[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9806-9871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-4335]



[[Page 9805]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Determinations 
of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant 
Species From the Island of Lanai, Hawaii; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2002 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 9806]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH10


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 
Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical 
Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, HI

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule and notice of determinations of whether 
designations of critical habitat is prudent.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
critical habitat for 32 of the 37 species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act, known historically from the island of Lanai within 8 
critical habitat units totaling approximately 7,853 hectares (ha) 
(19,405 acres (ac)) on the island of Lanai.
    If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that actions they carry out, fund, or 
authorize do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the 
extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Section 4 of the 
Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this 
proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the 
designations. We may revise or further refine this rule, including 
critical habitat boundaries, prior to final designation based on 
habitat and plant surveys, public comment on the revised proposed 
critical habitat rule, and new scientific and commercial information.

DATES: We will accept comments until May 3, 2002. Public hearing 
requests must be received by April 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 
Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
    You may hand-deliver written comments to our Pacific Islands Office 
at the address given above.
    You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific 
Islands Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 808/541-3441; 
facsimile 808/541-3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 32 species for which we propose critical 
habitat are Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia 
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, 
Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis. Critical habitat is not proposed for 4 
(Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) of the 37 species which no 
longer occur on the island of Lanai, and for which we are unable to 
identify any habitat that is essential to their conservation on the 
island of Lanai. Prudency determinations for these species were 
contained in previous proposals published in the Federal Register on 
November 7, 2000, December 18, 2000, December 27, 2000, December 29, 
2000, and January 28, 2002. Critical habitat is not proposed for 
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, for which we determined that 
critical habitat designation is not prudent because it has not been 
seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this 
species is known.

Background

    In the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12), 
there are 37 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported 
from the island of Lanai (Table 1). Seven of these species are endemic 
to the island of Lanai, while 30 species are reported from one or more 
other islands, as well as Lanai. Each of these species is described in 
more detail below in the section, ``Discussion of Plant Taxa.''

                                            Table 1.--Summary of Island Distribution of 37 Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Island Distribution
                 Species                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Kauai       Oahu       Molokai      Lanai       Maui       Hawaii         NW. Isles, Kahoolawe Niihau
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN*)...........  ..........  ..........  ..........           C  ..........  ..........  .....................................
Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi fern)..           C          H            C          R           R            C
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha                                                        H            C
 (kookoolau).
Bonamia menziesii (NCN)..................           C           C          H            C           C           C
Brighamia rockii (pua ala)...............                                   C          H           H
Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano,                             C                      H            C          R   NW Isles (H)
 sandbur, agrimony).
Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)............           C           C           C           C           C
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis                                                  C           C
 (oha wai).
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)..............          H            C           C           C           C          H
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha).                       C           C           C           C
Cyanea lobata (haha).....................                                              H            C
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (NCN)...                                               C
Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)...........           C           C          H           H                           Ni (C)
Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)...............                                               C           C
Diellia erecta (NCN).....................           C           C           C          H            C           C

[[Page 9807]]

 
Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved            H           H           H           H            C
 asplenium).
Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)..................                                               C
Hedyotis mannii (pilo)...................                                   C           C           C
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi                                                  C
 (kopa).
Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)..........                       C           C          H            C
Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)....          H            C          H            C           C           C  Ka (R)
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)                      H           H           H           H            C  Ni (H)
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis                                                      C
 (kamakahala).
Mariscus fauriei (NCN)...................                                   C          H                        C
Melicope munroi (alani)..................                                  H            C
Neraudia sericea (NCN)...................                                   C          H            C              Ka (H)
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis (NCN)  ..........  ..........  ..........          H   ..........  ..........  .....................................
Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)..............  ..........  ..........  ..........           C  ..........           C  .....................................
Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)................           C           C           C          H            C           C  Ni (H), ka (C), NW Isles (C)
Silene lanceolata (NCN)..................          H            C           C          H                        C
Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)......          H                       H           H           H            C
Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)............           C           C           C           C           C           C
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum                          C                      H
 (NCN).
Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)................                                               C          H
Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)..................                      H            C           C           C           C  Ni (H), Ka (C)
Viola lanaiensis (NCN)...................                                               C
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae)..............           C                       C          H            C           C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 KEY:
C (Current)--population last observed within the past 30 years.
H (Historical)--population not seen for more than 30 years.
R (Reported)--reported from undocumented observations.
* NCN--No Common Name.

