat designation. According to their letter, this portion of the parcel is the most appropriate area for development of a photovoltaic project, because of the absence or low numbers of akoko, due to the dense overgrowth of weeds and tall grasses. The Hawaii DOFAW is recommending that HCDA and the photovoltaic developer enter into a [Hawaii State] Habitat Conservation Plan for the site, in order to secure development rights and provide assurances of funding for akoko conservation.
Our Response:
We determined that proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11 (166 ac; 67 ha) is essential for the conservation and recovery of 17 plant species that require the physical and biological features of the lowland dry ecosystem. This unit also provides the species-specific primary constituent element of coral outcrop substrate required for the endangered Ewa Plains akoko, known only from the Kalaeloa area. This area was once the largest known population of akoko and contains the last known wild individuals and approximately 600 outplanted individuals. The revised recovery strategy for akoko (“Recovery Needs and Strategy for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
(Ewa Plains akoko)”) (Service 2012, entire) describes the need for several discrete populations distributed across the landscape, in order to recover this species. For
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
, a plant requiring another individual for pollination (obligate-outcrosser) and living 10 years or less (short-lived perennial), we need to establish and maintain 7 to 8 populations across the 4 units proposed in the lowland dry habitat in Kalaeloa (Oahu—Lowland Dry—Units 8-11), although there may be some flexibility within each unit regarding the precise location and management of each population within the unit. (HPPRCC 2011; Guerrant
et al.
2004, pp. 419-441; Neel and Cummings 2003).
We are aware and supportive of the efforts underway by State and the Navy to develop a long-term preservation or conservation plan for
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
within this unit. These include the development of a State of Hawaii Habitat Conservation Plan and the conditional transfer of some of the Navy lands within this unit to the HCDA. The State of Hawaii Endangered Species Act already prohibits the take of individual listed plants by the State or any other non-Federal entity, without
State review and authorization. If the lands are transferred by the Navy, the deed will require Grantees and successors to enter into a legally binding conservation and management plan approved by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, to ensure protection of
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
before conveying the property (U.S. Navy 2011, in litt.), based on the species being State and federally listed. The purpose of this agreement is to ensure the use or development of the transferred property does not adversely affect
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
, as long as the species remains listed under the Act. If the Navy lands are transferred to HCDA, a portion of the lands may be used to develop a photovoltaic alternative energy project (HCDA 2012, in litt.; HDOFAW 2012, in litt.). The HCDA plans to use a portion of the revenue generated by commercial use of HCDA property to fund the conservation actions required under a conservation management plan (U.S. Navy 2011, in litt.). The Service is committed to working with the Navy and HCDA in the development of this conservation plan, to ensure it will provide for the long-term conservation of the plant and its habitat. Because of this close coordination, and because the deed restriction stipulates that
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
will not be adversely affected, we believe the development of the photovoltaic alternative energy project, as proposed, will not be impacted by the designation of critical habitat in this unit, and it is our intent to work with our partners to facilitate this project.
Comments From Federal Agencies
(11)
Comment:
The Navy requested that the Service exclude Navy lands from critical habitat designation under Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act because of benefits provided to the species from the implementation of an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP). The Navy advised the Service that is was revising the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) INRMP, and the finalized plan will address conservation measures for plant species for which critical habitat is proposed on Navy lands (U.S. Navy 2011, in litt.). The INRMP will be fully coordinated with the Service and include an assessment of conservation needs of the listed plant species, a statement of goals and priorities, and a detailed description of the actions to address the needs of the plant species, and will include a monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Our Response:
Critical habitat was proposed for 60 plant species within 10 units that overlap Navy lands at Lualualei Valley (NAVMAG PH Lualualei and NRTF Lualualei) (Oahu—Lowland Dry—Units 3, 4, and 5; Oahu—Dry Cliff—Units 4, 5, 6, and 7; and Oahu—Wet Cliff—Units 2 and 5) and at Kalaeloa Barber's Point (Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11). The 10 units are occupied by 28 of the 60 plant species and provide unoccupied habitat essential to the conservation of 32 species. Implementation of the June 2012 Addendum to the Navy's September 2011 final INRMP JBPHH (encompassing Naval facilities of Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Naval Magazine Pearl Harbor Lualuaei and West Loch Branches, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific Wahiawa, Naval Radio Transmitter Facility Lualualei, Navy-retained lands at Kalaeloa, and Hickam Air Force Base) will provide a conservation benefit for 59 of the 60 plant species for which critical habitat was proposed on Navy lands (76 FR 46362). The Navy's final INRMP and Addendum does not include conservation measures for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
(Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11 at Kalaeloa Barber's Point), as the Navy is planning on transferring the property as part of the closure process (or Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)) of the Barber's Point Naval Facility. The Navy's INRMP also does not cover actions conducted by the Navy on U.S. Coast Guard property. We are exempting critical habitat from Navy lands within Lualualei Valley, based on the implementation of conservation measures described in the 2011 final INRMP and the 2012 Addendum. For detailed information regarding conservation measures for listed plants and their critical habitat provided by the 2011 final INRMP and the 2012 Addendum to the INRMP, please see “Approved INRMPs,” below). We are retaining Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11 as critical habitat because the INRMP does not provide a benefit to the species for which that critical habitat unit is designated and the Navy is in the process of transferring ownership of this property.
(12)
Comment:
The Navy commented that they agree with the proposed critical habitat designation within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Units 9, 10, and 11, and that the parcel that is within proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11 is owned by the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA), in accordance with 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) law. The Navy has no planned conservation actions for the listed plant species on this site.
Our Response:
A review of tax assessor parcel data for Oahu confirms that the Navy does not own lands overlapped by critical habitat units Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 9 and Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 10. Accordingly, the Navy is no longer subject to requirements under the Act on these lands. Current City and County records indicate that the Navy retains ownership of its lands within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11 (City and County Real Property Assessment Division 2011). All lands under U.S. Navy ownership or management continue to be subject to requirements under the Act until such time as they are conveyed to other parties. The Navy's 2011 INRMP and 2012 Addendum provide conservation measures that allow exemption of proposed critical habitat on Navy lands at Lualualei; however, the last remaining wild population of
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
occurs on Navy lands at Barber's Point (Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 11). The Service believes the Navy's INRMP does not provide a benefit to the species for which critical habitat was proposed, and we therefore cannot exempt this area from critical habitat.
(13)
Comment:
The Navy commented that the proposed critical habitat within Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 5 slightly overlaps Navy land by a small area (0.16 acres (ac) (0.063 hectares (ha)), and that if the intent was for the boundary to follow the ridgeline, no Navy lands would be included in the unit. If true, the Navy recommends that this unit be adjusted to follow the ridge and not overlap Navy property.
Our Response:
We have reexamined proposed critical habitat on Navy lands in Lualualei Valley. The Service believes that if conservation measures outlined in the 2010 INRMP and the 2012 Addendum are followed, fences are constructed for ungulate control, nonnative plants are controlled, propagation and outplanting of endangered species on Navy lands is allowed, monitoring and adaptive management actions are completed, and reporting is provided, including development and implementation of a fire management plan, we can exclude areas of Navy land in Lualualei Valley from critical habitat. The portion of Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 5 on Navy lands at Lualualei referred to in the comment above is therefore exempted from critical habitat in this rule.
