# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for 15 Species on Hawaii Island > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-24103 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** October 29, 2013 - **Citation:** 78 FR 64638 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0070; 4500030113] RIN 1018-AY09 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for 15 Species on Hawaii Island AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for 15 species on the island of Hawaii. In addition, we are recognizing a taxonomic change for one Hawaiian plant currently listed as an endangered species and revising the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants accordingly. The effect of this regulation is to conserve these species under the Act. DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to list 15 species (13 plants, 1 insect (picture-wing fly), and 1 crustacean (anchialine pool shrimp)) from the island of Hawaii, in the State of Hawaii, as endangered species. In addition, in this final rule, we also recognize a taxonomic change for one endangered plant species, and revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants accordingly. The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species 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 15 Hawaii Island species are currently in danger of extinction throughout all their ranges as the result of ongoing threats that include the destruction and modification of habitat from nonnative feral ungulates (e.g., pigs, goats); competition with nonnative plant and animal species; agricultural and urban development; wildfire, erosion, drought, and hurricanes; climate change; predation and herbivory; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; human dumping of nonnative fish and trash; small numbers of individuals and populations; hybridization; the lack of reproduction in the wild; loss of host plants; and competition with nonnative tipulid flies (large crane flies). We fully considered comments from the public, including comments we received during a public hearing, and comments we received from peer reviewers, on the proposed rule. Peer reviewers support our methods. We obtained opinions from 11 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, to review our analysis, and to determine whether or not we used the best available information. Nine (2 plant reviewers, 2 picture-wing fly reviewers, and 5 of the 7 anchialine pool shrimp reviewers) of these 11 peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. One shrimp peer reviewer recommended further surveys for the anchialine pool shrimp, and a second shrimp reviewer commented that we should proceed with caution regarding listing the shrimp due to the lack of biological information. A response to all peer review comments is provided elsewhere in this final rule. The final critical habitat designation for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as proposed in the Federal Register (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), is still under development and undergoing agency review. It will publish in the near future in the Federal Register under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028. Previous Federal Actions Federal actions for these species prior to October 17, 2012, are outlined in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928), which was published on that date. Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 17, 2012. In addition, we published a public notice of the proposed rule on October 20, 2012, in the local Honolulu Star Advertiser, West Hawaii Today, and the Hawaii Tribune Herald newspapers. On April 30, 2013, we published in the Federal Register a document (78 FR 25243) that made available and requested public comments on the draft economic analysis for the October 17, 2012, proposed critical habitat designation (77 FR 63928); announced a public information meeting and hearing to be held in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Island, on May 15, 2013; and reopened the comment period on the October 17, 2012, proposed rule for an additional 30 days. This second comment period closed on May 30, 2013. In total, we accepted public comments on the October 17, 2012, proposed rule for 90 days. Background Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule The table below (Table 1) provides the scientific name, common name, and listing status for the species that are the subjects of this final rule. Table 1—The Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Final Rule [Note that many of the species share the same common name] Scientific name Common name(s) Listing status Plants: Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana kookoolau Endangered. Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla kookoolau Endangered. Cyanea marksii haha Endangered. Cyanea tritomantha aku Endangered. Cyrtandra nanawaleensis haiwale Endangered. Cyrtandra wagneri haiwale Endangered. Mezoneuron kavaiense (taxonomic change accepted) (Formerly listed as Caesalpinia kavaiense ) uhiuhi Endangered—Listed in 1986. Phyllostegia floribunda NCN 1 Endangered. Pittosporum hawaiiense hoawa, haawa Endangered. Platydesma remyi NCN Endangered. Pritchardia lanigera loulu Endangered. Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei NCN Endangered. Schiedea hawaiiensis NCN Endangered. Stenogyne cranwelliae NCN Endangered. Animals: Drosophila digressa picture-wing fly Endangered. Vetericaris chaceorum anchialine pool shrimp Endangered 1 NCN = no common name. Taxonomic Change Since Listing for One Plant Species We listed Mezoneuron kavaiense as an endangered species in 1986 (51 FR 24672; July 8, 1986), based on the taxonomic treatment of Hillebrand (1888, pp. 110-111). Following the reduction of Mezoneuron to Caesalpinia by Hattink (1974, p. 5), Geesink et al. (1990, pp. 646-647) changed the name to Caesalpinia kavaiensis. In 1989, the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) was revised to identify the listed entity as Caesalpinia kavaiense, although the specific epithet was misspelled in the List (at that time the correct spelling for this entity was Caesalpinia kavaiensis ). Recent phylogenetic studies support separation of Mezoneuron from Caesalpinia (Bruneau et al. 2008, p. 710). The recognized scientific name for this species is Mezoneuron kavaiense (Wagner et al. 2012, p. 37). The range of the species between the time of listing and now has not changed. Therefore, we recognize the listed species as Mezoneuron kavaiense. We are amending the List to reflect this taxonomic change, but this amendment does not in any way change the listed entity or its protections under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island On the island of Hawaii, 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 the successful functioning of that ecosystem to survive. We have therefore organized the species addressed in this final rule by common ecosystem. Although the listing determination for each species is analyzed separately, we have organized the individual 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 be a threat to them, and ameliorating or eliminating these threats for each individual species often requires the exact same management actions in the exact same areas. 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 final rule efficiently, but also to more effectively focus conservation management efforts on the common threats that occur across these ecosystems. Those efforts would facilitate restoration of 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 that occur in these shared ecosystems. In addition, this approach is in accord with the primary stated purpose of the Act (see section 2(b)): “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” We are listing the plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schidea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; and the animals Drosophila digressa and Vetericaris chaceorum, from Hawaii Island as endangered species. These 15 species (13 plants, 1 anchialine pool shrimp, and 1 picture-wing fly) are found in 10 ecosystem types: anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff (Table 2). Table 2—The 15 Hawaii Island Species and the Ecosystems Upon Which They Depend Ecosystem Species Plants Animals Anchialine Pool Vetericaris chaceorum. Coastal Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana Lowland Dry Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla Lowland Mesic Pittosporum hawaiiense Drosophila digressa. Pritchardia lanigera Lowland Wet Cyanea marksii Cyanea tritomantha Cyrtandra nanawaleensis Cyrtandra wagneri Phyllostegia floribunda Platydesma remyi Pritchardia lanigera Montane Dry Schiedea hawaiiensis Montane Mesic Phyllostegia floribunda Drosophila digressa. Pittosporum hawaiiense Montane Wet Cyanea marksii Drosophila digressa. Cyanea tritomantha Phyllostegia floribunda Pittosporum hawaiiense Platydesma remyi Pritchardia lanigera Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei Stenogyne cranwelliae Dry Cliff Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana Wet Cliff Cyanea tritomantha Pritchardia lanigera Stenogyne cranwelliae For each species, we identified and evaluated those factors that adversely impact the species and that may be common to all of the species at the ecosystem level. For example, the degradation of habitat by nonnative ungulates is considered a threat to all 15 species, and is likely a threat to many, if not most or all, of the native species within a given ecosystem. We consider such a threat factor to be an “ecosystem-level threat,” as each individual species within that ecosystem faces a threat that is essentially identical in terms of the nature of the impact, its severity, its timing, and its scope. Beyond ecosystem-level threats, we further identified and evaluated threat factors that may be unique to certain species and that do not apply to all species under consideration within the same ecosystem. For example, the threat of predation by nonnative wasps is unique to the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa, and is not applicable to any of the other 14 species. We have identified such threat factors, which apply only to certain species within the ecosystems addressed here, as “species-specific threats.” Please refer to the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) for a description of the island of Hawaii and associated map, and for a description of the 10 ecosystems on Hawaii Island that support the 15 species. We have made minor revisions to our description of the anchialine pool ecosystem described in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012); therefore, we have included the revised version in its entirety in this final rule (see Hawaii Island Ecosystems, below). Hawaii Island Ecosystems There are 12 different ecosystems (anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, subalpine, alpine, dry cliff, and wet cliff) recognized on the island of Hawaii. The 15 species addressed in this final rule occur in 10 of these 12 ecosystems (none of the 15 species are reported in subalpine and alpine ecosystems). The 10 Hawaii Island ecosystems that support the 15 species are described in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012), with the exception of a revised description of the anchialine pool ecosystem below; see Table 2 (above) for a list of the species that occur in each ecosystem type. Anchialine Pools Anchialine pools are land-locked bodies of water that have indirect underground connections to the sea, contain varying levels of salinity, and show tidal fluctuations in water level. Anchialine pool habitats can be distinguished from similar systems (i.e., tidal pools) in that they are land-locked with no surface connections to water sources either saline or fresh, but have subterranean hydrologic connections to both fresh and ocean water where water flows through cracks and crevices, and remain tidally influenced (Holthuis 1973, p. 3; Stock 1986, p. 91). Anchialine habitats are ecologically distinct and unique, and while widely distributed throughout the world, they only occur in the United States in the Hawaiian Islands (Brock 2004, pp. i, 2, and 12). In Hawaii, the anchialine pool ecosystem has been reported from Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii Island. In the Hawaiian Islands, there are estimated to be 600 to 700 anchialine pools, with the majority occurring on the island of Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. i). Over 80 percent of the State's anchialine pools are found on the island of Hawaii, with a total of approximately 520 to 560 pools distributed over 130 sites along all but the island's northernmost and steeper northeastern shorelines. Characteristic animal species include crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, prawns, amphipods, isopods, etc.), several fish species, mollusks, and other invertebrates adapted to the pools' surface and subterranean habitats (Brock 2004, p. i; The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2009, pp. 1-3). Generally, vegetation within the anchialine pools consists of various types of algal forms (blue-green, green, red, and golden-brown). The majority of Hawaii's anchialine pools occur in bare or sparsely vegetated lava fields, although some pools occur in areas with various groundcover, shrub, and tree species (Chai et al. 1989, pp. 2-24; Brock 2004, p. 35). The anchialine pool shrimp in this final rule, Vetericaris chaceorum, occurs in this ecosystem (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-437). Description of the 15 Species Below is a brief description of each of the 15 species, presented in alphabetical order by genus. Plants are presented first, followed by animals. Plants In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of locations of each species (a location does not necessarily represent a viable population, as in some cases there may only be one or a very few representatives of the species present), we use the word “occurrence” instead of “population.” Each occurrence is composed only of wild (i.e., not propagated and outplanted) individuals. Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (kookoolau), a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 275-276). Historically, B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana was known from two locations along the windward Kohala coastline, in the coastal and dry cliff ecosystems, often along rocks just above the ocean (Degener and Wiebke 1926, in litt.; Flynn 1988, in litt.). Currently, there are two known occurrences of B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana totaling 40 or fewer individuals along the windward Kohala coast, in the coastal and dry cliff ecosystems. There are 30 individuals on the Pololu seacliffs, and 5 to 10 individuals on the seacliffs between Pololu and Honokane Nui (Perlman 1998, in litt.; Perlman 2006, in litt.). Biologists speculate that this species may total as many as 100 individuals with further surveys of potential habitat along the Kohala coast (Mitchell et al. 2005b; PEPP 2006, p. 3). Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla was known from the north Kona district, in the lowland dry ecosystem (HBMP 2010b). Currently, this subspecies is restricted to an area of less than 10 square miles (sq mi) (26 square kilometers (sq km)) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano, in the lowland dry ecosystem in 6 occurrences totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals. The largest occurrence is found off Hina Lani Road with over 475 individuals widely dispersed throughout the area (Zimpfer 2011, in litt.). Another occurrence at Kealakehe was reported to have been abundant and common in 1992, but by 2010 had declined to low numbers (Whister 2007, pp. 1-18; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010b; Whister 2008, pp. 1-11). In addition, there are three naturally occurring individuals in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP) (Beavers 2010, in litt.), and three occurrences within close proximity to each other to the northeast of the park: Five individuals in an exclosure at Puuwaawaa Wildlife Sanctuary (HBMP 2010b); a few scattered individuals at Kaupulehu; and a few individuals on private land at Palani Ranch (Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11). Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla has also been outplanted within Kaloko-Honokohau NHP (49 individuals), Koaia Tree Sanctuary (1 individual), and Puuwaawaa (5 individuals) (Boston 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010b; Billings 2012, in litt.). Cyanea marksii (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii. Historically, C. marksii was known from the Kona district, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (Lammers 1999, p. 457; HBMP 2010e). Currently, there are 27 individuals distributed among 3 occurrences in south Kona, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 61). There is an adult and 20 to 30 juveniles (each approximately 1 inch (in) (2.54 centimeters (cm) tall)) in a lava tube in the Kona unit of the Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (PEPP 2007, p. 61), 3 adult individuals and 6 seedlings in the Kaohe pit crater in the South Kona FR (Perry 2012, in litt.), and 25 individuals on private land in south Kona (PEPP 2007, p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Fruit has been collected from the individuals on private land, and 11 plants have been successfully propagated at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility (VRPF) (PEPP 2007, p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Cyanea tritomantha (aku), a palmlike shrub in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13; Lammers 2004, p. 89). Historically, this species was known from the windward slopes of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, and the Kohala Mountains, in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13). Currently, there are 16 occurrences of Cyanea tritomantha totaling fewer than 400 individuals in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems: 10 occurrences (totaling fewer than 240 individuals) in the Kohala Mountains (Perlman 1993, in litt.; Perlman 1995a, in litt.; Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60); 2 occurrences (totaling fewer than 75 individuals) in the Laupahoehoe Natural Area Reserve (NAR) (HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence (20 adults and 30 juveniles) at Puu Makaala NAR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence with 10 to 20 individuals off Tom's Trail in the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve FR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Perry 2012, in litt.); and 2 occurrences (totaling fewer than 11 individuals) in Olaa Tract in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HVNP (Pratt 2007a, in litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.; Orlando 2012, in litt.). In 2003, over 75 individuals were outplanted in HVNP's Olaa Tract and Small Tract; however, by 2010, less than one third of these individuals remained (Pratt 2011a, in litt.). In addition, a few individuals have been outplanted at Puu Makaala NAR and Upper Waiakea FR (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR) 2006; Belfield 2007, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Cyanea tritomantha produces few seeds, and their viability tends to be low (Moriyasu 2009, in litt.) Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 29; Wagner et al. 2005a— Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database ). Historically, C. nanawaleensis was known only from the Nanawale FR and the adjacent Malama Ki FR in the Puna district, in the lowland wet ecosystem (St. John 1987, p. 500; Wagner et al. 1988, in litt.; HBMP 2010g; Pratt 2011b, in litt.). Currently, C. nanawaleensis is known from 5 occurrences with approximately 160 individuals in the lowland wet ecosystem: 2 occurrences in Malama Ki FR totaling 70 individuals (Lau 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence in Keauohana FR (with 56 individuals) (Magnacca 2011a, in litt.); 2 occurrences in the Halepuaa section of Nanawale FR (one with 28 mature and 65 immature plants at 200 feet (ft) (61 meters (m)) elevation, and a second occurrence with 9 mature and 57 immature plants at 270 ft (82 m)) (Johansen 2012, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in litt.; Perry 2012, in litt.); and 1 occurrence with an unknown number of individuals on private lands in lower Puna (Perry 2012, in litt.). A total of approximately 56 individuals have been outplanted in Halepuaa and Keauhana (Perry 2012, in litt.). Cyrtandra wagneri (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the African violet family (Gesneriaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 357). Historically, C. wagneri was known from a few individuals along the steep banks of the Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR, in the lowland wet ecosystem (Perlman et al. 1998, in litt.). In 2002, there were 2 known occurrences totaling fewer than 175 individuals in the Laupahoehoe NAR: One occurrence (totaling 150 individuals (50 adults and 100 juveniles)) along the steep banks of the Kilau Stream (Lorence et al. 2002, in litt.; Perlman and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359), and a second occurrence (with approximately 10 sterile individuals) along the slopes of the Kaiwilahilahi stream banks (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359). Currently, there are no individuals remaining at Kaiwilahilahi Stream, and the individuals at Kilau Stream appear to be hybridizing with the endangered Cyrtandra tintinnabula. Biologists have identified only eight individuals at Kilau Stream that express the true phenotype of Cyrtandra wagneri, and only three of these individuals are reproducing successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Phyllostegia floribunda (NCN), a perennial herb in the mint family (Lamiaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Wagner 1999, p. 268; Wagner et al. 1999b, p. 815). Historically, P. floribunda was reported in the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems at scattered sites along the slopes of the Kohala Mountains; southeast through Hamakua, Laupahoehoe NAR, Waiakea FR, and Upper Waiakea FR; and southward into Hilo, HVNP, and Puna. One report exists of the species occurring from north Kona and a few occurrences in south Kona (Cuddihy et al. 1982, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005b— Flora of the Hawaiian Islands database; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Bishop Museum 2011— Herbarium Database ). Currently, there are 12 known occurrences of P. floribunda totaling fewer than 100 individuals, in the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Bruegmann 1998, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010h): 2 occurrences within HVNP, at Kamoamoa (1 individual) (HBMP 2010h) and near Napau Crater (4 individuals) (Pratt 2005, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence behind the Volcano solid waste transfer station (10 to 50 individuals) (Flynn 1984, in litt.; Perlman and Wood 1993— Hawaii Plant Conservation Maps database; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence (with an unknown number individuals) in the Wao Kele O Puna NAR (HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence with 20 individuals in a fenced exclosure in the Upper Waiakea FR (Perry 2012, in litt.); at least 1 occurrence each (with a few individuals each) in the Puu Makaala NAR, Waiakea FR, and TNC's Kona Hema Preserve (PR) (Perry 2006, in litt.; Perlman 2007, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; PEPP 2008, pp. 106-107; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.; Pratt 2008b, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.); 2 occurrences (each with an unknown number of individuals) from the South Kona FR; 1 occurrence (one individual) in the Kipahoehoe NAR; and 1 occurrence (with an unknown number of individuals) in the Lapauhoehoe NAR (Moriyasu 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Since 2003, over 400 individuals have been outplanted at HVNP, Waiakea FR, Puu Makaala NAR, Honomalino in TNC's Kona Hema PR, and Kipahoehoe NAR (Bruegmann 2006, in litt.; HDLNR 2006, p. 38; Tangalin 2006, in litt.; Belfield 2007, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; VRPF 2008, in litt.; VRPF 2010, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). However, for reasons unknown, approximately 90 percent of the outplantings experience high seedling mortality (Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Van DeMark et al. 2010, pp. 24-43). Pittosporum hawaiiense (hoawa, haawa), a small tree in the pittosporum family (Pittosporaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999c, p. 1,044). Historically, P. hawaiiense was known from the leeward side of the island, from the Kohala Mountains south to Kau, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Wagner et al. 1999c, p. 1,044). Currently, there are 14 known occurrences totaling fewer than 175 individuals, from HVNP to Puu O Umi NAR, and south Kona, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems: 1 occurrence in Puu O Umi NAR (several scattered individuals) (Perlman 1995b, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with a least one individual) in TNC's Kona Hema PR (Oppenheimer et al. 1998, in litt.); 1 occurrence with 50 to 100 individuals at Kukuiopae in the South Kona FR (Perlman and Perry 2002, in litt.; Perry 2012, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with a few individuals) in the Manuka NAR (Perry 2011, in litt.); 8 occurrences (totaling fewer than 58 individuals) scattered within the Kahuku unit of HVNP; 1 occurrence in the Olaa FR (at least one individual), just adjacent to the Olaa Tract in HVNP; and 1 occurrence (with fewer than 6 individuals) at the Volcano solid waste transfer station (Wood and Perlman 1991, in litt.; McDaniel 2011a, in litt.; McDaniel 2011b, in litt.; Pratt 2011d, in litt.). Biologists have observed very low regeneration in these occurrences, which is believed to be caused, in part, by rat predation on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Platydesma remyi (NCN), a shrub or shrubby tree in the rue family (Rutaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; USFWS 2010, pp. 4-66—4-67, A-11, A-74). Historically, P. remyi was known from a few scattered individuals on the windward slopes of the Kohala Mountains and several small populations on the windward slopes of Mauna Kea, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Currently, P. remyi is known from 8 occurrences totaling fewer than 40 individuals, all of which are found in the Laupahoehoe NAR or in closely surrounding areas, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems: Along the banks of Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR (unknown number of individuals) (Perlman and Perry 2001, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010i); near the Spencer Hunter Trail in the Laupahoehoe NAR (fewer than 17 individuals) (PEPP 2010, p. 102); in the central part of the Laupahoehoe NAR (5 to 6 scattered individuals) (HBMP 2010i); near Kilau (1 to 3 individuals) and Pahale (1 to 3 individuals) Streams in Laupahoehoe NAR; in the southeastern region of Laupahoehoe NAR (1 individual); in the Hakalau unit of the Hakalau NWR (1 individual) (USFWS 2010, p. 4-74—4-75); and in the Humuula region of the Hilo FR (2 individuals) (Bruegmann 1998, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; PEPP 2008, p. 107; HBMP 2010i). According to field biologists, this species appears to be declining with no regeneration believed to be caused, in part, by rat predation on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). In 2009, 29 individuals of P. remyi were outplanted in Laupahoehoe NAR (Bio 2008, in litt.). Their current status is unknown. Pritchardia lanigera (loulu), a medium-sized tree in the palm family (Arecaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Read and Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; Hodel 2007, pp. 10, 24-25). Historically, P. lanigera was known from the Kohala Mountains, Hamakua district, windward slopes of Mauna Kea, and southern slopes of Mauna Loa, in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (Read and Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; HBMP 2010c). Currently, P. lanigera is known from 8 occurrences totaling fewer than 230 individuals scattered along the windward side of the Kohala Mountains, Kau FR, and TNC Kau Preserve, in the lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems. Approximately 100 to 200 individuals are scattered over 1 sq mi (3 sq km) in Waimanu Valley and surrounding areas (Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman and Wood 1996, p. 6; Wood 1998, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004, in litt.; HBMP 2010c). There are at least five individuals in the back rim of Alakahi Gulch in Waipio Valley (HBMP 2010c), and five individuals in the Kau FR (Perry 2013, in litt.) According to field biologists, pollination rates appear to be low for this species, and the absence of seedlings and juveniles at known locations suggests that regeneration is not occurring, which they believe to be caused, in part, by beetle, rat, and pig predation on the fruits, seeds, and seedlings (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Crysdale 2013, pers. comm.). Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei (NCN), a perennial climbing herb in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is reported only from the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 2005c— Flowering Plants of the Hawaiian Islands database; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106). Historically, S. diffusa ssp. macraei was known from the Kohala Mountains, the windward slopes of Mauna Loa, and the Olaa Tract of HVNP, in the montane wet ecosystem (Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP 2010j). Currently, there is one individual of S. diffusa ssp. macraei on the slopes of Eke in the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Schiedea hawaiiensis (NCN), a perennial herb or subshrub in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 92-96). Historically, S. hawaiiensis was known from a single collection by Hillebrand (1888, p. 33) from the Waimea region, in the montane dry ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 92-96). Currently, S. hawaiiensis is known from 25 to 40 individuals on the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) in the montane dry ecosystem, in the saddle area between Moana Loa and Mauna Kea (Gon III and Tierney 1996 in Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 92; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 92; Evans 2011, in litt.). In addition, there are over 150 individuals outplanted at PTA (Kipuka Alala and Kalawamauna), Puu Huluhulu, Puu Waawaa, and Kipuka Oweowe (Evans 2011, in litt.). Stenogyne cranwelliae (NCN), a vine in the mint family (Lamiaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii. Historically, S. cranwelliae was known from the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems (Weller and Sakai 1999, p. 837). Currently, there are 6 occurrences of S. cranwelliae totaling fewer than 160 individuals in the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems: Roughly 1.5 sq mi (2.5 sq km) around the border between the Puu O Umi NAR and Kohala FR, near streams and bogs (ranging from 3 to 100 scattered individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); Opaeloa, in the Puu O Umi NAR (3 individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); Puukapu, in the Puu O Umi NAR (6-by-6-ft (2-by-2-m) “patch” of individuals) (HBMP 2010k); the rim of Kawainui Gulch (1 individual) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); along Kohakohau Stream, in the Puu O Umi NAR (a few individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); and Waimanu Bog Unit in the Puu O Umi NAR (a “patch” of individuals) (Agorastos 2010, in litt.) Animals Drosophila digressa (picture-wing fly), a member of the family Drosophilidae, was described in 1968 by Hardy and Kaneshiro and is found only on the island of Hawaii (Hardy and Kaneshiro 1968, pp. 180-1882; Carson 1986, p. 3-9). This species is small, with adults ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.19 in (4.0 to 5.0 mm) in length. Adults are brownish yellow in color and have yellow-colored legs and hyaline (shiny-clear) wings with prominent brown spots. Breeding generally occurs year round, but egg laying and larval development increase following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter, which picture-wing flies feed on, increases in response to heavy rains. In contrast to most continental Drosophilidae, many endemic Hawaiian species are highly host-plant-specific (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 1). Drosophila digressa relies on the decaying stems of Charpentiera spp. and Pisonia spp. for oviposition (to deposit or lay eggs) and larval substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 11, 13; Magnacca 2013, in litt.). The larvae complete development in the decaying tissue before dropping to the soil to pupate (Montgomery 1975, pp. 65-103; Spieth 1986, p. 105). Pupae develop into adults in approximately 1 month, and adults sexually mature 1 month later. Adults live for 1 to 2 months. The adult flies are generalist microbivores (microbe eating) and feed upon a variety of decomposing plant material. Drosophila digressa occurs in elevations ranging from approximately 2,000 to 4,500 ft (610 to 1,370 m), in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Magnacca 2011a, pers. comm.). Historically, D. digressa was known from six sites: Moanuiahea pit crater on Hualalai, Papa in South Kona, Manuka FR, Kipuka 9 along Saddle Road, Bird Park in HVNP, and Olaa FR (Montgomery 1975, p. 98; Magnacca 2006, pers. comm.; HBMP 2010d; Magnacca 2011b, in litt.; Kaneshiro 2013, in litt.). Currently, D. digressa is known from only two locations, one population in the Manuka NAR within the Manuka FR, in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems, and a second population in the Olaa FR in the montane wet ecosystem (Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). The current number of individuals at each of these locations is unknown (Magnacca 2011b, in. litt.). Vetericaris chaceorum (anchialine pool shrimp) is a member of the family Procarididae, and is considered one of the most primitive shrimp species in the world (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 428-429). Currently known from only two locations on the island of Hawaii, V. chaceorum is one of seven described species of hypogeal (underground) shrimp found in the Hawaiian Islands that occur in anchialine pools (Brock 2004, p. 6). Relatively large in size for a hypogeal shrimp species, adult Vetericaris chaceorum measure approximately 2.0 in (5.0 cm) in total body length, excluding the primary antennae, which are approximately the same length as the adult's body length (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 419). The species lacks large chelapeds (claws) (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426), which are a key diagnostic characteristic of all other known shrimp species. V. chaceorum is largely devoid of pigment and lacks eyes, although eyestalks are present (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 419). Observations of Vetericaris chaceorum indicate the species is a strong swimmer and propels its body forward in an upright manner with its appendages held in a basket formation below the body. Forward movement is produced by a rhythmic movement of the thoracic and abdominal appendages, and during capture of some specimens, V. chaceorum escape tactics included only forward movement and a notable lack of tail flicking, which would allow backward movement and which is common to other shrimp species (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426). No response was observed when the species was exposed to light (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). The feeding habits of Vetericaris chaceorum were unknown for decades with the only published data from Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 426), who reported that the gut contents of a captured specimen included large quantities of an orange-colored oil and fragments of other crustaceans, indicating that the species may be carnivorous upon its associated anchialine pool shrimp species. Sakihara (2012, in litt.) recently confirmed that V. chaceorum is carnivorous after observing V. chaceorum collected from Manuaka Natural Area Reserve actively feeding on Halocaridina rubra in the laboratory. In general, hypogeal shrimp occur within both the illuminated part of their anchialine pool habitat as well as within the cracks and crevices in the water table below the surface (Brock 2004, p. 6). The relative abundance of some Hawaii species is directly tied to food abundance (Brock 2004, p. 10). The lighted environment of anchialine pools offers refugia of high benthic productivity, resulting in higher population levels for the shrimp compared to the surrounding interstitial spaces often occupied by these species, albeit in lower numbers (Brock 2004, p. 10; Wada 2013, pers. comm.). Although over 400 of the estimated 520 to 560 anchialine pool habitats have been surveyed on the island of Hawaii, Vetericaris chaceorum has only been documented from two locations: Lua o Palahemo, which is a submerged lava tube located on the southernmost point of Hawaii Island in an area known as Ka Lae (South Point) (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418; Brock 2004, p. 2; HBMP 2010), and at Manuka, where only recently V. chaceorum was discovered in a series of pristine shallow anchialine pool complexes within and adjacent to the NAR, approximately 15 mi (25 km) northwest of Lua o Palahemo (Sakihara 2012, in litt.). The Service has concluded that the lack of detection of this species in the several hundred anchialine pools surveyed on the island of Hawaii since the 1970s suggests this species has a very limited range (Holthius 1973, pp. 1-128 cited in Sakihara 2012, pp. 83, 91, and 93; Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Maciolek 1983, pp. 606-618; Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426; Maciolek 1987, pp. 1-23; Chai et al. 1989, pp. 1-37; Chan 1995, pp. 1-31; Brock and Kam 1997, pp. 1-109; Bozanic 2004, p. 1; Brock 2004, pp. 1-60; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, pp. 1-2; Sakihara 2013 in litt.). In total, only five individuals have been observed during one survey period in 1985 at Lua o Palahmo, and a total of seven individuals were observed in four pools during surveys conducted between 2009 and 2010 at Manuka. These two locations are described below. Lua o Palahemo Site: Age estimates for Lua o Palahemo range from as young as 11,780 years to a maximum of age of 25,000 years, based upon radio carbon data and timing of geophysical climatic events (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418). Brock (2004, p. 18) states this lava tube is probably the second most important anchialine pool habitat in the State because of its unique connection to the ocean, the vertical size (i.e., depth), and the presence of a total of five different species including Halocaridina palahemo, H. rubra, Procaris hawaiiana, Calliasmata pholidota, and Vetericaris chaceorum . Lua o Palahemo is a naturally occurring opening (i.e., a surface collapse) into a large lava tube below. The opening measures approximately 33 ft (10 m) in diameter and is exposed to sunlight. Unlike most anchialine pools in the Hawaiian Islands, which have depths less than 4.9 ft (1.5 m) (Brock 2004, p. 3), Lua o Palahemo's deep pool includes a deep shaft with vertical sides extending downward about 46 ft (14 m) into the lava tube below, which branches in two directions, both ending in blockages (Holthuis 1974, p. 11; Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). At the subterranean level at the base of the opening, the lava tube runs generally north and south, extending northward for 282 ft (86 m) and southward for 718 ft (219 m), to a depth of 108 ft (33 m) below sea level (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). Manuka Site: The anchialine pools at Manuka were first surveyed 1972 (Macioleck and Brock 1972, p. iii); however, this survey primarily covered only the southern extremity of the site. A more thorough survey of the Manuka coastline was conducted between 1989 and 1992 (20 pools along the southern coast of Manuka, which included both diurnal and nocturnal observations (Chan 1995, p. 1). These pools were then diurnally surveyed in 2004 (80 pools along the entire Manuka coastline) (Brock 2004, pp. 1-60), and again between 2008 and 2009 (80 pools along the entire Manuka coastline) (Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35). The most recent and most comprehensive surveys of Manuka were conducted between 2009 and 2010, when Hawaii State biologists surveyed 81 pools at Manuka both day and night, which resulted in the discovery of Vetericaris chaceorum in 4 of the pools surveyed. Three of the pools are within Manuka NAR, and one pool is adjacent to the NAR, on unencumbered State land (collectively referred to as Manuka throughout this final rule) (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). This discovery documents the first observation of this species in almost three decades (Sakihara 2012, in litt.). Visual accounts made by the biologists estimate that V. chaceorum is established in four anchialine pools along the southern section of the NAR, approximately 15 mi (25 km) from Lua o Palahemo. A total of seven individuals of this species were observed in four pools around Awili Point and Keawaiki (Sakihara 2012, p. 89; Sakihara 2013, in litt.), although estimates of the total number of individuals are undeterminable due to the cryptic nature of this species (Sakihara 2012, in litt.). Sakihara (2012, in litt.) stated that the anchialine habitat at Manuka is considerably different than that of Lua o Palahemo, and is considered to be one of the most biologically valuable habitats of this type (Sakihara 2012, in litt.; Sakihara 2013, in litt.). The Manuka anchialine pools are characterized by shallow (less than 2 ft (0.5 m)) open pools dispersed throughout barren basaltic terrain. This observation expands the known habitat conditions that support V. chaceorum (Sakihara 2012, in litt.). According to Sakihara (2013, in litt.), it appears that three of the Manuka pools (the three pools closest to a jeep road) have a subterranean connection, although this has not been confirmed. Although anchialine pools have been surveyed in the Manuka area in the past (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-80; Chan 1995, pp. 1-34; Brock 2004, pp. i-iv; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Sakihara 2013 in litt.), the surveys conducted between 2009 and 2010 were the first to document the presence of V. chaceorum in this anchialine pool complex. In 1995, an anchialine pool shrimp matching the description of V. chaceorum was observed in at least one pool at Manuka NAR, but its identification was never confirmed (Brock 2004, p. 31; Sakihara 2012, p. 89). Four surveys have been conducted at Lua o Palahemo (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426; Bozanic 2004, p. 1-3; Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, pp. 1-2), with five individuals observed during one survey in 1985. Five surveys have been conducted at Manuka (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Chan 1995, pp. 1-34; Brock 2004, pp. i-iv, 1-60; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Sakihara 2013 in litt.), with seven individuals observed in four pools between 2009 and 2010. Because of the ability of hypogeal shrimp species to inhabit the interstitial and crevicular spaces in the water table bedrock surrounding anchialine pools, it is very difficult to estimate population size of a given species within a given area (Brock 2004, pp. 10-11). We are unable to estimate the population size of either occurrence of Vetericaris chaceorum given this behavior. Summary of Comments and Recommendations On October 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list 15 Hawaii Island species (13 plants, 1 picture-wing fly, and 1 anchialine pool shrimp) as endangered throughout their ranges, and to designate critical habitat for 3 plant species (77 FR 63928). The comment period for the proposal opened on October 17, 2012, for 60 days, ending on December 17, 2012. We requested that all interested parties submit comments or information concerning the proposed rule. 