    We determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent for 
six plants from the island of Lanai on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 82086). 
These species are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. 
gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium 
remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In proposals published on November 7, 2000 
(65 FR 66808), and December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), we determined that 
designation of critical habitat was prudent for ten plants that are 
reported from Lanai as well as from Kauai, Niihau, Maui, or Kahoolawe. 
These ten plants are: Bonamia menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis. In 
addition, at the time we listed Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, 
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, on September 
3, 1999 (64 FR 48307), we determined that designation of critical 
habitat was prudent for these three taxa from Lanai. No change is made 
to these 19 prudency determinations in this revised proposal and they 
are hereby incorporated by reference (64 FR 48307, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR 
79192).
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that critical 
habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a 
species known only from Lanai, because it had not been seen in the wild 
on Lanai since 1914 and no viable genetic material of this species is 
known to exist. Therefore, such designation would not be beneficial to 
this species. No change is made here to the December 27, 2000, not 
prudent determination for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis and it is 
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 82086).
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we proposed designation of 
critical habitat for 18 plants from the island of Lanai. These species 
are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana 
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, 
Melicope munroi, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, 
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In this proposal we have 
revised the proposed designations for these 18 plants based on new 
information and to address comments received during the comment periods 
on the December 27, 2000, proposal.
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we did not propose designation 
of critical habitat for 17 species that no longer occur on Lanai but 
are reported from one or more other islands. We determined that 
critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species (Adenophorus 
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Mariscus faurei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) in 
other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000 (Kauai), December 
18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), December 29, 2000 (Molokai), and January 
28, 2002 (Kauai revised proposal). No change is made to these prudency 
determinations for these 16 species in this proposal and they are 
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 
83158, and 67 FR 3940). In this proposal, we propose designation of 
critical habitat

[[Page 9808]]

for Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia 
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, and 
Solanum incompletum on the island of Lanai, based on new information, 
including information received during the comment periods on the 
December 27, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is not proposed for 
Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the 
island of Lanai because these plants no longer occur on Lanai and we 
are unable to determine habitat which is essential to their 
conservation on this island. However, proposed critical habitat 
designations for these species may be included in other future Hawaiian 
plants proposed critical habitat rules (Table 2).

 Table 2.--List of Proposed Rules in Which Critical Habitat Decisions Will Be Made for Four Species for Which We
        Are Unable To Determine Habitat Which Is Essential for Their Conservation on the Island of Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed rules in which critical habitat designations will
                      Species                                                  be made
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariscus fauriei..................................  Molokai, Hawaii.
Silene lanceolata.................................  Molokai, Hawaii, and Oahu.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum............  Oahu.
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense............................  Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat is prudent for 
one species (Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum) for which a 
prudency determination has not been made previously, and that no longer 
occurs on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu). This 
plant was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act) in 1991. At the time this plant was listed, we 
determined that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because 
designation would increase the degree of threat to this species and 
would not benefit the plant. We determine that designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum because 
we now believe that such designation would be beneficial to this 
species. Critical habitat is not proposed at this time for 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the island of Lanai because 
the species no longer occurs on Lanai and we are unable to determine 
habitat which is essential to its conservation on this island. However, 
proposed critical habitat designation, or non-designation, for this 
species will be included in other future Hawaiian plants proposed 
critical habitat rules (Table 2).
    Critical habitat for 32 of the 37 species from the island of Lanai 
is proposed at this time. These species are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, 
Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia 
menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium 
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea 
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, 
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis 
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia 
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca 
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola 
lanaiensis. Critical habitat is not proposed for four of the 37 species 
(Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) which no longer occur on the 
island of Lanai, and for which we are unable to determine any habitat 
that is essential to their conservation on the island of Lanai. 
However, proposed critical habitat designations for these species may 
be included in other future Hawaiian plants proposed critical habitat 
rules (Table 2). Critical habitat is not proposed for Phyllostegia 
glabra var. lanaiensis for which we determined, on December 27, 2000, 
that critical habitat designation is not prudent because it had not 
been seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this 
species is known to exist. No change is made to this prudency 
determination here, and it is hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 
82086).

The Island of Lanai

    Lanai is a small island totaling about 360 square kilometers (sq 
km) (139 square miles (sq mi)) in area. Hidden from the trade winds in 
the lee or rain shadow of the more massive West Maui Mountains, Lanai 
was formed from a single shield volcano built by eruptions at its 
summit and along three rift zones. The principal rift zone runs in a 
northwesterly direction and forms a broad ridge whose highest point, 
Lanaihale, has an elevation of 1,027 meters (m) (3,370 feet (ft)). The 
entire ridge is commonly called Lanaihale, after its highest point. 
Annual rainfall on the summit of Lanaihale is 760 to 1,015 millimeters 
(mm) (30 to 40 inches (in)), but is considerably less, 250 to 500 mm 
(10 to 20 in), over much of the rest of the island (Department of 
Geography 1998).
    Geologically, Lanai is part of the four island complex comprising 
Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe, known collectively as Maui Nui 
(Greater Maui). During the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago when sea 
levels were about 160 m (525 ft) less than their present level, these 
four islands were connected by a broad lowland plain. This land bridge 
allowed the movement and interaction of each island's flora and fauna 
and contributed to the present close relationships of their biota 
(Department of Geography 1998).
    Changes in Lanai's ecosystem began with the arrival of the first 
Polynesians about 1,500 years ago. In the 1800s, goats (Capra hircus) 
and sheep (Ovis aries) were first introduced to the island. Native 
vegetation was soon decimated by these non-native ungulates, and 
erosion from wind and rain caused further damage to the native forests. 
Formal ranching was begun in 1902, and by 1910, the Territory forester 
helped to revegetate the island. By 1911, a ranch manager from New 
Zealand, George Munro, instituted a forest management practice to 
recover the native forests and bird species which included fencing and 
eradication of sheep and goats from the mountains. By the 1920s, Castle 
and Cooke had acquired more than 98 percent of the island and 
established a 6,500 ha (16,000 ac) pineapple plantation