Public Comments on Proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8
Many commenters opposed the designation of critical habitat in proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8, and we grouped similar comments together relating specifically to this proposed unit. These comments are addressed in the following summary.
(14)
Comment:
Several commenters requested that their specific lands within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 be excluded from the final designation of critical habitat for akoko due to: Potential significant economic impacts, the lands absence of the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of akoko, or the social or economic benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat outweighs the conservation benefit to the species that may result from their inclusion in the final designation.
Our Response:
Following the publication of the proposed rule, the Service, in coordination with the property owners, conducted a field visit of Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 in November 2011, to obtain further field verification of the current condition of habitat for akoko. Following the field visit, it was determined that approximately 193 acres of the 292 acres proposed were too degraded to support akoko or to be functionally restored to support the essential features and habitat for akoko. It was further determined during that field visit and a subsequent field visit in June 2012, that 99 acres (40 ha) contained the features essential to the conservation of akoko and could be adequately restored to allow for a functioning population of akoko if re-established. In our April 12, 2012, Notice of Availability of the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) (77 FR 21936), we advised the public that we were considering these boundary adjustments and requested comment. The DEA did not reflect these revisions to Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
Based on the revisions the final rule makes to Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8, many of the specific lands that commenters were concerned with were removed from the designation due to the lack of features or because they were so degraded. These include: (1) Kapolei Harborside, (2) the lands where the biofuel farm is planned, (3) the Wastepile site, (4) the Maritime Industrial area where the harbor expansion is planned, and (5) Ko Olina Resort and Marina property. As a result, we will not address any specific comments concerning the inclusion of these lands in this final rule or the potential impacts from their inclusion. The remaining lands within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 overlap two parcels that are part of the Kapolei West planned development area. Comments concerning the inclusion of these lands in the final rule have been fully considered and are addressed in the “Public Comments on Proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8” section.
(15)
Comment:
The primary constituent elements (PCEs) for ecosystems are arbitrary and capricious, and are conflicting for the lowland dry area.
Our Response:
We disagree. We consider the PCEs to be the specific compositional elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. This final rule identifies the appropriate PCEs sufficient to support the life-history processes for each species within the ecosystems in which they occur, and reflects a distribution that we believe is essential to the species' recovery needs within those ecosystems. The ecosystems' features include the appropriate microclimatic conditions for germination and growth of the plants (e.g., light availability, soil nutrients, hydrologic regime, and temperature) and space within the appropriate habitats for population growth and expansion, as well as to maintain the historical geographical and ecological distribution of each species. The PCEs are defined by elevation, annual levels of precipitation, substrate type and slope, and the potential to maintain characteristic native plant genera in the canopy, subcanopy, and understory levels of the vegetative community. The PCEs for the lowland dry ecosystem are described in Table 4 of this final rule and were derived from several sources, including:
(a) The Nature Conservancy's Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps (2007);
(b) Natural Resources Conservation Service's soil type analysis data layer for GIS mapping;
(c) Oahu vegetation analyses by Gagne and Cuddihy (1999, pp. 45-114);
(d) Plant databases from the U.S. Army Environmental (2006) and the National Tropical Botanical Garden;
(e) Geographic information system maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian plants (HPPRCC 1998);
(f) GAP (geographic analysis program) vegetation data (GAP 2005);
(g)
Federal Register
documents such as listing rules and 5-year status reviews;
(h) Final critical habitat designation for the island of Oahu (68 FR 35950, June 17, 2003); and
(i) Recent biological surveys and scientific reports regarding species and their habitats.
Where further information was available indicating additional, specific, life-history requirements for some species, the primary constituent elements (PCEs) relating to these requirements are described separately and are termed “unique” PCEs for species; for example, we have identified coral outcrop substrate as a unique PCE for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
(see Table 5, below).
(16)
Comment:
One commenter disputed the number of occurrences and individuals reported for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
in our proposed rule (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011), based on a September 2011 report by a private consultant on
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
at Barber's Point. In addition, the commenter questioned why our total number of individuals of
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
did not include the individuals outplanted in the Kalaeloa unit of the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, and why we did not include a map of the location of the 1998
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
observation by Whistler (2008).
Our Response:
In the September 2011 report provided by the commenter on
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
at Barber's Point, the author summarized status information for this species. According to the report,
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
was found at the Northern Trap and Skeet Range (NTSR), Building 1527, and at the Service's Kalaeloa unit of the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). No information was provided on the total number of individuals or the numbers of individuals at each location. However, based on the best available information, approximately 700 individuals of
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
are present in two occurrences within an area previously used by the Navy as a trap and skeet range for the Barber's Point Naval Air Station, and at the Refuge (U.S. Navy
et al.
2012). Of these, fewer than approximately 200 are wild individuals. The Whistler (2008) reference mentioned by the commenter was used in our analysis, but was inadvertently omitted from the list of references for the proposed rule.
(17)
Comment:
Designation of critical habitat in Oahu-Lowland Dry-Unit 8 is a taking of property without just compensation.
Our Response:
The mere promulgation of a regulation, like the enactment of a statute, does not take private property, unless the regulation on its face denies the property owners
all economically beneficial or productive use of their land. The designation of critical habitat alone does not deny anyone economically viable use of their property. The Act does not automatically restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Furthermore, if in the course of a consultation with a Federal agency, the resulting biological opinion concludes that a proposed action is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, and that are economically and technologically feasible (Service 1998, p. xvii).
(18)
Comment:
The Service did not have accurate land ownership information for Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
Our Response:
During the initial public comment period on our proposed rule (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011), we became aware that there were errors in the landownership information for proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 in the geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from Honolulu County (2008), which were used to identify affected landowners. However, we subsequently received accurate landownership information from the City and County of Honolulu's Real Property Assessment Office (2011). We sent letters to all of the affected landowners we were able to identify, notifying them that the proposed critical habitat designation may overlap some or all of their property. In that letter we also provided general information on the proposed critical habitat designation and that we were considering a revision for proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
Public Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis
Many commenters questioned the draft economic analysis (DEA). These comments and our responses are grouped below.
(19)
Comment:
Several commenters questioned our assumption that a Federal nexus may not exist for the planned development projects in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8, and that by asserting there was no Federal nexus, we may be underestimating the potential impacts resulting from the inclusion of these lands in the final designation of critical habitat for akoko. Commenters further asserted that if there was a Federal nexus, there would be many more than one consultation due to parcels being subdivided, with individual consultations conducted on actions affecting each parcel. One commenter stated they submitted permit applications to the Department of the Army for the expansion of existing buildings, infrastructure and facilities at Ko Olina Resort and Marina within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8. Another commenter (James Campbell Company LLC) identified several potential activities that could trigger section 7 consultation, including Army Corps of Engineers approval of a regional drainage system, Federal funding for a State highway project, Federal grants to fund harbor expansion, EPA emission permits for energy projects, and Small Business Administration loans. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits under the Clean Water Act for any storm water discharges associated with any of the above development.
Our Response:
Following a review of the information we received from public comments and otherwise available to us, we agree there is a reasonable probability that a Federal action agency would be involved with funding, permitting, or otherwise authorizing the planned development project for Kapolei West. Because it now appears that there are only two parcels that we are designating as critical habitat in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 that are part of the larger Kapolei West planned development, we anticipate there would likely be only a single consultation involved for the entire master planned development. In our history with such large development projects, it has generally been the case that there is one consultation with the Federal action agency covering the entire project, and not smaller individual consultations on smaller individual components of the project.