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 October 20, 2012, in the local Honolulu Star Advertiser, West Hawaii Today, and the Hawaii Tribune Herald newspapers, at the beginning of the comment period. We received four requests for public hearings. On April 30, 2013, we published a document (78 FR 25243) reopening the comment period on the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), announcing the availability of our draft economic analysis (DEA) on the proposed critical habitat, and requesting comments on both the proposed rule and the DEA. In addition, in that same document (78 FR 25243; April 30, 2013), we announced a public information meeting and hearing, which was held in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, on May 15, 2013. During the comment periods, we received 33 comment letters, including the 11 peer review comment letters, on the proposed listing of 15 species, proposed taxonomic change for 1 endangered plant species, and proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final rule, we address only the comments regarding the proposed listing of 15 species and proposed taxonomic change for 1 plant species. Comments addressing the proposed critical habitat designation will be fully addressed in a separate rulemaking action, and published in the Federal Register at a later date. Two commenters were State of Hawaii agencies ((1) Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism's Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, and (2) Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands); one was a county agency (County of Hawaii Planning Department); two were Federal agencies; and 28 were nongovernmental organizations or individuals. During the May 15, 2013, public hearing, no individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed listing. All substantive information related to the listing of the 15 species or the taxonomic change for 1 species provided during the comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below. Comments received were grouped into general issues specifically relating to the proposed listing status of the 13 plants, or the picture-wing fly or anchialine pool shrimp, or the proposed taxonomic change for 1 plant species, and are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. 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 14 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise on the Hawaii Island plants, picture-wing fly, and anchialine pool shrimp, and their habitats, including familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which these species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from 11 of these peer reviewers. Nine of these 11 peer reviewers generally supported our methodology and conclusions. One peer reviewer expressed concern regarding the lack of more recent survey data for the anchialine pool shrimp at Manuka, and was unaware of the recent surveys (between 2009 and 2010) conducted by Hawaii State biologists. Another commented that we should proceed with caution due to the lack of biological information regarding the shrimp. Three peer reviewers supported the Service's ecosystem-based approach for organizing the rule and for focusing on the actions needed for species conservation and management, and all 11 reviewers provided information on one or more of the Hawaii Island species, which was incorporated into this final rule (see also Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule). We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 15 species and taxonomic change for 1 plant species. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Peer Review Comments on Plants (1) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we include inundation by high surf and subsequent erosion, and the nonnative plant Wedelia [ Sphagneticola ] trilobata (wedelia), as threats to the plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana. Our Response: We have incorporated this information, as appropriate, into Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, Table 3, and in the sections “Nonnative Plants in the Coastal Ecosystem” and “Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range in this final rule (see below). (2) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we include vandalism and trash dumping as threats to the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, in the Kaloko Makai area. Our Response: We are aware that vandalism and trash dumping has occurred in the Kaloko Makai area near the individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the past, although it has not been recently observed (Ball 2013, pers. comm.). We will continue to monitor this potential threat in that area. (3) Comment: One peer reviewer informed us of an act of vandalism where approximately 150 ft (46 m) of fencing was removed from a fenced exclosure in the Upper Waiakea FR where individuals of the plant Phyllostegia floribunda are found. The fencing was repaired later in the same month (November 2012), and the plants appeared to suffer no adverse impacts. Our Response: We agree that vandalism is a potential threat to all fenced species. However, vandalism is not considered an imminent threat at this time because the frequency at which vandalism occurs and the degree of impact cannot be determined in advance of the incident occurring. We will continue to monitor the area and gather information on this potential threat. (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we identify the nonnative plant Paederia foetida (skunk weed) as a threat to the plant Cyrtandra nanawaleensis because it completely covers and smothers understory vegetation and outcompetes low-growing plants and small shrubs for light and space and that we identify Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava) as a threat to Cyanea tritomantha because it forms dense stands in which few other plants can grow, displacing native vegetation through competition. Our Response: We have included this information in this final rule (see Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below). (5) Comment: One peer reviewer supported the listing of the plants Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae as endangered, and stated that we did a very thorough job of outlining the threats for these three species. In addition, this peer reviewer expressed appreciation for our emphasis on the anticipated effects of climate change in the proposed rule. Our Response: We appreciate the support from this peer reviewer regarding our threats analysis, and our discussion on the anticipated threats from climate change. All 15 species we are listing in this final rule may be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to their small number of populations and individuals, as well as highly restricted ranges. Environmental changes that may affect these species are expected to include habitat loss or alteration and changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., storms, hurricanes, and drought). (6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that climate change appears to be having especially serious effects on Schiedea species occurring in dry habitats due to death of adult plants, presumably through drought, failure to regenerate due to drought, and increased fire frequency. Drought may have a pronounced effect on Schiedea hawaiiensis. Our Response: We agree that drought is a threat to Schiedea hawaiiensis, for the reasons mentioned above (see also “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire” and “Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range, below). (7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei and S. hawaiiensis are obligate autogamous species (i.e., reproduces by self-pollination) and facultative autogamous (i.e., reproduces by self- and cross-pollination), respectively. Because both of these species are hermaphroditic and autogamous, they are capable of regenerating from single individuals, and may not be severely hampered by inbreeding depression. Unfortunately, autogamous species of Schiedea also appear to be short-lived, emphasizing the importance of appropriate conditions for regeneration. Our Response: We agree that the obligate and facultative autogamous nature of Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei and S. hawaiiensis, respectively, in addition to being hermaphroditic, afford these species the ability to regenerate from single individuals and may not be severely hampered by inbreeding depression. However, there are other negative impacts that can result from low number of individuals (e.g., random demographic fluctuations; climate change effects; and localized catastrophes, such as hurricanes, drought, rockfalls, landslides, and disease outbreaks (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607). Any of these stressors represent threats that can lessen the chances of survival for these species in the wild. We agree that the short-lived nature of these species increases the importance for appropriate conditions for regeneration, and have added this information to our files. (8) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that it was incorrect to state, in our proposed rule (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012) on page 63931, that Mezoneuron was listed in error as Caesalpinia kavaiense in 50 CFR 17.12, because at the time of the listing (51 FR 24672; July 8, 1986), this was the accepted name applied to the taxon. The peer reviewer stated that it is important to emphasize that names of taxa typically may change during the course of standard taxonomic investigations, and these changes do not affect the validity of conservation concerns for the taxon in question. Our Response: We wish to clarify the error described in the October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), proposed rule regarding Mezoneuron kavaiense. The error described in the proposed rule refers to the entry in the 1989 List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12), where this taxon was revised and the specific epithet was misspelled as Caesalpinia kavaiense (instead of Caesalpinia kavaiensis ). Subsequent taxonomic revision resulted in the currently recognized scientific name for the listed entity, Mezoneuron kavaiense, which we accept in this final rule. (9) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that under our description of the lowland dry ecosystem, we incorrectly wrote “high rates of diversity and endemism” when technically it should read “high levels of diversity and endemism,” as rate is a process occurring over time. Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer. Peer Review Comments on the Picture-Wing Fly (10) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information regarding the host plants for Drosophila digressa. Although D. digressa has only been reared from Charpentiera spp., at Manuka, D. digressa was found in a Pisonia sandwicensis treefall with a considerable number of rotten branches. A large number of individuals of D. digressa were found in a small area, indicating a local breeding group rather than vagrant individuals. The only Charpentiera spp. in this area are a few trees in a pit crater, over 0.62 mi (1 km) from the known location of D. digressa on Pisonia sandwicensis. This reviewer further stated that many native Drosophila species that breed in either Charpentiera spp. or Pisonia spp. are also able to use both plants. According to the reviewer, while this ability of D. digressa to use both tree species as host plants expands its potential habitat slightly, it does not do so by a great deal, as Pisonia sandwicensis and P. brunoniana [two of the three species of Pisonia on Hawaii Island] are only found on Hawaii Island at the sites where D. digressa is already known (Olaa and Manuka), or where the forest is currently too open and dry to support this species of picture-wing fly (Kipuka Pualulu and Puu Waawaa cone). Pisonia umbellifera can be found at lower elevations on the windward side of the island, such as gulches on the east slopes of Kohala and Mauna Kea below 1,500 ft (457) m, but D. digressa has never been recorded from these areas or elevation. Species of Pisonia face most of the same threats as species of Charpentiera (i.e., goat and cattle browsing of leaves and seedlings, pig rooting of seedlings, and desiccation of habitat from drought and subsequent fires at Manuka). The reviewer concludes that even if Pisonia spp. at Manuka survive the [ongoing] drought, the habitat will likely be too dry to support D. digressa. Our Response: We appreciate this information regarding Drosophila digressa and have incorporated this new information, as appropriate, in this final rule (see above, Description of the 15 Species; see below, Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates” ( Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range ), “Predation and Herbivory” ( Factor C. Disease or Predation ), and “Loss of Host Plants” ( Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence )). (11) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the drought-associated ohia [ Metrosideros polymorpha ] dieback occurring at Manuka adversely affects Drosophila digressa by allowing more sunlight into the understory, increasing the temperature and lowering humidity. This increases the stress on the picture-wing flies and their host plants, as well as increasing opportunities for invasive plants to become established. The extraordinary amount of dead wood accumulation at Manuka means that any fire that occurs there likely would be extremely damaging. A fire resulting from a similar scenario at Kealakekua Ranch a year or two ago produced smoke that covered most of the island and burned for weeks because it is nearly impossible to fight fire in such dense brush. Our Response: We appreciate the additional information provided regarding the drought-associated ohia dieback at Manuka and Drosophila digressa, and we have included this new information in our final rule, as appropriate, in “Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought” ( Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range ) in this final rule (see below). Peer Review Comments on the Anchialine Pool Shrimp (12) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the field surveys cited in our proposed rule are not adequate, and that more surveys should be conducted at other sites such as Manuka, Hawaii. The peer reviewer also recommended that the analysis of listing Vetericaris chaceorum as endangered should be based on the number of field surveys conducted, the number of pools surveyed, the number of locations surveyed, trapping surveys, day and night surveys, and seasonal surveys. Our Response: We are required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, and, for the reasons described here, we have concluded that the number and locations of surveys are adequate to determine that Vetericaris chaceorum appears to be restricted to a limited number of pools in the southern portion of the island of Hawaii, and that V. chaceorum faces threats from habitat degradation and destruction and from predation such that it is in danger of extinction throughout its range. There are between 600 and 700 anchialine pools in the Hawaiian Islands and approximately 80 percent (approximately 520 to 560) occur on Hawaii Island. Over 400 pools have been surveyed on Hawaii Island alone since the 1970s, and V. chaceorum has only been documented from two locations: Lua o Palahemo and Manuka, where V. chaceorum was recently (between 2009 and 2010) discovered in a series of pristine shallow anchialine pool complexes within and adjacent to Manuka NAR (Holthius 1973, pp. 1-128 cited in Sakihara 2012, pp. 83, 91, and 93; Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-73; Maciolek 1983, pp. 606-618; Maciolek 1987, pp. 1-23; Chai et al. 1989, pp. 1-37; Chan 1995, pp. 1-31; Brock and Kam 1997, pp. 1-109; Brock 2004, pp. 1-60; Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95; Wada et al. 2012, pp. 1-2). This reviewer was apparently unaware that Hawaii State biologists conducted surveys at Manuka between 2008 and 2009, and again between 2009 and 2010 (Sakihara 2009, pp. 1-35; Sakihara 2012, pp. 83-95). Several other peer reviewers stated that the Service used the best available scientific and commercial data to document the presence or absence of V. chaceorum in anchialine pools around Hawaii Island. Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of five factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below), and we are required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, pursuant to section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on the best available information we determined that V. chaceorum faces threats from habitat destruction and modification by feral goats and cattle at Lua o Palahemo; dumping of trash and introduction of nonnative fish at Lua o Palahemo; and introduction of nonnative fish at the pools at Manuka (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below). (13) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the importance of flushing to the functioning of the anchialine pool ecosystem and its relationship to the effects of excessive siltation and sedimentation on the population of Vetericaris chaceorum and its associated species and the anchialine pool ecosystem at Lua o Palahemo. The commenter referenced the occurrence of large numbers of individuals of Halocaridina rubra, Procaris hawaiiana, and V. chaceorum during the 1985 survey (Kensley and Williams 1985, pp. 417-426) despite a reduction in visibility (few centimeters) as a result of the disturbance of ceiling sediments caused by exhalation bubbles during an exit phase of a dive. The commenter also stated that “there is no reason to discount the opposite idea that increased flushing has mobilized the sediment, allowed the movement of native predators and competitors into the system, and resulted in the decline or perhaps extirpation of Vetericaris.” The commenter then suggested that the thick sediment cone just below the opening was not a problem for the dense populations of native species detected directly beneath the surface of the pool during the 1985 surveys. Our Response: We acknowledge the peer reviewer's statement that Vetericaris chaceorum and other native species may be able to coexist with a certain level sedimentation in the anchialine pool ecosystem at Lua o Palahemo. However, the water clarity has declined since earlier surveys (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-437; Bozanic 2004, pp. 1-3; Wada 2010, in litt.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.; Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada 2013, in litt.), which took place in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the presence of silt in the system at that time. Further, we disagree that the reduced visibility created by a diver's exhalation bubbles or similar human-initiated disturbance during those early surveys is comparable to the low visibility levels apparent in recent surveys before surveyors even enter the water. Flushing is necessary for the successful functioning of an anchialine pool ecosystem (Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35-36). We have concluded that continued excessive siltation into and additional collapse of the lava tube system at Lua o Palahemo is causing degradation of the anchialine pool ecosystem. These factors, combined with the system's diminished ability to flush, have resulted in the degradation of water quality, which has also led to the drastic decline in two of the other hypogeal shrimp species within the pool (i.e., Procaris hawaiiana numbered in the thousands, and Halocaridina numbered in the tens of thousands (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418), and the most recent survey counted 7 Procaris hawaiiana and zero Halocaridina (Wada et al. 2012, in litt.; Wada 2013, pers. comm.)). These shrimp are considered food sources for V. chaceorum, and their decline may affect the survival of V. chaceorum. (14) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that the discussion of Lua o Palahemo clarify land ownership and the attitude of the landowner toward the anchialine pool and its fauna. Our Response: Lua o Palahemo is located on land owned by the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL). We hope to work with DHHL to address the threats to Vetericaris chaceorum and the anchialine pool ecosystem at Lua o Palahemo from ungulates, recreational vehicles, dumping of trash, the intentional introduction of nonnative fish, and sedimentation, as identified in this final rule. (15) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that additional data on phylogenetic or biogeographical relationships on the ancestor(s) to Vetericaris chaceorum could have very important implications about the spatial extent of potential habitat, specific features of the habitat that may be critical to the species, and other possible sites where the species may occur. However, the peer reviewer also stated that this information is not currently available. Our Response: We agree that such information would provide additional insights on the species' distribution and range, as well as the physical and biological habitat features required for the conservation of Vetericaris chaceorum. However, as the peer reviewer noted, such information is not currently available. The documented observation of V. chaceorum less than 19 mi (25 km) from Lua o Palahemo in the shallow water pools at Manuka, Hawaii, may be explained by Maciolek's (1983, p. 615) hypothesis that habitats may be colonized from long-existing subterranean populations. (16) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we add nonnative plants (e.g., Prosopis pallida (kiawe)) as a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum, as any nonnative canopy or peripheral vegetation may result in changes in anchialine habitat conditions such as increased senescence, changes in water quality, and potential increases in nutrient availability that may alter primary production and the community structure of the algae. This peer reviewer further stated that these impacts may primarily affect the predominant endemic faunal species Halocaridina rubra, which is considered to be a key species in maintaining the ecological integrity of the anchialine pools, and that this may ultimately lead to an overall degradation of the anchialine pool ecosystem, and therefore impact V. chaceorum. However, this peer reviewer also noted that both Lua o Palahemo and Manuka are either very sparse or entirely free of peripheral vegetation, but that this does not preclude the possibility of P. pallida or any other type of nonnative vegetation from establishing itself within these areas. Our Response: The Act and our regulations direct us to consider the “present” or “threatened” destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range. At this time, there are insufficient data to determine the impacts on Vetericaris chaceorum from nonnative plants such as Prosopis pallida. Therefore, we cannot address nonnative plants as threats to V. chaceorum (i.e., we cannot identify a future condition that may or may not occur as a threat) in this final rule. We will consider the need to address nonnative plants in our future recovery planning efforts for this species, should new information become available indicating nonnative plants are a threat to V. chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo or Manuka. (17) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that we add native marine fish species (e.g., aholehole ( Kuhlia sp.) or papio ( Caranx sp.)) not normally found in anchialine pools as a threat to Vetericaris chaceorum, from either natural events (e.g., high surf and storm surges) or deliberate introduction by people to the Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool ecosystem. According to these reviewers, the introduction of native marine fish in anchialine pools could result in the same deleterious impacts to V. chaceorum and its pool habitat as the intentional introduction of nonnative fish (see “Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish” under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below). One peer reviewer later suggested that it was possible, although unlikely, that native marine fish would be intentionally introduced to the four pools at Manuka. Our Response: We agree that the introduction of native marine species, normally isolated from the anchialine pool environment, into the anchialine pool at Lua o Palahemo that supports Vetericaris chaceorum may be possible. For the reasons described below, we believe it is unlikely that natural events such as high surf and storm surges will introduce native marine fish to either location (Lua o Palahemo or Manuka) of V. chaceorum, although one peer reviewer suggested that the 2005 earthquake on Hawaii Island may have reopened or improved the connection between the ocean and Lua o Palahemo, thus allowing natural recruitment of native marine fish into and out of the pool (Kinzie 2012, in litt.). The intentional introduction of native marine fish is possible at its two known locations. Nonnative fish have been intentionally introduced to Lua o Palahemo in the past (see “Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish” under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below), and it is not unreasonable to assume that native marine fish may be deliberately introduced to the pool. In our 2012 snorkel survey of this pool, we observed a tropical marine goby in the pool (Wada et al. 2012, in litt.). However, it is unclear how this fish gained access to the pool. The accidental introduction or natural recruitment of native marine fish due to natural events such as storm surge and high surf is unlikely at Lua o Palahemo due to its elevation above the coast (approximately 25 ft (8 m)) and its distance from the coast (490 ft (150 m)) (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). Although a massive landslide or earthquake may trigger a local tsunami that generates waves that may sweep over and deposit native marine fish in the pool, these events are purely speculative. The intentional introduction of native marine fish is possible at the Manuka pools that support V. chaceorum because there is evidence that at least one pool in this area harbors nonnative freshwater poeciliids (see Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below) and marine fish, likely introduced by fishermen. This pool is located near a popular coastal fishing spot. Three of the four pools that support V. chaceorum at Manuka are located between 10 and 33 ft (3 and 10 m) from a jeep road that provides access to coastal fishing and recreational locations frequented by the public (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). The fourth pool is approximately 60 ft (18 m) from the jeep road (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). However, the accidental introduction or natural recruitment of native marine fish, due to natural events such as storm surge and high surf, is unlikely at the four pools that support V. chaceorum at Manuka because these pools are located at least 98 ft (30 m) from the coast (Sakihara 2013, in litt.), and storm surge and high surf that would cover this distance is improbable. Although a massive landslide or earthquake may trigger a tsunami that generates waves that may sweep over and deposit native marine fish in the pools, these events are purely speculative. On Maui, both aholehole and papio have been found in the larger anchialine pools closest to the ocean at Ahihi Kinau NAR, where high surf and storm waves appear to wash those and other native marine fish into the pools (Wada 2013, in litt.). However, these pools are subject to coastal influences due to natural events such as storm surge and high surf due to their proximity to the ocean. We are unaware of any data documenting the impacts of native marine fish that may be swept into the pools at Ahihi Kinau NAR on native anchialine pool shrimp. Native marine fish species have a purely marine (pelagic) larval stage, so a population of native fishes in an anchialine pool is likely to be individuals that are introduced to pools post larvae-stage (Sakihara 2013, in litt.). According to Brock (2004, p. 9), native marine fish are typically found in pools in close proximity to the ocean and it is believed that the biological status of these pools changes with successful colonization or mortality of marine fishes in these pools. The presence of native fish in Hawaiian anchialine pools usually signals the lack of hypogeal shrimp (Brock 2004, p. 9). Brock (2004, p. 29) also states that native marine fish are not able to complete their life cycles in anchialine pools, so the impacts to hypogeal shrimp are temporary (i.e., only as long as the fish occupy the pool) and that hypogeal shrimp may successfully hide in crevices from predatory fish and thus possibly recolonize a pool after the fish die off. Therefore, although V. chaceorum is a hypogeal shrimp and three species upon which it is known to feed in Lua o Palahemo are hypogeal shrimp, we are unable to determine the impact of marine fish on V. chaceorum at this time. (18) Comment: Two peer reviewers mentioned the presence of aggressive biting isopods and an eel at Lua o Palahemo, and the possibility of the eel, specifically, as a predator of Vetericaris chaceorum. Our Response: We are aware that eels have been seen periodically in other anchialine pools, including pools at Manuka NAR on Hawaii Island and Ahihi Kinau on Maui. At this time, however, there are insufficient data to determine the impacts on Vetericaris chaceorum from biting isopods and an unidentified eel at Lua o Palahemo. Therefore, we are unable to address these animals as threats to V. chaceorum in this final rule. We will consider the need to address biting isopods and eels in our future recovery planning efforts for this species, should new information become available indicating these animals are threats to V. chaceorum. (19) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that earthquakes and subsequent landslides and rockfalls are threats to Vetericaris chaceorum, due to destruction or degradation of its pool habitat. This peer reviewer believes that given a large enough earthquake, the Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool could potentially lose its connection to the ocean by boulder “chokes” that block off movement of ocean water to and from the pool, or by a complete or partial collapse of the tube itself. This peer reviewer then added that we would need an engineer to make a more definitive assessment regarding the pool's vulnerability to collapse. Our Response: We agree that earthquakes and subsequent landslides and rockfalls are potential threats to Vetericaris chaceorum and its habitat. We also agree that an engineer or other professional with the necessary skills is needed to assess the vulnerability of the lava tubes within the Lua o Palahemo anchialine pool to the threat of earthquakes. We do not have enough data to include earthquakes as a threat at this time. (20) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that our analysis of the threats to Vetericaris chaceorum seemed too focused on the surface of the anchialine pool rather than on the depths within Lua o Palahemo (where V. chaceorum is reported to occur). One of the peer reviewers questioned the relevance of threats at the opening when the species is so far below the surface, while the other peer reviewer stated that any impacts at the surface of the pool may lead to degradation of the habitat within the recesses of the lava tube by causing shifts in water quality, physical conditions, and flushing, and therefore causing shifts in biological characteristics (i.e., benthic algae and primary consumer abundance and assemblage). As such, these threats may extend beyond the immediately impacted areas at Lua o Palahemo. Our Response: Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we believe Vetericaris chaceorum faces threats from habitat loss or degradation from sedimentation in Lua o Palahemo due to degradation of the immediate area surrounding the pool. Feral goats and cattle trample and forage on both native and nonnative plants around and near the pool opening (Magnacca 2012, in litt.; Richardson 2012, in litt.), increasing erosion resulting in sediment entering the pool (see “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range, below). In addition, V. chaceorum faces threats from the intentional dumping of trash (at Lua o Palahemo) and introduction of nonnative fish (at Lua o Palahemo and Manuka NAR), activities which originate at the pool openings and result in impacts to V. chaceorum (within the deep recesses of Lua o Palahemo and within the shallower pools at Manuka NAR) (see “Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish” under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, below). (21) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule presents a good summary of potential threats to the shrimp and its habitat, and it clearly makes the point that the population at Lua o Palahemo is exceedingly small and probably declining, if not extinct. Our Response: We appreciate this reviewer's concurrence and have considered that the shrimp may no longer be extant at Lua o Palahemo; however, since anchialine pool shrimp are known to spend much of their time within the crevices of pools, we believe the species may still be present in the pool, but in very low numbers. (22) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that they had observed items that humans dumped into Lua o Palahemo, including a bicycle, boom box, and large cement block, but that they were uncertain whether or not these items had a deleterious or observable effect on V. chaceorum. Our Response: The impact of human dumping of trash into an anchialine pool is directly related to the proportion between the size of the pool and the amount and type of trash dumped. For example, a large trash bag in a small, shallow anchialine pool will negatively impact habitat quality, whereas the negative effect from same trash bag in a larger, deeper anchialine pool will not reach the same magnitude of effect. In addition, if the boom box had decaying batteries in it, contaminants such as lead, mercury and cadmium could have leached into the pool (Center for Disease Control—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC-ATSDR) 2011— Toxic Substance Database ). In addition, there is risk from exposure to general electronic waste contaminants, which contain various hazardous materials and are harmful to the environment (e.g., polyvinyl chloride, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chromium) (CDC-ATSDR 2011— Toxic Substance Database ). These toxins produce varying effects on biological organisms that include, but are not limited to, deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) damage, mucous membrane damage, cancer, and organ failure (CDC-ATSDR 2011— Toxic Substance Database ). (23) Comment: Five peer reviewers commented on the likelihood of whether or not Vetericaris chaceorum has a niched habitat deep within the darkness of the lava tube at Lua o Palahemo where it was observed in 1985, or whether it has a broader habitat that extends throughout the matrix of the lava tube of Lua o Palahemo. The first of these peer reviewers commented that, due to insufficient data and the challenging conditions of assessing the particular habitat(s) of Lua o Palahemo, it would be difficult to determine whether this species would likely occur throughout Lua o Palahemo or only be limited to the area where it was originally collected from within the lava tube. The second peer reviewer commented that literature suggested that Vetericaris chaceorum did not have a uniform distribution throughout Lua o Palahemo when it was first observed and collected, so that would suggest that it does have a limited niche and that it is highly likely that it would be still limited to the area where it was originally collected within the lava tube. The third of these peer reviewers commented that it has been confirmed that the range of Vetericaris chaceorum extends beyond Lua o Palahemo, although only approximately 25 km away. Therefore, it is plausible that its distribution within Lua o Palahemo also extends beyond where it was originally collected. Furthermore, the habitat in which Vetericaris chaceorum was found at Manuka is considerably different than that of Lua o Palahemo, which was characterized by shallow (less than 0.5 m deep), open pools dispersed throughout barren basaltic terrain. Accordingly, its range does not seem to be limited to the deep recesses of the anchialine habitat, but may also roam freely throughout shallow exposed areas. The fourth peer reviewer commented that Vetericaris chaceorum likely has a wider lateral distribution in the Lua o Palahemo lava tube and that it is likely found in adjacent hypogeal habitat. The fourth peer reviewer also commented that it is unclear if Vetericaris chaceorum venture into the lighted, mixohaline portion of Lua o Palahemo. The fifth peer reviewer commented that there is no reason to believe that the shrimp's range did not extend, at least, to the ends of that lava tube, and possibly into other openings connecting to it. As the boundaries of Lua o Palahemo were not defined in the proposed rule, an answer to the question about “throughout Lua o Palahemo” is not clear. Our Response: We agree and are aware that it is difficult to know exactly where this species occurs within Lua o Palahemo, and whether or not it favors the depth at which it was observed or if it utilizes the greater part of the lava tube. The newly discovered occurrence in the shallow pools at Manuka suggests that the habitat is not limited to the area it was originally collected from deep within the lava tube at Lua o Palahemo, and that it is likely Vetericaris chaceorum occupies areas along the matrices of Lua o Palahemo at varying depths. Because hypogeal shrimp often spend much of their time in crevices, and it is possible that V. chaceorum can occur throughout the lava tube, we retain the status of extant for the population of V. chaceorum at this location, despite the fact that V. chaceorum was not observed in recent surveys. Regarding the boundaries of Lua o Palahemo, we do not currently have any data that lay out the entire matrix of the lava tube, nor are we aware that such data exist. (24) Comment: Three peer reviewers commented that the threats to the habitat of Lua o Palahemo expand throughout the entire lava tube matrix. One of these three peer reviewers also said that the historical differences documented for Lua o Palahemo, primarily in water clarity and quality, and the absence of other shrimp species that were common (such as Halocaridina ) suggests the habitat has undergone serious degradation in the last 30 to 40 years that is likely to get worse if actions are not taken. Our Response: We agree that the threats to the species' habitat at Lua o Palahemo are not limited to any particular area and span the scope of the entire lava tube matrix. We also agree that more surveys and monitoring efforts are needed to determine how best to recover this habitat. The Service has conducted surveys in 2010 and 2012 (Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.), and will continue to monitor and research this habitat in the future, in addition to conservation methodologies to recover Vetericaris chaceorum at this site. (25) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that it is unclear that the best available scientific data and methodologies currently available can determine rarity vs. human accessibility to the Vetericaris chaceorum. This commenter also stated that a dark-adapted organism could potentially be found anywhere within the hypogeal environment of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the Service may be drawing its listing conclusion of this species based on lack of biological knowledge. In addition, this reviewer commented that the lack of information may not enable practical management decisions. Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to determine the entire range that is occupied by Vetericaris chaceorum on Hawaii Island or elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands. We have based our determination on the number of estimated pools throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the percentage of these pools that have been surveyed. Despite surveys throughout the islands, Vetericaris chaceorum has only been observed in two pool complexes on Hawaii Island: Lua o Palahemo and Manuka. In addition, the fact that these two habitats are so different informs us that Vetericaris chaceorum is not solely a dark-adapted organism, but that it is has a range of suitable habitat that also includes shallow pools in full sunlight. This increase in suitable habitat types, the number of surveys throughout the Hawaiian Islands, and the fact that in total only 12 shrimp (5 at Lua o Palahemo and 7 at Manuka) have ever been observed suggest that Vetericaris chaceorum is not occurring in high numbers. We do not currently have methodologies that afford us the opportunity to search cracks and crevices within the anchialine pool environment; however, if this type of survey technology equipment becomes available, it will certainly enhance our understanding of the population dynamics of hypogeal shrimp, including Vetericaris chaceorum. The Service agrees that additional information will benefit management decisions. (26) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on the connection of Lua o Palahemo to the marine environment. One of these reviewers commented that the further collapse of the lava tube and increased siltation may have the effect of decreasing the slight flow of colder water into the depth of the lava tube, and that the further collapse may actually have a beneficial effect, such as isolation from human access. The second peer reviewer commented that the lava tube may be connected to a deep water marine habitat and associated fauna. Our Response: Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 435) state that it is probable that neither temperature nor salinity imposes a barrier to the dispersal of hypogeal shrimp. They reported a surface temperature of 24 degrees Celsius, but they did not report the temperature at the depth they observed Vetericaris chaceorum (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). During the surveys conducted by the Service in 2012, the temperature of the water at a depth of 7.5 m from the surface ranged from 23.8 degrees Celsius at noon to 26.4 Celsius at 4:50 a.m. (Wada et al. 2012, in litt.). The data suggest temperature is not currently a determining factor in the presence or absence of Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo. The definition of an anchialine pool includes being tidally influenced due to a subterranean connection to the ocean, so we agree that the lava tube is connected to a marine habitat and fauna, although to what extent and what depth is not known at this time. The size (i.e., a smaller cracks versus a wide diameter lava tube) of the connection to the marine environment will determine to some extent the species present in a given anchialine pool; the better the connection to the sea, the more likely a pool will have marine organisms (Brock 2004, p. 9). For example, the unusual ecotypic variant of the moray eel ( Gymnothorax pictus, puhi) is often found in pools with better connections to the sea (Brock 2004, p. 9). Regarding relationship between a further collapse of the lava tube and human access, we have no data to support or deny a benefit from limiting human access to the depths of Lua o Palahemo. (27) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that since so little is known about Vetericaris chaceorum, most considerations of threats are conjectural, and that because no apparent observations have been made of this species in the upper reaches of Lua o Palahemo, purported threats to other anchialine species may not be a limiting factor or relevant to life in the lightless marine environment. Our Response: As described earlier, Vetericaris chaceorum was initially discovered in 1985, in complete darkness within one of the lava tubes at Lua o Palahemo, at a location 180 m (590 ft) from the opening, at a depth of 30 m (98 ft). We agree that there is still much to be learned about V. chaceorum's life history and biology. It was recently confirmed that the species is not confined to the dark depths of Lua o Palahemo. In addition, Sakihara (2013, in litt.) observed V. chaceorum feeding on other anchialine pool shrimp species. Considering the new information, threats to other anchialine pool shrimp at varying depths are directly relevant to the survival of V. chaceorum. If the food supply of V. chaceorum is declining or diminished, it will have a direct impact on the health and survival of V. chaceorum. Further, the threats of dumping nonnative fish and trash can directly negatively impact the ecosystem at either Lua o Palahemo or Manuka; this is confirmed by observations at other anchialine pools around the Hawaiian Islands where nonnative fish and trash have caused the degradation of pools (Brock 2004, pp. 12-15). (28) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the value of comparing Vetericaris chaceorum with the anchialine pool shrimp Halocaridina rubra. This peer reviewer commented that Vetericaris chaceorum is likely much more specialized and that its lack of eyes, limited swimming option, and, as far as is known, very limited distribution makes comparisons between the two species uninformative for the most part. This peer reviewer further stated that the observations on the behavior of V. chaceorum suggests it may prey on smaller organisms by capturing them in the basket formed by its pereiopods as it swims in the dark; if this is true, the species would require large volumes of open water. The reviewer further elaborates that Kensley and Williams (1986) note the species is a strong swimmer and apparently stays in midwater, avoiding the solid walls, consistent with the filter-basket feeding hypothesis. If true, this makes this species somewhat different from other anchialine shrimp, which are generally associated with the substratum, although Maciolek observed H. rubra feeding in midwater “presumably grazing only on phytoplankton.” Similarly V. chaceorum does not appear to be very similar to the more well-studied anchialine shrimp. Its troglobitic (more correctly stygobitic) habit, large size, possibly its specialized trophic role and potentially unique evolutionary history should make comparisons with other anchialine shrimp suspect. Our Response: We appreciate this reviewer's comments regarding the value of comparing Vetericaris chaceorum and Halocaridina rubra. We agree that these two shrimp are not exactly the same; however, H. rubra is the most well-studied anchialine pool shrimp in the Hawaiian Islands, and, therefore, we used it as a surrogate species in some examples for V. chaceorum in regards to the negative impacts associated with human dumping of nonnative fish and trash, in addition to recognizing it as a potential food source for V. chaceorum. The newly discovered population of V. chaceorum in the four shallow pools at Manuka has broadened our understanding of the range and habitat for this species, debunking the thoughts that this species is niched to the dark depths of Lua o Palahemo. Further, this challenges the above hypothesis that this species may require large volumes of open water. As stated in the comments above, we have much to learn about V. chaceorum, and we base our action in this rule on the fact that the habitat is threatened by sedimentation, recreational off-road vehicles, human dumping of nonnative fish, and human dumping of trash. (29) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that poeciliids are not only introduced illegally in Hawaii, State agencies introduce mosquito fish to freshwater and anchialine habitats as mosquito control. While perhaps legal, the effects are just as detrimental. However, the peer reviewer did not think that mosquito control is a concern for a site like Lua o Palahemo. Our Response: We agree that mosquito control is not a concern at Lua o Palahemo, and we have no information that would indicate that State agencies are introducing nonnative fish at Manuka for mosquito control. (30) Comment: The proposed rule states that reduced flushing in the pool portion of Lua o Palahemo may allow an accumulation of sediment and detritus in the pool, reducing food productivity and the ability of Vetericaris chaceorum to move between the pool and water table. One peer reviewer commented there is no reason to discount the opposite idea that increased flushing has mobilized the sediment, allowed the movement of native predators and competitors into the system, and resulted in the decline or perhaps extirpation of V. chaceorum. In support of this is the statement in the October 17, 2012, proposed rule at 77 FR 63939: “During those dives, researchers made five observations of Vetericaris chaceorum in total darkness at a depth of 108 ft (33 m) and 590 ft (180 m) from the opening, collecting two specimens. Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 418) noted, however, that the area surveyed directly beneath the surface of the pool contained the highest density of animals (e.g., shrimps and crustaceans).” This suggests the very thick sediment cone just below the opening was not a problem for the dense populations of native species. All this just shows that there is an exceedingly limited understanding of how the system functions, and specifically what physical, chemical, and hydrologic aspects of the system promote sustaining V. chaceorum and its associated species. This commenter suggested that a high level of sediment is not, per se, deleterious to the shrimp, other anchialine pool species, and, by inference, the entire pool. Our Response: We agree it is possible that increased flushing allowed the movement of native predators and competitors into the system, resulting in the decline or perhaps extirpation of Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo; however, we are unaware of any data to support this hypothesis. Recent surveys by the Service and State (Wada 2012, pers. comm.; Wada et al. 2012, in litt.) have found the degradation of habitat of Lua o Palahemo is a result of excessive siltation and sedimentation of the anchialine pool system, combined with the diminished ability of the system to flush, which Brock (2004, pp. 11, 35-36) described as necessary for a functioning anchialine pool system. Long-term sedimentation accumulation leads to the senescence of anchialine pools (Ramsey 2013, in litt.). Suspended sediment within the water column of Lua o Palahemo likely reduces the capacity of the pool to produce adequate cyanobacteria and algae to support some of the pool's herbivorous hypogeal species. A decreased food supply (i.e., a reduction in cyanobacteria and algae) would likely lead to a lower abundance of herbivorous hypogeal shrimp species, as well as a lower abundance of the known carnivorous species (i.e., Vetericaris chaceorum ). Because lower numbers of the herbivorous hypogeal shrimp have been observed over time, the data indicate this is a contributing to, but not necessarily the sole factor in, the lack of detection of Vetericaris chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo. (31) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that Lua o Palahemo should not be treated as a typical anchialine pool. Rather it is a singular system, or perhaps somewhat like Lake Kauhako. Extrapolating from the little we know about typical anchialine systems will probably not be productive. Our Response: Anchialine pools are land-locked bodies of water that have indirect underground connections to the sea, contain varying levels of salinity, and show tidal fluctuations in water level. Lua o Palahemo meets this definition. Further, Lua o Palahemo has floral and faunal characteristics of an anchialine pool ecosystem (see Hawaii Island Ecosystems and Description of the 15 Species, above). Lake Kauhako is situated in the crater of an extinct, late Pleistocene volcano on the north shore of Molokai, Hawaii, and reportedly not tidally influenced, although early data suggested it may have been at one time and anchialine pool shrimp were observed here in 1982 (Maciolek 1982, p. 12; Donachie et al. 1999, p. 93). Lake Kauhako is considered one of the deepest lakes in the United States with a depth of 814 ft (248 m) (Donachie et al. 1999, p. 93). Lake Kauhako is also meromictic (has layers of water that do not intermix) and anoxic (lacking dissolved oxygen) below 6 ft (2 m); Lua o Palahemo has not been classified as meromictic and is not noted as anoxic until a depth of 98 ft (30 m) and a distance of 180 m into one of the branches of the lava tube from the base of the surface opening (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-20). Both Lake Kauhako and Lua o Palahemo do have comparable surface dissolved oxygen and salinity and temperature gradients; however, the shape and depth of each water body, in addition to the presence or absence of tidal influence and meromictic properties, provide some distinction for these two bodies of water. (32) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the reproductive mode of Vetericaris chaceorum would play an important role in determining if populations could recolonize neighboring habitats after a local extirpation. Maciolek postulates that these habitats are colonized from long-existing subterranean populations, and Kensley and Williams (1986) state: “Given the relative youth of the Lua o Palahemo lava tube, the above-mentioned and unexplained absences and occurrences, and the presence of some of these shrimps in modern wells and quarries, Maciolek's postulate (1983: 615) that these habitats are colonized from long-existing subterranean populations, must be strengthened.” If this is true, the main habitat of V. chaceorum may be completely different from what we know about Lua o Palahemo. Our Response: We agree it would be beneficial to know the reproductive mode for Vetericaris chaceorum; however, the complete life history for this species is not known at this time. Hypogeal shrimp by definition occupy subterranean habitat. The fact that V. chaceorum is described as a primitive species, combined with the depth within Lua o Palahemo in which V. chaceorum was observed and the recent discovery of V. chaceorum in very different habitat at Manuka, together appear to support Maciolek's hypothesis that hypogeal shrimp colonized anchialine pool habitats from long-existing subterranean populations, but this is only conjecture at this time. The newly discovered population at Manuka supports the thought that the main habitat of V. chaceorum at Lua o Palahemo is likely different from what we previously thought. Comments From the State of Hawaii (33) Comment: The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism's Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation challenged our proposal to list Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla as an endangered species, stating that the lowland dry ecosystem covers a very large area on Hawaii Island and that the Service did not have enough studies regarding the absence or abundance of this species within this ecosystem. According to this agency, without knowing the absence or prevalence of this species, it cannot be determined whether