[[Page 9809]]

surrounding its company town, Lanai City. In the early 1990s, the 
pineapple plantation closed, and luxury hotels were developed by the 
private landowner, sustaining the island's economy today (Hobdy 1993).
    There are no military installations on the island of Lanai.

Discussion of Plant Taxa

Species Endemic to Lanai

Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN)

    Abutilon eremitopetalum is a long-lived shrub in the mallow family 
(Malvaceae) with grayish-green, densely hairy, and heart-shaped leaves. 
It is the only Abutilon on Lanai whose flowers have green petals hidden 
within the calyx (the outside leaf-like part of the flower) (Bates 
1999).
    Abutilon eremitopetalum is known to flower during February. Little 
else is known about the life history of Abutilon eremitopetalum. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1995).
    Historically, Abutilon eremitopetalum was found in small, widely 
scattered colonies in the ahupuaa (geographical areas) of Kalulu, 
Mahana, Maunalei, Mamaki, and Paawili on the northern, northeastern, 
and eastern parts of Lanai. Currently, about seven individuals are 
known from a single population on privately owned land in Kahea Gulch 
on the northeastern part of the island (Caum 1933; Hawaii Natural 
Heritage Program (HINHP) Database 2000; Service 1995; Geographic 
Decision Systems International (GDSI) 2000).
    Abutilon eremitopetalum is found in lowland dry forest at 
elevations between 108 and 660 m (354 and 2,165 ft), on a moderately 
steep north-facing slope on red sandy soil and rock. Erythrina 
sandwicensis (wili wili) and Diospyros sandwichensis (lama) are the 
dominant trees in open forest of the area. Other associated native 
species include Psydrax odoratum (alahee), Dodonaea viscosa (aalii), 
Nesoluma polynesicum (keahi), Rauvolfia sandwicensis (hao), Sida fallax 
(ilima), and Wikstroemia sp. (akia) (Service 1995; HINHP Database 
2000).
    The threats to Abutilon eremitopetalum are habitat degradation and 
competition by encroaching alien plant species such as Lantana camara 
(lantana), Leucaena leucocephala (koa haole), and Pluchea carolinensis 
(sourbush); browsing by axis deer (Axis axis); soil erosion caused by 
feral ungulate grazing on grasses and forbs; and the small number of 
extant individuals, as the limited gene pool may depress reproductive 
vigor, or a single natural or man-caused environmental disturbance 
could destroy the only known existing population. Fire is another 
potential threat because the area is dry much of the year (HINHP 
Database 2000; 56 FR 47686; Service 1995).

Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (NCN)

    Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, a long-lived perennial and a 
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a palm-like tree 1 
to 7 m (3 to 23 ft) tall with elliptic or oblong leaves that have fine 
hairs covering the lower surface. The following combination of 
characters separates this taxon from the other members of the genus on 
Lanai: calyx lobes are oblong, narrowly oblong, or ovate in shape; and 
the calyx and corolla (petals of a flower) are both more than 0.5 
centimeters (cm) (0.2 in) wide (Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686).
    Limited observations suggest Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii 
flowers during the month of July. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental 
requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).
    Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii has been is documented from the 
summit of Lanaihale and the upper parts of Mahana, Kaiholena, and 
Maunalei Valleys of Lanai. There are currently only two populations 
containing 74 individuals. One population is located north of Lanaihale 
and the second population is north of Puu aalii on privately owned land 
(Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    The habitat of Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii is lowland wet 
Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) forest or Diplopterygium pinnatum (uluhe 
lau nui)-Metrosideros polymorpha shrubland between elevations of 738 
and 1,032 m (2,421 and 3,385 ft). It has been observed to grow on flat 
to moderate or steep slopes, usually on lower gulch slopes or gulch 
bottoms, often at edges of streambanks, probably due to vulnerability 
to ungulate damage at more accessible locations. Associated vegetation 
includes Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe), Perrottetia sandwicensis 
(olomea), Scaevola chamissoniana (naupaka kuahiwi), Pipturus albidus 
(mamaki), Antidesma platyphyllum (hame), Cheirodendron trigynum 
(olapa), Freycinetia arborea (ieie), Psychotria sp. (kopiko), Cyrtandra 
sp. (haiwale), Broussaisia arguta (kanawao), Clermontia sp. (oha wai), 
Dubautia sp. (naenae), Hedyotis sp. (NCN), Ilex anomala (kawau), 
Labordia sp. (kamakahala), Melicope sp. (alani), Pneumatopteris 
sandwicensis (NCN), and Sadleria sp. (amau) (Service 1995; HINHP 
Database 2000; Joel Lau, Hawaii Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm., 
2001).
    The threats to Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii are browsing by 
deer; competition with the alien plant Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili 
ginger); and the small number of extant individuals, as the limited 
gene pool may depress reproductive vigor, or any natural or man-caused 
environmental disturbance could destroy the existing populations (HINHP 
Database 2000; Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)