That being stated, to evaluate potential impacts from the designation given the uncertainty of whether there may be a Federal nexus and how many specific consultations there may be, we evaluated a range in the DEA and our final rule. At one end of the range, we assume that there will be no Federal nexus. In this case, because there is no regulatory effect under the Act for a designation of critical habitat absent a Federal nexus, we assume there will be no impact from the designation. This constitutes the lower bound that is identified in the DEA, and we still believe this scenario could occur. At the other end of the range, where a Federal nexus is assumed, we also assume that the consultation resulting from the designation of critical habitat would take into consideration the entire master planned project based on past comparable examples. For example, one property owner (James Campbell Company LLC) commented that the entire 107 acres (43 ha) being designated within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 fall within the Kapolei West project, which is slated for residential and mixed-use development, with development rights vested by several public approval processes and County ordinance. They also commented that the land use entitlement process for Kapolei West began in the 1980's and was assessed in an Environmental Impact Statement prepared under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343 (Kapolei West Expansion Area Final EIS, June 2005; James Campbell Company LLC letter dated May 12, 2012). Because the consultation is anticipated to be for the entire master planned community, then the specific number of parcels may not be significant. The final economic analysis rexamined the potential upper-bound of economic costs, including administrative costs to the Service, Federal agencies, and third parties. The estimated combined administrative costs in occupied and unoccupied critical habitat is $145,000 over a 20-year period ($94, 178 using a 7 percent discount rate, $117,075 using a 3 percent discount rate). The total administrative costs (i.e., costs related to section 7 consultation) in occupied areas are estimated to be $105,000 over a 20-year period (or $54,178 using a 7 percent discount rate—$77,075 using a 3 percent discount rate). Combined annualized costs over this period are $8,776 using a 7 percent discount rate, or $7,000 using a 3 percent discount rate (Service 2012, Table ES-12).
(20)
Comment:
One commenter indicated that the time horizon of the DEA, 20-years, was too short a time to evaluate the potential economic impacts of the designation.
Our Response:
While Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 clarify the importance for the government to carefully assess, to the best of its abilities, the benefits and costs of proposed rules before making any final determinations, neither Executive Order nor Circular A-4 specify a specific timeframe for analysis. Recent guidance from OMB indicates that if a regulation has no predetermined sunset provision, the agency will need to choose the endpoint of its analysis based on the foreseeable future or the agency's ability to forecast reliably (Office of Management and
Budget, 2011 p. 5). For most agencies, a standard time period of analysis is 10 to 20 years. Additionally, since we identified 21 parcels of property in unoccupied habitat, and the DEA assumed that there would be a single section 7 consultation in each unit, the DEA made the further assumption that there would be, on average, one consultation each year for the next 21 years. This assumption was influenced by the fact that it was unknown when activities would take place in the future that would trigger a consultation and that it was highly unlikely all 21 supposed consultations would occur in the first year (which would provide the most conservative (i.e., highest) economic cost after discounting).
(21)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the DEA understates the economic impact the designation will have on small business.
Our Response:
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider the economic impact of designating a particular area as critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species. We also evaluate potential economic impacts of a rulemaking pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), which states that a rulemaking will be determined to be economically significant if it will result in an impact of more than $100 million in any given year, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.
). Under the RFA, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
To understand the potential impacts of a critical habitat designation as discussed in the DEA, we evaluate the incremental impacts of the designation as identified by evaluating the additional protections or conservation measures afforded the species through the designation beyond those that the species receives by being federally listed (i.e., baseline conservation measures). Under E.O. 12866, we are required to evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of the designation. The evaluation of these potential impacts is discussed in our final economic analysis (FEA).
Additionally, under the RFA and following recent case law, we are to evaluate the potential impacts to small businesses, but this evaluation is limited to impacts to only directly regulated entities. The designation of critical habitat only has regulatory impact through section 7 of the Act, in which a Federal action agency is required to consult with us on any project that is funded, permitted, or otherwise authorized that may affect designated critical habitat. In other words, critical habitat only has a regulatory effect and therefore impact if a Federal nexus exists. Critical habitat has no regulatory effect or impact under the Act on actions that do not have a Federal nexus. Since Federal action agencies are the only directly regulated entities as a result of the designation of critical habitat, it is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat does not directly regulate small business entities and, therefore, does not significantly impact them. As a result, we believe that we have accurately assessed potential impacts to small business entities in the rulemaking, and can reasonably certify that this designation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities. For a further discussion of our rationale, please see the Required Determinations section of this final rule, below.
(22)
Comment:
The DEA misstates the development planned within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8. The commenter claims that the DEA part II failed to discuss the potential that a critical habitat designation could influence the State Land Use Commission to reclassify lands from its current status as part of the Urban District to Conservation District. Furthermore, the commenter claims that the DEA incorrectly assumes that some of the parcels within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 are classified as agricultural and that the DEA fails to acknowledge that some of the parcels also fall within the Kapolei West project.
The commenter also states that DEA misstates the intended use of parcel 191014041, based on the Kapolei Area Long Range Master Plan, and that the DEA needs to provide an assessment for parcel 191015004, which the Honolulu Land Information System (HOLIS) database identified as having no assessment. The HOLIS database is used to collect, maintain, and distribute geo-referenced information necessary to support City of Honolulu operations, including land use, permits, tax, infrastructure, and environmental data.
Our Response:
Table 3.3 of the DEA and the associated discussion identify the zoning status for each parcel within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8. None of the parcels are identified in the table as having agricultural zoning, but rather as being zoned for commercial or industrial purposes. However, in the DEA's introductory description of Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8, the DEA did cite the commenter's description of the area from its Web site, which stated at that time that some of the lands within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 were still zoned as agriculture, although a petition was filed with the State Land Use Commission to rezone the area for industrial. Since then, the land classification on the Web site has been updated, and the FEA has factored this into the description and analysis.
The commenter is correct that part II of the DEA did not discuss the potential that a critical habitat designation could have on influencing the State Land Use Commission to reclassify its lands to a more conservative category. This is because the Service is unaware of any instances over the past 10 years, when critical habitat designations were initially promulgated across the State of Hawaii, where the State Land Use Commission reclassified lands based on critical habitat.
The DEA's discussion of the parcels in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 did not acknowledge that some of the parcels may have fallen within the Kapolei West project. The discussion in the FEA acknowledges the existence of this master plan.
The commenter did not state what the characterization of TMK (tax map key) 91014041 was according to their reading of the Master Plan. The commenter stated only that the DEA was incorrect. A review of the zoning characteristics identified in the DEA match that in HOLIS. The commenter helpfully provided the current TMK for that identified by the Service (TMK 91015004) that is no longer in the HOLIS database. The correct TMK for this parcel is 91015026. The Honolulu Real Property Assessment Division clarified that TMK 91014041 is primarily zoned P-2 (General Preservation), which typically carries a low value. Since the assessment did not take into account the A-2 (Medium Density Apartments), B-2 (Community Business), and IMX-1 (Industrial Mixed Use) portions, it is undervalued. TMK 91015026 contains a 3-acre common element value for a condominium
project, and eight CPR's carry the remaining condominium value for that parcel (Palenske 2012, pers. comm.). The FEA will be updated to reflect the characteristics and valuations for this parcel.