or not this species should be designated as endangered, and the Service's findings are premature with no foundation. Our Response: We disagree that there is a lack of information regarding the presence or abundance of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the lowland dry ecosystem on the island of Hawaii and that our determination to list this species as an endangered species is premature and without foundation. Lowland dry ecosystems in the Hawaiian Islands have undergone sweeping changes over the last 100 years due to development, agriculture, and nonnative plants and animals that have resulted in the loss of over 90 percent of Hawaii's dry forests (Bruegmann 1996, pp. 26-27; Cabin et al. 2000, pp. 439-453; Sakai et al. 2002, pp. 276-302; Cordell et al. 2008, pp. 279-284); however, the actual extent of native dry forest cover may be as low as 1 percent (Pau 2011, in litt.). Forty-five percent of Hawaii's dry forest plant species are at risk of endangerment (Pau et al. 2009, p. 3,167). Twenty-five percent of the endangered plant species in the Hawaiian Islands are dry forest species, and approximately 20 percent of Hawaii's dry land plant species are believed to be extinct (Cabin et al. 2000, pp. 439-453; Sakai et al. 2002, pp. 276-302). One of the last remaining areas of lowland dry forest in the Hawaiian Islands is in the north Kona region of Hawaii Island, where only patches or scattered individuals of native plants remain amidst a sea of the highly flammable, nonnative fountain grass ( Pennisetum setaceum ), where over 200,000 ac (80,939 ha) of land are covered with fountain grass (HISC 2013, in litt.). North Kona is also a rapidly growing, urban area with a steady flow of new housing, roads, commercial, and industrial developments. Surveys and observations conducted over the last 90 years have detected Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla from only six locations, totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals in north Kona (see Description of the 15 Species, above) (Sherff 1920, p. 97; Degener and Wiebke 1926, in litt.; Scottsberg 1926, in litt.; Borges and Degener 1929, in litt.; Degener and Iwasaki 1930, in litt.; Nishina 1931, in litt.; Krajina 1961, in litt.; Gillett 1965, in litt.; Nagata and Ganders 1983, pp. 1-16; Pratt and Abbott 1996, p. 26; Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273; TNC 2007- Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; Bio 2008, in litt.; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11; Hawaii Forest Institute 2009, in litt.; Beavers 2010, in litt.; Faucette 2010, pp. 1-27; HBMP 2010b; Giffin 2011, pers. comm.; Pau 2011, in litt.; Wagner 2011, in litt.; Zimpfer 2011, in litt.; Kaahahui O Ka Nahelehele 2013, in litt.). Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of five factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below), and we are required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data available [emphasis ours] (sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A)). The threats to B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, as well as those that impact lowland dry ecosystems in the Hawaiian Islands, are well documented. This plant species faces threats from habitat degradation from development and nonnative ungulates (feral pigs and goats), predation by nonnative ungulates (feral pigs and goats) and rats, competition with nonnative plants, fire, drought, hurricanes, and hybridization; it also faces threats from the synergistic effects that may arise from any combination of these threats (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species, below). Therefore, in this final rule, we have made our determination to list Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla as an endangered species based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Comments From Federal Agencies All of the comments we received from Federal agencies have been incorporated, as appropriate, in the Description of the 15 Species, above, and Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, below. Public Comments on the Proposed Listing of 15 Species (34) Comment: One commenter, representing Laiopua 2020, stated that none of the 15 species proposed for listing occurs on parcels proposed for development of the Laiopua Community Center (Tax Map Key parcels 3-7-4-021:002, 003, and 023). The commenter provided a 2008 botanical survey report (Gerrish and Leonard Bisel Associates, LLC, 2008, entire) to confirm the absence of the 15 species on the three parcels. Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the commenter and have taken it into consideration in this final listing determination. The botanical survey published by Gerrish and Leonard Bisel Associates, LLC, in 2008 was one of multiple surveys and botanical expert reports used by the Service to determine the range of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in North Kona. Since Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is known to occur in the area of Laiopua, the Service considered this area as habitat for this species. In addition, there is likely a seed bank in the soil of the surrounding area that, if given the opportunity, can contribute toward the recovery of this species. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered comments from the peer reviewers and public on the proposed listing for 15 species. This final rule incorporates the following substantive changes to our proposed listing, based on the comments we received: (1) We added inundation by high surf as a threat to the newly listed plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana in the following locations in this final rule: Table 3 (below) and “Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range (below), based on a peer review comment. (2) We added the nonnative understory plant species Sphagneticola trilobata [ Wedelia trilobata ] (wedelia) as a threat to the plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana in the coastal and dry cliff ecosystem, and to “Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts” (below), based on a peer review comment. (3) We added the nonnative vine Paederia foetida (skunk weed) as a threat to the newly listed plant Cyrtandra nanawaleensis in the lowland wet ecosystem and to “Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts” (below), based on a peer review comment. (4) We added the nonnative canopy plant species Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava) as a threat to Cyanea tritomantha in the wet cliff ecosystem, based on a peer review comment that we include this nonnative plant species as a threat to this species in its known locations, in this final rule. (5) We added Pisonia spp. as a host plant for the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa, in the following locations in this final rule: Description of the 15 Species (above); “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates” and “Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides, Heavy Rain, Inundation by High Surf, Erosion, and Drought” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range (below); “Predation and Herbivory” under Factor C. Disease or Predation (below); and “Loss of Host Plants” under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence (below), based on a peer review comment. (6) Hawaii State biologists discovered a population of Vetericaris chaceorum at Manuka NAR between 2009 and 2010. We solicited public comments on the new location in the Federal Register in our April 30, 2013, document announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and reopening the comment period on the proposed rule (78 FR 25243). The new location information has been incorporated in the following sections in this final rule: Description of the 15 Species (above), “Habitat Destruction and Modification by Sedimentation” under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range (below), and “Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish” (below) under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence, and we reassessed whether listing was warranted for V. chaceorum based on this additional information. (7) We revised the statement that incorrectly indicated that the outplanted individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla within KHNHP are fenced in Description of the 15 Species, above, based on a comment we received. Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 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 mechanisms; 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. If we determine that the level of threat posed to a species by one or more of the five listing factors is such that the species meets the definition of either endangered or threatened under section 3 of the Act, that species may then be listed as endangered or threatened. The Act defines an endangered species as “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The threats to each of the individual 15 species are summarized in Table 3, and discussed in detail below. Table 3-Summary of Primary Threats Identified for Each of the 15 Hawaii Island Species Species Ecosystem Factor A Agriculture and urban development Ungulates Non native plants Fire Stochastic events Climate change Factor B Over- utilization Factor C Disease Predation/ herbivory by ungulates Predation/ herbivory by other NN vertebrates Predation/ herbivory by NN invertebrates Factor D Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms Factor E Other species- specific threats Plants: Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana CO, DC P, G X H, RF, L, HS, E Pt P, G R X LN Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla LD X P, G X X H, DR Pt P, G R X HY Cyanea marksii LW, MW P, C, M X H, RF, L Pt P, C, M R S X LN Cyanea tritomantha LW, MW, WC P, C X H, TF Pt P, C R S X NR Cyrtandra nanawaleensis LW P X H Pt P R S X HY Cyrtandra wagneri LW P X H, HR, E Pt P R S X LN, HY Phyllostegia floribunda LW, MM, MW P X X H Pt P X Pittosporum hawaiiense LM, MM, MW P, C, M X H Pt P, C, M R X NR Platydesma remyi LW, MW P X H Pt P X LN, NR Pritchardia lanigera LM, LW, MW, WC P, G, M, C X H Pt X P, G, M R LH, B X NR Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei MW P, C X H Pt P, C R X LN Schiedea hawaiiensis MD P, G, SH, M X X H, DR Pt P, G, SH, M R X LN Stenogyne cranwelliae MW, WC P X H Pt P R S X Animals Drosophila digressa (Picture-wing fly) LM, MM, MW P, G, C, M X X H, DR Pt W, A X LN, LOH, F Vetericaris chaceorum (Anchialine pool shrimp) AP G, C Pt X REC, SD, D Factor A = Habitat Modification LW = Lowland Wet SH = Sheep DR = Drought HY = Hybridization Factor B = Overutilization MD = Montane Dry M = Mouflon RF = Rockfalls NR = No Regeneration Factor C = Disease or Predation MM = Montane Mesic R = Rats L = Landslides F = Flies Factor D = Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms MW = Montane Wet S = Slugs HR = Heavy Rain LOH = Loss of Host Factor E = Other Species-Specific Threats DC = Dry Cliff W = Wasps HS = High Surf REC = Recreational vehicles AP = Anchialine Pools WC = Wet Cliff A = Ants E = Erosion SD = Sedimentation CO = Coastal P = Pigs LH = Leafhopper TF = Tree Fall Pt = Potential LD = Lowland Dry G = Goats B = Beetles D = Dumping (i.e., Human dumping of nonnative fish and trash) X = Threat LM = Lowland Mesic C = Cattle H = Hurricane LN = Limited Numbers Blank = Not a Threat The following constitutes a list of ecosystem-scale threats that affect the species in this final rule in one or more of the 10 described ecosystems on Hawaii Island: (1) Foraging and trampling of native plants by feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ), goats ( Capra hircus ), cattle ( Bos taurus ), sheep ( Ovis aries ), or mouflon sheep ( Ovis gmelini musimon ), which results in severe erosion of watersheds because these mammals inhabit terrain that is often steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). Foraging and trampling 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) Ungulate destruction of seeds and seedlings of native plant species via foraging and trampling (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63, 65) facilitates the conversion of disturbed areas from native to nonnative vegetative communities. (3) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs from rooting can create fertile seedbeds for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), some of them spread by ingestion and excretion by pigs. (4) Increased nutrient availability as a result of pigs rooting in nitrogen-poor soils, which facilitates establishment of alien weeds. Introduced vertebrates are known to enhance the germination of alien plants through seed scarification in digestive tracts or through rooting and fertilization with feces of potential seedbeds (Stone 1985, p, 253). In addition, alien weeds are more adapted to nutrient-rich soils than native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), and rooting activity creates open areas in forests allowing alien species to completely replace native stands. (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 from 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, isopods, millipedes, and snails, resulting in 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 3. Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 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 in the Hawaiian Islands are two bat taxa, the extant 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. As a result, many of the native species have lost unneeded defenses against threats such as mammalian predation and competition with aggressive, weedy plant species that are typical of continental environments (Loope 1992, p. 11; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45; Wagner et al. 1999d, pp. 3-6). For example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and Cole 1974, p. 29) notes that “Hawaiian plants are notably free from many characteristics thought to be deterrents to herbivores (toxins, oils, resins, stinging hairs, coarse texture).” Native Hawaiian plants are therefore highly vulnerable to the impacts of introduced mammals and alien plants. In addition, species restricted and adapted to highly specialized locations (e.g., Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hil [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-24103. Public record. Not legal advice.