    Gahnia lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial and a member of the 
sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a tall (1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft)), tufted, 
grass-like plant. This sedge may be distinguished from grasses and 
other genera of sedges on Lanai by its spirally arranged flowers, its 
solid stems, and its numerous, three-ranked leaves. Gahnia lanaiensis 
differs from the other members of the genus on the island by its 
achenes (seed-like fruits), which are 0.36 to 0.46 cm (0.14 to 0.18 in) 
long and purplish-black when mature (Koyama 1999).
    July has been described as the ``end of the flowering season'' for 
Gahnia lanaiensis. Plants of this species have been observed with fruit 
in October. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of 
plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other 
limiting factors are unknown (Degener et al., 1964; 56 FR 47686).
    Gahnia lanaiensis is known from one population containing 47 
individuals on privately owned land along the summit of Lanaihale in 
the Haalelepaakai area and on the eastern edge of Hauola Gulch. The 
population is found between 915 and 1,030 m (3,000 and 3,380 ft) in 
elevation. This distribution encompasses the entire known historic 
range of the species (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    The habitat of Gahnia lanaiensis is lowland wet forest (shrubby 
rainforest to open scrubby fog belt or degraded lowland mesic forest), 
wet Diplopterygium pinnatum-Dicranopteris linearis-Metrosideros 
polymorpha shrubland, or wet Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris 
linearis shrubland at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 
3,385 ft). It occurs on flat to gentle ridgecrest topography in moist 
to wet clay or other soil substrate in open areas or in moderate shade. 
Associated species include native mat ferns, Doodia sp.

[[Page 9810]]

(okupukupu laulii), Odontosoria chinensis (palaa), Ilex anomala 
(kawau), Hedyotis terminalis (manono), Sadleria spp. (amau), Coprosma 
sp. (pilo), Lycopodium sp. (wawaeiole), Scaevola sp. (naupaka), and 
Styphelia tameiameiae (pukiawe) (Service 1995).
    The primary threats to this species are the small number of plants 
and their restricted distribution, which increase the potential for 
extinction from naturally occurring events. In addition, Gahnia 
lanaiensis is threatened by habitat destruction resulting from the 
planned development of the island, and competition with Leptospermum 
scoparium (manuka), a weedy tree introduced from New Zealand, which is 
spreading along Lanaihale, but has not yet reached the area where 
Gahnia is found (Service 1995; HINHP Database 2000).

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (kopa)

    Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, a short-lived perennial and 
a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae), is a few-branched subshrub 
from 60 to 600 cm (24 to 240 in) long, with weakly erect or climbing 
stems that may be somewhat square, smooth, and glaucous (with a fine 
waxy coating that imparts a whitish or bluish hue to the stem). The 
species is distinguished from others in the genus by the distance 
between leaves and the length of the sprawling or climbing stems, and 
the variety remyi is distinguished from Hedyotis schlechtendahliana 
var. schlechtendahliana by the leaf shape, presence of narrow flowering 
stalks, and flower color (Wagner et al., 1999).
    Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and 
seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors 
are unknown for Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (Service 2001).
    Historically, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi was known from 
five locations on the northwestern portion of Lanaihale. Currently, 
this species is known from eight individuals in two populations on 
privately owned land on Kaiholeha-Hulupoe Ridge, Kapohaku drainage, and 
Waiapaa drainage on Lanaihale (64 FR 48307; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 
2000).
    Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi typically grows on or near 
ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland with a mixture of dominant 
plant species that may include Metrosideros polymorpha, Dicranopteris 
linearis, or Styphelia tameiameiae at elevations between 558 and 1,032 
m (1,830 and 3,385 ft). Associated plant species include Dodonaea 
viscosa, Odontosoria chinensis, Sadleria spp., Dubautia spp., and 
Myrsine sp. (kolea) (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).
    The primary threats to Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi are 
habitat degradation and destruction by axis deer; competition with 
alien plant species, such as Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava), 
Myrica faya (firetree), Leptospermum scoparium, and Schinus 
terebinthifolius (christmasberry); and random environmental events or 
reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of remaining 
individuals and populations (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).

Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis (kamakahala)

    Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial in the 
logan family (Loganiaceae), is an erect shrub or small tree 1.2 to 15 m 
(4 to 49 ft) tall. The stems branch regularly into two forks of nearly 
equal size. This subspecies differs from the other species in this 
endemic Hawaiian genus by having larger capsules (a dry, generally many 
seeded fruit) and smaller corollas (petals, whorl of flower parts) 
(Wagner et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Labordia tinifolia var. 
lanaiensis. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 2001).
    Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis was historically known from the 
entire length of the summit ridge of Lanaihale. Currently, Labordia 
tinifolia var. lanaiensis is known from only one population on 
privately owned land at the southeastern end of the summit ridge of 
Lanaihale. This population totals 300 to 800 scattered individuals 
(HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000; Service 2001).
    The typical habitat of Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is gulch 
slopes in lowland mesic forest. Associated native species include 
Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior (ahakea launui), Myrsine 
lessertiana (kolea), Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum 
(hoawa), Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola 
chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense (maua), Cyrtandra grayii (haiwale) 
and Cyrtandra grayana (haiwale), Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis 
acuminata (au), Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis (maile), Coprosma 
spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope spp., 
Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis (alaa), and Psychotria 
spp., Dicranopteris linearis, and Scaevola chamissoniana, at elevations 
between 558 and 1,013 m (1,830 and 3,323 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; 64 
FR 48307; Service 2001).
    Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is threatened by axis deer and 
several alien plant species. The species is also threatened by random 
environmental factors because of the small population (64 FR 48307; 
Service 2001).

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis (NCN)

    Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis is a robust, erect to decumbent 
(reclining, with the end ascending), glabrous, short-lived perennial 
herb in the mint family (Lamiaceae). Its leaves are thin, narrow, 
lance-shaped, 8 to 24 cm (3.2 to 9.5 in) long and 1.6 to 2.5 cm (0.63 
to 0.98 in) wide, often red-tinged or with red veins, and toothed at 
the edges. The flowers are in clusters of six to ten per leaf axil, 
mostly at the ends of branches. The flowers are white, occasionally 
tinged with purple, and are variable in size, about 1 to 2.5 cm (0.39 
to 0.98 in) long. The fruit consists of four small, fleshy nutlets. 
This variety is very similar to Phyllostegia glabra var. glabra; it may 
be difficult to differentiate between the two species without flowers 
(Wagner et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Phyllostegia glabra var. 
lanaiensis. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1995).
    Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis is known from only two 
collections from Lanai (one near Kaiholena) and was last collected in 
1914 (two fertile specimens). A report of this plant from the early 
1980s probably was erroneous and should be referred to as Phyllostegia 
glabra var. glabra (Robert Hobdy, DOFAW, pers. comm., 1992; Service 
1995).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis on the 
island of Lanai (Service 1995).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Phyllostegia glabra var. 
lanaiensis on the island of Lanai (Service 1995).

Viola lanaiensis (NCN)

    Viola lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial of the violet family 
(Violaceae), is a small, erect, unbranched or little-branched subshrub. 
The leaves, which are clustered toward the upper part of the stem, are 
lance-shaped with a pair of narrow,

[[Page 9811]]