(23)
Comment:
The DEA misstates land ownership within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
Our Response:
This comment references statements made in the Incremental Effects Memorandum that is appended to the DEA. The Incremental Effects memorandum is an early, iterative statement as to what potential effects may result from critical habitat designation. Through the rulemaking process, we received clarifications of land ownership, and this information has been incorporated into the FEA and final rule.
(24)
Comment:
The DEA misstates the status of development within Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8.
Our Response:
The DEA states that of the 13 parcels in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 analyzed, only one, at the time, had an active permit. This information came from the HOLIS Web site. This information has been updated through the information and clarifications we received as a result of the rulemaking process.
(25)
Comment:
The DEA fails to consider State and county land use plans.
Our Response:
The commenter believes the DEA should also expressly consider the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu (2002) and the Ewa Development Plan (2000). The DEA relied on current assessment and zoning information from the City and County of Honolulu, as well as more recent planning documents, some of which are affiliated with the commenter. In summary, the DEA was clear about the planned development of all parcels in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 for commercial and industrial purposes, despite their current status as relatively undeveloped properties.
(26)
Comment:
The DEA understates the economic impact of designation. The DEA inappropriately uses property tax assessed values rather than market values. The DEA inappropriately uses a “per acre” approach to determine economic impact potential, and it does not take into account the impact on development cost and revenue streams of prohibiting development on a portion of land.
Our Response:
In developing our DEA we relied on the publicly available information from the Honolulu Land Information System (HOLIS;
http://gis.hicentral.com
). This database contains the latest assessed values for real properties originating from the City and County of Honolulu Department of Budget and Fiscal Services Real Property Assessment Division (
https://www.realpropertyhonolulu.com
). According to the Division's Web site, sec. 8-7.1, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, requires the fair market value of all taxable real property to be determined and annually assessed by the market data (sales comparison) and cost approaches to value. All properties are valued at 100 percent of market value. While actual sales values may deviate from current assessed values based on factors such as economic conditions or site characteristics, we believe that the City and County of Honolulu's database reflects the best available information for our assessment of potential economic impacts.
As explained in the DEA, the current market value for property (as best represented by the assessed sales price absent a direct sale) reflects the present value of future revenue streams that the property would generate under anticipated development scenarios. Lacking any information to credibly differentiate within a parcel how development may or may not be suitable, given certain land characteristics, the analysis reasonably assumed that each parcel analyzed was uniform in its physical development characteristics, and, correspondingly that the total assessed value of a parcel reflected these uniform characteristics for the purposes of this analysis. As explained in the DEA, the analysis makes the case that the current market assessment for land in this area primarily reflects the discounted future earnings that the land is expected to generate after development (i.e., growth premium).
(27)
Comment:
In section 3.5 of the DEA, the Department's 137-acre parcel in Kalaeloa was assessed at approximately $48,000,000 based on the Kalaeloa Master Plan and the General Urban land use designation under HCDA Chapter 15-215. However, since the Hawaiian Homes Commission (HHC) has land use authorities that cannot be superseded by other authority, it is not clear that the urban designation used as a basis for assessment would be the designation the HHC would choose. For example, the HHC could designate these lands at a high or more intensive urban, or industrial value, that would result in a higher land assessed value.
Our response:
We appreciate the information concerning the categorization for the assessed land value; however, in developing our DEA, we relied on the publicly available information from HOLIS (
http://gis.hicentral.com
). This database contains the latest assessed values for real properties originating from the City and County of Honolulu Department of Budget and Fiscal Services Real Property Assessment Division (
https://www.realpropertyhonolulu.com
). According to the Division's Web site, sec. 8-7.1, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, requires the fair market value of all taxable real property to be determined and annually assessed by the market data (sales comparison) and cost approaches to value. All properties are valued at 100 percent of market value. While actual sales values may deviate from current assessed values, based on factors such as economic conditions or site characteristics, we believe that the City and County of Honolulu's database reflects the best available information for our assessment of potential economic impacts. Further, any changes in land use by HHC is speculative at this time.
Other Public Comments Not Related to Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8
(28)
Comment:
All species of
Chamaesyce
are now recognized as species of
Euphorbia.
Our Response:
We agree. Steinman and Porter's 2002 (p. 473) molecular data for classification of Euphorbieae and the analysis of Bruyns
et al.
(2006, pp. 416-417) found that
Chamaesyce
is nested among species of
Euphorbia.
However, changing the names for the endangered Oahu plants
Chamaesyce celastroides
var.
kaenana, C. deppeana, C. herbstii, C. kuwaleana, C. rockii
and
C. skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii
in 50 CFR 17.12 and in 50 CFR 17.99(j) would require a separate rulemaking, not only for the Hawaiian species listings, but for all previously listed species.
(29)
Comment:
One landowner questioned the designation of critical habitat in several units, including Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 9, Blackline Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 4—Lowland Wet, Crimson Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 4—Lowland Wet, and Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 5—Lowland Wet, and the existing plant critical habitat designated in 2003 under and next to Hawaii Interstate H-3, near the summit of the Koolau Mountains.
Our Response:
Although no specific objections to the proposed critical habitat were given, we provided the commenter with maps of Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 9 and all three damselfly units (Blackline Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 4—Lowland Wet, Crimson Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 4—Lowland Wet, and Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly—Unit 5—Lowland Wet),
which geographically correspond to the same area (i.e., they completely overlap). These units provide critical habitat for 44 plant species and 3 Hawaiian damselflies. The area consists of 15,728 ac (6,365 ha) on the leeward side of the Koolau Mountains, on Federal, State, City and County of Honolulu, and privately-owned lands. This area includes the wet forest and shrubland, moisture regime and subcanopy, and understory native plant species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland wet ecosystem, as well as the unique PCEs (e.g., perennial streams, slow reaches of streams or pools) for the Hawaiian damselflies. This critical habitat is essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland wet species, because it provides suitable habitat and space for expansion of populations, and for reintroduction of individuals within their current and historical ranges. We have no information that would indicate any areas within these units should be removed based on economic, national security, or other relevant impacts, or new biological information.
(30)
Comment:
The Service does not provide justification for elimination of 11,549 ac (4,674 ha) of critical habitat. The proposed rule eliminates smaller habitat patches and undermines the 2003 proposal.
Our Response:
The commenter did not provide clarification on the statement that 11,549 ac (4,674 ha) of critical habitat were eliminated in the August 2011 proposed rule. When 55,040 ac (22,274 ha) of critical habitat were designated for 99 Oahu plants in the June 17, 2003, final rule (68 FR 35950), the designation was based primarily on the specific localities where the species were known to occur, and focused on discrete areas occupied by the species at the time of listing. In this final rule, we have revised critical habitat for these 99 species based on new information on plant occurrences and a better understanding of the species' biological requirements. As a result, we are designating both occupied areas with physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation, and unoccupied areas that are essential to the species' conservation. We are able to do this with a designation of 42,804 ac (17,322 ha. Each of the areas provides critical habitat for multiple species based upon their shared habitat requirements, and takes into account any species-specific conservation needs, as appropriate. We have found that some of the areas designated as critical habitat in 2003 were not within the historical or current ranges of the species, and do not provide the PCEs essential to their conservation and recovery (i.e., these areas were not within the geographical area occupied at the time of the species' listing, and are not essential to their conservation). Accordingly, 17,325 ac (7,011 ha) designated in 2003 that fall into this category are not included in this critical habitat designation. The critical habitat designated in this rule is based on a biological and ecosystem-based approach, and provides essential habitat for the conservation and recovery of the 124 species included in this rule. Therefore, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the proposed rule does not undermine the 2003 final critical habitat designation for 99 Oahu plants.
(31)
Comment:
Given the extremely low population numbers of many of the species, it is not scientifically justifiable to eliminate habitat that supports individuals of the endangered plants. The proposed rule does not state that habitat that is known to support individuals is not being removed from critical habitat. Since the 2003 rule is based on occurrence data, the public is left to assume that some habitat that is known to support individuals will no longer be protected as critical habitat. We are concerned that eliminating critical habitat where plants currently occur will interfere with the recovery of these endangered species.
Our Response:
The only designated critical habitat known to support individuals that is being removed from critical habitat in this rule are those areas covered by the Navy's INRMP for Lualualei. In this final rule, lands under Navy jurisdiction are exempted from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (a 2004 amendment to the Act). Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act states the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. (See “
Approved INRMPs
”, below, for further discussion).
(32)
Comment:
One commenter stated that “the proposed rule expressly fails to provide any detailed narrative description of appropriate specificity to allow fair comment” and cites page 76 FR 46511 at (12)(i) “[Reserved for textual description of Unit 8]”. The commenter also stated that the proposed rule contains only generalized “maps” to indicate the areas proposed for designation, and this failure to provide sufficient information to allow fully informed public review and comment is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law.
Our Response:
The section in brackets was reserved for the UTMs (mapping vertices) for unit delineation using GIS, which, until recently, were identified and published in the
Federal Register
in the final rule. However, on May 1, 2012 (USFWS 2012a, 77 FR 25611), the Service published revised regulations for requirements to publish textual descriptions of final critical habitat boundaries in the
Federal Register
. As of May 31, 2012, the Service no longer publishes the coordinates for critical habitat boundaries in the
Federal Register
. The coordinates on which each map is based are available to the public at the Federal eRulemaking portal (
http://www.regulations.gov
) using the docket number for the rulemaking (in this case, FWS-R1-ES-2010-0043), and at the web site of the field office responsible for the critical habitat (
http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands
) for the final critical habitat for the 124 Oahu species. The maps provided in the proposed rule identify the areas proposed for critical habitat designation. We believe these maps are adequate for regulatory purposes. The proposed rule also directs reviewers to contact the Service for further clarification on any part of the proposed rule, and provides contact information (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011).
(33)
Comment:
The Service did not provide references. Unpublished databases are not references.
Our Response:
Complete lists of references cited in the proposed rule (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011) and in this final rule are available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
, and upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES
). This information was also presented in the proposed rule (76 FR 46470). One reference (Whistler 2008) was inadvertently omitted from those provided for the proposed rule, and is now available on our Web site. Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we make a determination whether a species is endangered or threatened solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Under section 4(b)(2), we designate, and make revisions to, critical habitat based on the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact. In the
August 2, 2011, proposed rule and in this final rule, we used the best information available, including the State's Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program database, the U.S. Army Environmental database from 2006 for Oahu, and the National Tropical Botanical Garden's plant databases. These databases include information from numerous sources including, but not limited to, expert field observations, museum collections, and published and unpublished literature, and are, in our opinion, sources of the best scientific data available.
(34)
Comment:
The damselflies should not be protected under the Act because flies do not need our protection. Residents should not have to fear punishment for removing pests from their homes and property.
Our Response:
Native Hawaiian damselflies (in the genus
Megalagrion
) are endemic (i.e., unique and found nowhere else in the world) to Hawaii and are similar to dragonflies in appearance. There are 23 species of these damselflies, and they are found almost entirely in aquatic habitats (e.g., streams, lowland swamps, and marshes), although a few species are considered terrestrial or semi-terrestrial and found in moist, damp areas like rock faces, wet leaf litter, or water trapped in the leaves of native plants. Native Hawaiian damselflies are unlikely to be found in homes or developed property or landscaped areas because of their ecological requirements, and are not considered pests.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from the public and peer reviewers on the proposed rule to develop this final listing for 23 species and critical habitat designation for 124 species from Oahu. This final rule incorporates the following substantive changes to our proposed listing and designation, based on the comments we received:
(1) We removed 193 ac (78 ha) from proposed Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 to exclude areas that are not essential to the conservation of the species, based on additional, refined information gained from field visits. We observed that changes in land use had occurred in certain areas within the proposed critical habitat that would preclude these areas from supporting the primary constituent elements, and that these areas would not support viable populations of the 17 plants for which it was proposed critical habitat. Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 8 now encompasses 99 ac (40 ha) essential to the conservation of 16 lowland dry plant species.
(2) We made revisions to the demographic status and distribution of 11 species of plants (
Cyanea lanceolata, C. purpurellifolia, Cyrtandra sessilis, C. waiolani, Doryopteris takeuchii, Korthalsella degeneri, Melicope hiiakae, M. makahae, Pleomele forbesii, Psychotria hexandra
ssp.
oahuensis,
and
Zanthoxylum oahuense
) by correcting their current locations or numbers of individuals in Description of the 23 Species, based on comments we received.
(3) We made revisions to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) for three plants, based on comments we received, by removing the lowland mesic ecosystem from the PCEs for
Cyrtandra waiolani
and the lowland wet ecosystem from the PCEs for
Melicope makahae
and
Pleomele forbesii.
Accordingly, we removed
Cyrtandra waiolani
from the list of plants in Oahu—Lowland Mesic—Units 4, 5, 6, and 7, and we removed
Pleomele forbesii
and
Melicope makahae
from the list of plants in Oahu—Lowland Wet—Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, because a peer reviewer recommended that these ecosystems were inappropriate for the species. We also removed
Pleomele forbesii
from the list of plants in Oahu—Lowland Dry—Units 8, 9, 10, and 11 because the elevation of these four units is too low to have the ability to provide habitat for this species.
(4) We revised the unit boundaries we proposed Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 5, Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 13, Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 4, Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 6, Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 7, Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 2, and Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 5, which resulted in acreage reductions in these units as follows:
Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 5: Reduced by 2 ac (1 ha)
Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 13: Reduced by 86 ac (35 ha)
Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 4: Reduced by 84 ac (34 ha)
Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 6: Reduced by 106 ac (43 ha))
Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 7: Reduced by 102 ac (42 ha)) (combined 7a and 7b)
Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 2: Reduced by 4 ac (2 ha))
Oahu—Wet Cliff—Unit 5: Reduced by 12 ac (5 ha))
These revisions were based on comments indicating that (a) Changes in land use had occurred within the proposed critical habitat units that would preclude certain areas from supporting the primary constituent elements; (b) adjustments were needed for the adjoining borders of wet cliff and lowland wet ecosystem areas; (c) the areas in question were not essential to the conservation of the species; or (d) portions of the unit were exempted from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
(5) We are not designating lands within proposed Oahu—Dry Cliff—Unit 5, Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 3, Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 4, and Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 5 as critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
(6) Following publication of our proposed rule in August 2011, we found that 21 plants (
Bidens amplectens, Chamaesyce celastroides
var.
kaenana, Cyrtandra dentata, Dubautia herbstobatae, Eragrostis fosbergii, Euphorbia haeleeleana, Gouania vitifolia, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion laurifolium, I. pyrifolium, Kadua degeneri, Korthalsella degeneri, Melanthera tenuifolia, Melicope makahae, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia kaalaensis, Schiedea kealiae, S. obovata, S. trinervis, Silene lanceolata,
and
Tetramolopium filiforme
) were inadvertently omitted from the discussion of species for which critical habitat was initially proposed on Navy lands. We also determined that four previously listed plants (
Hesperomannia arbuscula, Melicope pallida, Stenogyne kanehoana,
and
Urera kaalae
) were inadvertently included in this discussion (i.e., critical habitat was proposed for these species when it should not have been). Although critical habitat is exempted for the above 21 species within one or more of the 10 units that overlap Navy lands, none of these species presently occupy Navy lands.