membranous stipules (leaf-like appendages arising from the base of a 
leaf) below each leaf axis. The flowers are small and white with purple 
tinged or purple veins, and occur singly or up to four per upper leaf 
axil. The fruit is a capsule, about 1.0 to 1.3 cm (0.4 to 0.5 in) long. 
It is the only member of the genus on Lanai (Wagner et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Viola lanaiensis. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1995).
    Viola lanaiensis was known historically from scattered sites on the 
summit, ridges, and upper slopes of Lanaihale (from near the head of 
Kaiolena and Hookio Gulches to the vicinity of Haalelepaakai, a 
distance of about 4 km (2.5 mi), at elevations of approximately 850 to 
975 m (2,790 to 3,200 ft). An occurrence of V. lanaiensis was known in 
the late 1970s along the summit road near the head of Waialala Gulch 
where a population of approximately 20 individuals flourished. That 
population has since disappeared due to habitat disturbance. Two 
populations are currently known from privately owned land on southern 
Lanai: in Kunoa Gulch; between Kunoa and Waialala Gulches; in the upper 
end of the northernmost drainage of Awehi Gulch; in Hauola Gulch; and 
along Hauola Trail. It is estimated that the populations total less 
than 500 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    The habitat of Viola lanaiensis is Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest or lowland mesic shrubland. 
It has been observed on moderate to steep slopes from lower gulches to 
ridgetops, at elevations between 639 and 1,032 m (2,096 and 3,385 ft), 
with a soil and decomposed rock substrate in open to shaded areas. It 
was once observed growing from crevices in drier soil on a mostly open 
rock area near a recent landslide. Associated vegetation includes ferns 
and short windswept shrubs or other diverse mesic community members, 
such as Scaevola chamissoniana, Hedyotis terminalis, Hedyotis 
centranthoides (NCN), Styphelia tameiameiae, Carex sp. (NCN), Ilex 
anomala, Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp. (hame), Coprosma spp., 
Freycinetia arborea, Myrsine spp., Nestegis sp. (olopua), Psychotria 
spp., and Xylosma sp. (maua) (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).
    The main threats to Viola lanaiensis include browsing and habitat 
disturbance by axis deer; encroaching alien plant species, such as 
Leptospermum sp. (NCN); depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited 
local gene pool; the probable loss of appropriate pollinators; and 
predation by slugs (Midax gigetes) (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Multi-Island Species

Adenophorus periens (pendent kihi fern)

    Adenophorus periens, a member of the grammitis family 
(Grammitidaceae), is a small, pendant, epiphytic (not rooted on the 
ground), and short-lived perennial fern. This species differs from 
other species in this endemic Hawaiian genus by having hairs along the 
pinna (a leaflet) margins, pinnae at right angles to the midrib axis, 
placement of the sori on the pinnae, and by the degree of dissection of 
each pinna (Linney 1989).
    Little is known about the life history of Adenophorus periens, 
which seems to grow only in closed canopy dense forest with high 
humidity. Its breeding system is unknown, but outbreeding is very 
likely to be the predominant mode of reproduction. Spores may be 
dispersed by wind, water, or perhaps on the feet of birds or insects. 
Spores lack a thick resistant coat, which may indicate their longevity 
is brief, probably measured in days at most. Due to the weak 
differences between the seasons, there seems to be no evidence of 
seasonality in growth or reproduction. Additional information on 
reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, 
and limiting factors is not known (Linney 1989; Service 1999).
    Historically, Adenophorus periens was known from Kauai, Oahu, and 
the island of Hawaii, with undocumented reports from Lanai and Maui. 
Currently, it is known from several locations on Kauai, Molokai, and 
Hawaii. On Lanai, it was last seen in the 1860s (59 FR 56333; GDSI 
2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).
    This species, an epiphyte (a plant that derives moisture and 
nutrients from the air and rain) usually growing on Metrosideros 
polymorpha trunks, is found in riparian banks of stream systems in 
well-developed, closed canopy that provides deep shade or high humidity 
in Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium 
pinnatum wet forests, open Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, 
or Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest at 
elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and 3,385 ft). Associated 
native plant species include Machaerina angustifolia (uki), 
Cheirodendron trigynum, Sadleria spp., Clermontia spp., Psychotria 
spp., Melicope spp., Freycinetia arborea, Broussaisia arguta, Syzygium 
sandwicensis (ohia ha), and Hedyotis terminalis (59 FR 56333; Linney 
1989; Kennith Wood, National Tropical Botanical Garden, pers. comm., 
2001; Service 1999).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Adenophorus periens on the 
island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in the 1860s.

Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau)

    Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, a short-lived member of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is an erect perennial herb. This subspecies can be 
distinguished from other subspecies by the shape of the seeds, the 
density of the flower clusters, the numbers of ray and disk florets per 
head, differences in leaf surfaces, and other characteristics (57 FR 
20772; Ganders and Nagata 1999).
    Bidens micrantha is known to hybridize with other native Bidens, 
such as B. mauiensis and B. menziesii, and possibly B. conjuncta. 
Little else is known about the life history of Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, and specific environmental requirements are unknown 
(Ganders and Nagata 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha was known from Lanai 
and Maui. Currently, this taxon remains only on East Maui. It was last 
seen on Lanai in the 1960s (Ganders and Nagata 1999; HINHP Database 
2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    The habitat of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha is gulch slopes in 
dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland at elevations between 409 and 771 m 
(1,342 and 2,529 ft) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat destruction 
by feral goats, pigs, and deer; competition from a variety of alien 
plant species; and fire (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Bonamia menziesii (NCN)