(7) We adjusted critical habitat acreages on Table 7A and Table 7B to account for changes in unit areas and to correct arithmetical errors. This resulted in the following specific changes:
Oahu—Coastal—Unit 9: reduced by 4 ac (2 ha)
Oahu—Coastal—Unit 13: Reduced by 1 ac (0 ha)
Oahu—Coastal—Unit 15: Reduced by 1 ac (0 ha)
Oahu—Lowland Dry—Unit 9: Reduced by 4 ac (2 ha)
Oahu—Lowland Mesic—Unit 1: Reduced by 1 ac (0 ha)
Oahu—Lowland Mesic—Unit 7: Reduced by 6 ac (3 ha)
Oahu—Lowland Wet—Unit 7: Reduced by 3 ac (1 ha)
(8) We added “coral outcrop substrate” to the PCEs for
Chamaesyce skottsbergii
var.
skottsbergii.
(9) We added
Plumbago, Sida,
and
Waltheria
to the list of understory plants in the lowland dry ecosystem.
(10) We removed
Cyrtandra waiolani
from the list of plants in Oahu—Lowland Mesic—Units 4, 5, 6, and 7, as a peer reviewer recommended that this ecosystem was inappropriate for the species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the 23 Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly, or in combination. The threats to each of the individual 23 species are summarized in Table 2 and discussed in detail below. Factor B (overutilization) is not included in the table because we have no information on primary threats to the species that would fall under this category.
Ecosystem Approach
Each of the 23 species in this final rule is adversely affected by the threats to the ecosystems on which it depends. There is information available on many of the threats that act on Hawaiian ecosystems, and for some ecosystems, there is a growing body of literature regarding these threats (e.g., nonnative ungulates and invasive plant species). The best available information on ecosystem threats affecting the species therein is discussed below. Table 2 identifies the threats to the ecosystems and the individual species within those ecosystems that are affected by those threats. Information on threats specific to certain species is also discussed where necessary and available; however we acknowledge that we do not completely understand all the threats to each species. Scientific research directed toward these species is limited because of their rarity and the generally challenging logistics associated with conducting field work in Hawaii (e.g., areas are typically remote and difficult to survey in a comprehensive manner, and the target species are exceptionally uncommon).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
ER18SE12.000
ER18SE12.001
ER18SE12.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Ecosystem-Scale Threats That Affect the 23 Species
The following constitutes a list of ecosystem-scale threats that affect the 23 species in all of the seven ecosystems on Oahu:
(1) Foraging and trampling of native plants by goats (
Capra hircus
) and pigs (
Sus scrofa
), which results in severe erosion of watersheds because these mammals inhabit terrain that is often steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). These events destabilize soils that support native plant communities, bury or damage native plants, and have adverse water quality effects due to runoff over exposed soils.
(2) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs, which creates fertile seedbeds for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65).
(3) Increased nutrient availability as a result of pigs rooting in nitrogen-poor soils, which facilitates the establishment of alien weeds. Alien weeds are more adapted to nutrient rich soils than native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63), and rooting activity creates open areas in forests allowing alien species to completely replace native stands.
(4) Ungulate destruction of seeds and seedlings of native plant species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63), which facilitates the conversion of disturbed areas from native to nonnative vegetative communities.
(5) Rodent damage to plant propagules, seedlings, or native trees, which changes forest composition and structure (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 67).
(6) Feeding or defoliation of native plants by alien insects, which reduces geographic ranges of some species because of damage (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(7) Alien insect predation on native insects, which affects pollination of native plant species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(8) Significant changes in nutrient cycling processes, because of large numbers of alien invertebrates such as earthworms, ants, slugs, and snails, resulting in the changes to the composition and structure of plant communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73).
Each of the above threats is discussed in more detail below, and summarized in Table 2 above. The most-often cited effects of nonnative plants on native plant species are competition and displacement; competition may be for water or nutrients, or it may involve allelopathy (chemical inhibition of other plants). Alien plants may displace native species of plants by preventing their reproduction, usually by shading and taking up available sites for seedling establishment. Alien plant invasions may also alter entire ecosystems by forming monotypic stands, changing fire characteristics of native communities, altering soil-water regimes, changing nutrient cycling, or encouraging other nonnative organisms (Smith 1985, pp. 180, 218, 228-229; Vitousek
et al.
1987 in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74).
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Hawaiian Islands are located over 2,000 mi (3,200 km) from the nearest continent. This isolation has allowed the few plants and animals that arrived in the Hawaiian Islands to evolve into many highly varied and endemic species (species that occur nowhere else in the world). The only native terrestrial mammals on the Hawaiian Islands are two bat taxa, the Hawaiian hoary bat (
Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
, and an extinct, unnamed insectivorous bat (Ziegler 2002, p. 245). The native plants of the Hawaiian Islands therefore evolved in the absence of mammalian predators, browsers, or grazers; many of the native species lost unneeded defenses against threats such as mammalian predation and competition with aggressive, weedy plant species that are typical of mainland environments (Loope 1992, p. 11; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45; Wagner
et al.
1999, pp. 3-6). For example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and Cole 1974, p. 29) notes that “Hawaiian plants are notably nonpoisonous, free from armament, and free from many characteristics thought to be deterrents to herbivores (oils, resins, stinging hairs, coarse texture).” In addition, species restricted to highly specialized locations or food sources (e.g., some Hawaiian damselflies) are particularly vulnerable to changes (from nonnative species, hurricanes, fire, and climate change) in their habitat (Carlquist and Cole 1974, pp. 28-29; Loope 1992, pp. 3-6; Stone 1992, pp. 88-102).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates
Introduced mammals have greatly impacted the native vegetation, as well as the native fauna, of the Hawaiian Islands. Impacts to the native species and ecosystems of Hawaii accelerated following the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1778. The Cook expedition and subsequent explorers intentionally introduced a European race of pigs or boars and other livestock, such as goats, to serve as food sources for seagoing explorers (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p. 752). The mild climate of the islands, combined with the lack of competitors or predators, led to the successful establishment of large populations of these introduced mammals, to the detriment of native Hawaiian species and ecosystems (Cox 1992, pp. 116-117). The presence of introduced alien mammals is considered one of the primary factors underlying the alteration and degradation of native vegetation and habitats on the island of Oahu (Cox 1992, pp. 118-119). Six of the seven ecosystems (lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) and their associated species are currently impacted by threats of the destruction or degradation of habitat due to nonnative ungulates (hoofed mammals), including pigs (
Sus scrofa
) and goats (
Capra hircus
) (HBMP 2008). Only the coastal ecosystem on Oahu is not currently facing threats by nonnative ungulates (Perlman 2007a, in litt.).
Pigs have been described as the most pervasive and disruptive nonnative influence on the unique native forests of the Hawaiian Islands, and are widely recognized as one of the greatest current threats to forest ecosystems in Hawaii (Aplet
et al.
1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195). European pigs, introduced to Hawaii by Captain James Cook in 1778, hybridized with domesticated Polynesian pigs, became feral, and invaded forested areas, especially wet and mesic forests and dry areas at high elevations. They are currently present on Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. The Hawaii Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry started a feral pig eradication project in the early 1900s that continued through 1958, removing 170,000 pigs from forests Statewide (Diong 1982 in Loope 1998, pp. 752-753).
These introduced pigs are extremely destructive, and have both direct and indirect impacts on native plant communities. While rooting in the earth in search of invertebrates and plant material, pigs directly impact native plants by disturbing and destroying vegetative cover, and trampling plants and seedlings. They may also reduce or eliminate plant regeneration by damaging or eating seeds and seedlings. Further discussion of predation by nonnative ungulates is under Factor C, below. Pigs are a major vector for the establishment and spread of competing invasive, nonnative plant species, by dispersing plant seeds on their hooves and coats, as well as through the spread of their feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169-170), and by fertilizing the disturbed soil with
their feces (Matson 1990, p. 245; Siemann
et al.
2009, p. 547). Pigs feed preferentially on the fruits of many nonnative plants, such as
Passiflora tarminiana
(banana poka) and
Psidium cattleianum
(strawberry guava), spreading the seeds of these invasive species through their feces as they travel in search of food. In addition, rooting pigs contribute to erosion by clearing vegetation and creating large areas of disturbed soil, especially on slopes (Smith 1985, pp. 190, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254-255, 262-264; Medeiros
et al.
1986, pp. 27-28; Scott
et al.
1986, pp. 360-361; Tomich 1986, pp. 120-126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64-65; Aplet
et al.
1991, p. 56; Loope
et al.
1991, pp. 1-21; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 52).
Goats native to the Middle East and India were also successfully introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late 1700s. Actions to control goat populations began in the 1920s (Tomich 1986, pp. 152-153). Feral goats now occupy a wide variety of habitats on Oahu, where they consume native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion, and promote the invasion of alien plants that have greater competitive abilities (van Riper and van Riper 1982, pp. 34-35; Stone 1985, p. 261). Goats are able to access and forage in extremely rugged terrain, and they have a high reproductive capacity (Clarke and Cuddihy 1980, pp. C-19, C-20; Culliney 1988, p. 336; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64). Because of these factors, goats are believed to have completely eliminated some plant species from islands (Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 21). Goats can be highly destructive to natural vegetation and contribute to erosion by: (1) Eating young trees and young shoots of plants before they can become established; (2) creating trails that can damage native vegetative cover, destabilize substrate, and create gullies that convey water; and (3) dislodging stones from ledges that can cause rockfalls and landslides that damage vegetation below (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63-64).
The 23 species dependent on the lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems are exposed to direct and indirect negative impacts of feral ungulates (pigs and goats), which result in the destruction and degradation of habitat for these native Oahu species. The effects of these nonnative animals include: (1) The destruction of vegetative cover; (2) trampling of plants and seedlings; (3) direct consumption of native vegetation; (4) soil disturbance; (5) dispersal of alien plant seeds on hooves, coats, and through the spread of seeds in feces; and (5) the creation of open, disturbed areas conducive to further invasion by nonnative pest plant species. All of these impacts lead to the subsequent conversion of a plant community dominated by native species to one dominated by nonnative species (see “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants,” below). In addition, because these mammals inhabit terrain that is often steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 59), foraging and trampling contributes to severe erosion of watersheds and degradation of streams. As early as 1900, there was increasing concern expressed about the integrity of island watersheds, due to effects of ungulates and other factors, leading to establishment of a professional forestry program emphasizing soil and water conservation (Nelson 1989, p. 3).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
Native vegetation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands has undergone extreme alteration, because of past and present land management practices, including ranching, the deliberate introduction of nonnative plants and animals, and agricultural development (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 27, 58). The original native flora of Hawaii (plant species that were present before humans arrived) consisted of about 1,000 taxa, 89 percent of which were endemic. Over 800 plant taxa have been introduced from outside Hawaii, and nearly 100 of these have become pests (e.g., injurious plants) (Smith 1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). Of these 100 nonnative plant species, over 50 species have altered the habitat of 20 of the 23 species in this final rule. Some of these plants were brought to Hawaii by various groups of people, for food or cultural reasons, to reforest native forests destroyed by grazing feral and domestic animals, for pasture for domestic animals, and for other agricultural purposes. Other plants were brought to Hawaii for their potential horticultural value (Scott
et al.
1986, pp. 361-363; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73).
Nonnative plants adversely impact native habitat in Hawaii, including the seven Oahu ecosystems and the 20 plant species identified in this final rule, by: (1) Modifying the availability of light; (2) altering soil-water regimes; (3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4) altering fire characteristics of native plant communities (e.g., successive fires that burn farther and farther into native habitat, destroying native plants and removing habitat for native species by altering microclimatic conditions to favor alien species); and (5) ultimately, converting native-dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities (Smith 1985, pp. 180-181; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p. 74; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Vitousek
et al.
1997, p. 6). Nonnative plants (and animals) have contributed to the extinction of native species in the lowlands of Hawaii and have been a primary cause of extinction in upland habitats (Vitousek
et al.
1987, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74). The most-often cited effects of nonnative plants on native plant species are displacement through competition. Competition may be for water or nutrients, or it may involve allelopathy (chemical inhibition of other plants) (Smith 1985, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74). Nonnative plants may also displace native species by preventing their reproduction, usually by shading and taking up available sites for seedling establishment (Vitousek
et al.
1987, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74).
Alteration of fire regimes clearly represents an ecosystem-level change caused by the invasion of nonnative grasses (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life form supports standing dead material that burns readily, and grass tissues have large surface-to-volume ratios and can dry out quickly (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The flammability of biological materials is determined primarily by their surface-to-volume ratio and moisture content, and secondarily by mineral content and tissue chemistry (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The finest size classes of material (mainly grasses) ignite and spread fires under a broader range of conditions than do woody fuels or even surface litter (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life form allows rapid recovery following fire; there is little above-ground structural tissue, so almost all new tissue fixes carbon and contributes to growth (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Grass canopies also support a microclimate in which surface temperatures are hotter, vapor pressure deficits are larger, and the drying of tissues occurs more rapidly than in forests or woodlands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Thus, conditions that favor fire are much more frequent in grasslands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). In summary, nonnative plants directly and indirectly affect the 20 plant species in this final rule by modifying or destroying their terrestrial habitat. Please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46362; August 2,
2011) for a list of nonnative plants and a discussion of their specific negative effects on the 20 plant species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire
Fire is a relatively new, human-exacerbated threat to native species and natural vegetation in Hawaii. The historical fire regime in Hawaii was characterized by infrequent, low-severity fires, as few natural ignition sources existed (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith and Tunison 1992, pp. 395-397). Natural fuel beds were often discontinuous, and rainfall in many areas on most islands was, and is, moderate to high. Fires inadvertently or intentionally ignited by the original Polynesians in Hawaii probably contributed to the initial decline of native vegetation in the drier plains and foothills. These early settlers practiced slash-and-burn agriculture that created open lowland areas suitable for the later colonization of nonnative, fire-adapted grasses (Kirch 1982, pp. 5-6, 8; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 30-31). Beginning in the late 18th century, Europeans and Americans introduced plants and animals that further degraded native Hawaiian ecosystems. Pasturage and ranching, in particular, created highly fire-prone areas of nonnative grasses and shrubs (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 67). Although fires are infrequent in mountainous regions today, extensive fires have occurred in lowland mesic areas, leading to grass/fire cycles that convert woodland to grassland (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 77).