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

[[Page 9812]]

cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1999).
    Historically, Bonamia menziesii was known from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, West Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, this species is known from 
Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Lanai. On Lanai, the three populations, 
containing a total of 14 individual plants, are found on privately 
owned land in the Ahakea and Kanepuu Units of Kanepuu Preserve, and on 
Puhielelu Ridge (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    Bonamia menziesii is found in dry Nestegis sandwicensis-Diospyros 
sp. (lama) forest and dry Dodonea viscosa shrubland at elevations 
between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft). Associated species include 
Bobea sp. (ahakea), Nesoluma polynesicum, Erythrina sandwicensis, 
Rauvolfia sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Psydrax odoratum, 
Dienella sandwicensis (uki uki), Diospyros sandwicensis (lama), 
Hedyotis terminalis, Melicope sp., Myoporum sandwicense (naio), 
Nestegis sandwicensis (olopua), Pisonia sp. (papala kepau), Pittosporum 
sp. (hoawa), Pouteria sandwicensis, and Sapindus oahuensis (lonomea) 
(HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).
    The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat 
degradation and possible predation by feral pigs, goats, and axis deer; 
competition with a variety of alien plant species, such as Lantana 
camara, Leucaena leucocephala and Schinus terebinthifolius; and an 
alien beetle (Physomerus grossipes) (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Brighamia rockii (pua ala)

    Brighamia rockii, a long-lived perennial member of the bellflower 
family (Campanulaceae), grows as an unbranched stem succulent with a 
thickened stem that tapers from the base. This species is a member of a 
unique endemic Hawaiian genus with only one other species, found on 
Kauai, from which it differs by the color of its petals, its longer 
calyx (fused sepals) lobes, and its shorter flower stalks (Lammers 
1999).
    Observations of Brighamia rockii have provided the following 
information: the reproductive system is protandrous, meaning there is a 
temporal separation between the production of male and female gametes, 
in this case a separation of several days; only 5 percent of the 
flowers produce pollen; very few fruits are produced per inflorescence; 
there are 20 to 60 seeds per capsule; and plants in cultivation have 
been known to flower at nine months. This species was observed in 
flower during August. Little else is known about the life history of 
Brighamia rockii. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    Historically, Brighamia rockii ranged along the northern coast of 
East Molokai from Kalaupapa to Halawa and may possibly have grown on 
Maui, and it was last seen on Lanai in 1911 (Lammers 1999; HINHP 
Database 2000; K. Wood, in litt. 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325). 
Currently, it is extant only on Molokai.
    On Lanai, Brighamia rockii occurred on sparsely vegetated ledges of 
steep, rocky, dry cliffs, at elevations between 119 and 756 m (390 and 
2,480 ft) with native grasses, sedges, herbs and shrubs (J. Lau, pers. 
comm., 2001; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
    Threats to Brighamia rockii on the island of Lanai included habitat 
destruction from deer and goats, and competition with alien plants 
(Service 1996b).

Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano (= sandbur, agrimony))

    Cenchrus agrimonioides is a short-lived perennial member of the 
grass family (Poaceae) with leaf blades that are flat or folded and 
have a prominent midrib. There are two varieties, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides var. laysanensis and Cenchrus agrimonioides var. 
agrimonioides. They differ from each other in that var. agrimonioides 
has smaller burs, shorter stems, and narrower leaves. This species is 
distinguished from others in the genus by the cylindrical to lance-
shaped bur and the arrangement and position of the bristles (O'Connor 
1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Cenchrus agrimonioides. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown. This species has been observed to produce fruit year round 
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
    Historically, Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was known 
from Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and an undocumented report from the Island of 
Hawaii. Historically, C. agrimonioides var. laysanensis was known from 
Laysan, Kure, and Midway, all within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 
National Wildlife Refuge. This variety has not been seen since 1973. 
Currently, Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides is known from Oahu 
and Maui. On Lanai it was last seen in 1915 (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; 
HINHP Database 2000).
    Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was found on slopes in 
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest and shrubland at elevations 
between 583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft) (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108; 
HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides on 
Lanai included competition with alien plant species, and browsing and 
habitat degradation by goats and cattle (Bos taurus) (Service 1999; 61 
FR 53108).

Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)

    Centaurium sebaeoides, a member of the gentian family 
(Gentianaceae), is an annual herb with fleshy leaves and stalkless 
flowers. This species is distinguished from Centaurium erythraea, which 
is naturalized in Hawaii, by its fleshy leaves and the unbranched 
arrangement of the flower cluster (Wagner et al., 1999).
    Centaurium sebaeoides has been observed flowering in April. 
Flowering may be induced by heavy rainfall. Populations are found in 
dry areas, and plants are more likely to be found following heavy 
rains. Little else is known about the life history of Centaurium 
sebaeoides. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1999).
    Centaurium sebaeoides was historically and is currently known from 
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. On Lanai, there is one 
population containing between 20 and 30 individual plants in Maunalei 
Valley on privately owned land (HINHP Database 2000).
    This species is found on dry ledges at elevations between 39 and 
331 m (128 and 1,086 ft). Associated species include Hibiscus 
brackenridgei (HINHP Database 2000).
    The major threats to this species on Lanai are competition from 
alien plant species, depressed reproductive vigor, and natural or 
human-caused environmental disturbance that could easily be 
catastrophic to the only known population due to the small number of 
remaining individuals and the limited and scattered distribution of the 
species (Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000).