Although Vogl (1969, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) proposed that naturally occurring fires, primarily from lightning strikes, have been important in the development of the original Hawaiian flora, and that many Hawaiian plants might be fire adapted, Mueller-Dombois (1981, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) points out that most natural vegetation types of Hawaii would not carry fire before the introduction of alien grasses. Smith and Tunison (in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) state that native plant fuels typically have low flammability. Because of the greater frequency, intensity, and duration of fires that have resulted from the introduction of nonnative plants (especially grasses), fires are now destructive to native Hawaiian ecosystems (Brown and Smith 2000, p. 172), and a single grass-fueled fire can kill most native trees and shrubs in the burned area (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 74).
Fire represents a threat to the habitats of six of the plant species in this final rule, based on information identifying fire as a threat to a particular species at a particular location:
Bidens amplectens, Cyanea calycina, Doryopteris takeuchii, Korthalsella degeneri, Pleomele forbesii
, and
Pteralyxia macrocarpa
(see Table 2). These six plant species are found in the coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, or dry cliff ecosystems. Fire can destroy dormant seeds of the six species as well as the plants themselves, even in steep or inaccessible areas. Successive fires that burn farther and farther into native habitat destroy native plants, and remove habitat for native species by altering microclimate conditions favorable to alien plants. Alien plant species most likely to be spread as a consequence of fire are those that produce a high fuel load, are adapted to survive and regenerate after fire, and establish rapidly in newly burned areas. Grasses (particularly those that produce mats of dry material or retain a mass of standing dead leaves) that invade native forests and shrublands provide fuels that allow fire to burn areas that would not otherwise easily burn (Fujioka and Fujii 1980, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70, 73-74; Tunison
et al.
2002, p. 122). Native woody plants may recover from fire to some degree, but fire tips the competitive balance toward alien species (National Park Service 1989, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93).
On a post-burn survey at Puuwaawaa on the island of Hawaii within an area of native
Diospyros
forest with undergrowth of the nonnative grass
Pennisetum setaceum,
Takeuchi noted that “no regeneration of native canopy is occurring within the Puuwaawaa burn area” (Takeuchi 1991, p. 2). Takeuchi also stated that “burn events served to accelerate a decline process already in place, compressing into days a sequence which would ordinarily have taken decades” (Takeuchi 1991, p. 4), and concluded that in addition to increasing the number of fires, the nonnative
Pennisetum
acted to suppress establishment of native plants after a fire (Takeuchi 1991, p. 6). There have been several recent fires on Oahu that have impacted rare or endangered species, including areas designated as critical habitat in this final rule. Between 2004 and 2005, wildfires burned more than 360 ac (146 ha) in Honouliuli Preserve, home to more than 90 rare and endangered plants and animals, which is located along the windward side of the Waianae Mountains (The Nature Conservancy 2005, in litt.). In 2006, a fire at Kaena Point State Park burned 60 ac (24 ha), including portions of two units designated as critical habitat in this rule, and encroached on endangered plants in Makua Military Training Area. In 2007, there was a significant fire at Kaukonahua that crossed 12 gulches, eventually encompassing 5,655 ac (2,289 ha), and negatively impacted seven endangered plant species. Occurrences of three of the species were extirpated as a result of the fire. The Kaukonahua fire also provided pathways for nonnative ungulates (cattle, goats, and pigs) into previously undisturbed areas, and opened up previously densely vegetated areas for growth of the invasive grass
Panicum maximum
(guinea grass), which is also used as a food source by cattle and goats. An area infested by guinea grass burned, and the grass was observed to generate blades over 2 feet in length only 2 weeks after the fire (U.S. Army Garrison 2007, Appendices pp. 1-5). In 2009, there were two smaller fires that burned 200 ac (81 ha) at Manini Pali (Kaena Point State Park) and 4 ac (2 ha) at Makua Cave (at the mouth of Makua Valley). Both of these fires burned in designated critical habitat, although no individual plants were directly affected (U.S. Army Natural Resource Program 2009, Appendix 2, 17 pp.). These examples of recent fires illustrate that nonnative grass invasion leads to grass/fire cycles that convert native vegetation to grassland (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 77)
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes
Hurricanes adversely impact native Hawaiian terrestrial habitat, including each of the seven Oahu ecosystems and their associated species identified in this final rule. They do this by destroying native vegetation, opening the canopy and thus modifying the availability of light, and creating disturbed areas conducive to invasion by nonnative pest species (see “S
pecific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts
,” in our August 2, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 46362)) (Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington
et al.
1997, pp. 539-540). Canopy gaps allow for the establishment of nonnative plant species, which may be present as plants, or as seeds incapable of growing under shaded conditions. In addition, hurricanes adversely impact native Hawaiian stream habitat by defoliating and toppling vegetation, thus loosening the soil around the toppled vegetation. Loosened soil, loose vegetation, and other debris can be washed into streambeds (by hurricane-induced rain or subsequent rain storms), resulting in the scouring of the stream bottoms and
channels, and catastrophic flooding (Polhemus 1993, 88 pp.). Because many Hawaiian plant and animal species, including the 23 species in this final rule, persist in low numbers and in restricted ranges, natural disasters, such as hurricanes, can be particularly devastating (Mitchell
et al.
2005, p. 4-3).
Hurricanes affecting Hawaii were only rarely reported from ships in the area from the 1800s until 1949. Between 1950 and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed near or over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused serious damage (Businger 1998, pp. 1-2). In November 1982, Hurricane Iwa struck the Hawaiian Islands, with wind gusts exceeding 100 miles per hour (mph) (161 kilometers per hour (kph)), causing extensive damage, especially on the islands of Niihau, Kauai, and Oahu (Businger 1998, pp. 2, 6). Many native forest trees were destroyed (Perlman 1992, in litt., pp. 1-9), which opened the canopy and facilitated the invasion of nonnative plants (Kitayama and Mueller-Dombois 1995, p. 671). Historically (prior to the introduction of nonnative, invasive plants to the Hawaiian Islands), it is likely that areas affected by hurricanes would eventually have been repopulated by native plants. However, competition with nonnative plants is exacerbated by hurricanes, and represents a threat to each of the 7 ecosystems and the 20 plant species addressed in this final rule, as described in “
Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts,
” in our August 2, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 46362). In September 1992, Hurricane Iniki, a Category 4 hurricane with m
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.