[[Page 9813]]

Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (oha wai)

    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, a short-lived perennial and 
a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub or tree 
with oblong to lance-shaped leaves on leaf stalks (petioles). 
Clermontia oblongifolia is distinguished from other members of the 
genus by its calyx and corolla, which are similar in color and are each 
fused into a curved tube that falls off as the flower ages. The species 
is also distinguished by the leaf shape, the male floral parts, the 
shape of the flower buds, and the lengths of the leaf and flower 
stalks, the flower, and the smooth green basal portion of the flower 
(the hypanthium). Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is reported 
from Maui and Lanai, while Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. oblongifolia is 
only known from Oahu, and Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes is only 
known from Molokai (Lammers 1988, 1999; 57 FR 20772).
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is known to flower from 
November to July. Little else is known about the life history of 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis. Its flowering cycles, 
pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific 
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 
1997; Rock 1919).
    Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis was historically and is 
currently known from Lanai and Maui. On Lanai, an unknown number of 
individuals are reported from Kaiholena Gulch on privately owned land 
(Lammers 1999; 57 FR 20772; HINHP Database 2000).
    This plant typically grows in gulch bottoms in mesic forests at 
elevations between 700 and 1,032 m (2,296 and 3,385 ft) (HINHP Database 
2000).
    The threats to this species on Lanai are its vulnerability to 
extinction from a single natural or human-caused environmental 
disturbance; depressed reproductive vigor; and habitat degradation by 
feral pigs (57 FR 20772; Service 1997).

Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)

    Ctenitis squamigera is a short-lived perennial and a member of the 
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae). It has a rhizome (horizontal stem), 
creeping above the ground and densely covered with scales similar to 
those on the lower part of the leaf stalk. It can be readily 
distinguished from other Hawaiian species of Ctenitis by the dense 
covering of tan-colored scales on its frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Ctenitis squamigera. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1998a).
    Historically, Ctenitis squamigera was recorded from Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is found 
on Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and Molokai. On Lanai, there are two populations 
totaling 42 individual plants on privately owned land in the Waiapaa-
Kapohaku area on the leeward side of the island, and in the Lopa and 
Waiopa Gulches on the windward side (59 FR 49025; GDSI 2000; HINHP 
Database 2000).
    This species is found in the forest understory at elevations 
between 640 and 944 m (2,099 and 3,096 ft) in diverse mesic forest and 
scrubby mixed mesic forest (HINHP Database 2000). Associated native 
plant species include Nestegis sandwicensis, Coprosma spp., Sadleria 
spp., Selaginella sp. (lepelepe a moa), Carex meyenii (NCN), Blechnum 
occidentale (NCN), Pipturus spp., Melicope spp., Pneumatopteris 
sandwicensis, Pittosporum spp., Alyxia oliviformis, Freycinetia 
arborea, Antidesma spp., Cyrtandra spp., Peperomia sp. (ala ala wai 
nui), Myrsine spp., Psychotria spp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Syzygium 
sandwicensis, Wikstroemia spp., Microlepia sp. (NCN), Doodia spp., 
Boehmeria grandis (akolea), Nephrolepis sp. (kupukupu), Perrotettia 
sandwicensis, and Xylosma sp. (HINHP Database 2000, 59 FR 49025).
    The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat 
degradation by feral pigs, goats, and axis deer; competition with alien 
plant species, especially Psidium cattleianum and Schinus 
terebinthifolius; fire; decreased reproductive vigor; and extinction 
from naturally occurring events due to the small number of existing 
populations and individuals (Service 1998a; Culliney 1988; HINHP 
Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha)

    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, a short-lived perennial and a 
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub with 
pinnately divided leaves. This species is distinguished from others in 
this endemic Hawaiian genus by the pinnately lobed leaf margins and the 
width of the leaf blades. This subspecies is distinguished from the 
other two subspecies by the shape and size of the calyx lobes, which 
overlap at the base (Lammers 1999).
    On Molokai, flowering plants have been reported in July and August. 
Little else is known about the life history of Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 
grimesiana. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal 
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1999).
    Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana was historically and is currently 
known from Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently, on Lanai there 
are two populations with at least three individuals on privately owned 
land in Kaiholena Gulch and Waiakeakua Gulch (61 FR 53108; Service 
1999; HINHP Database 2000).
    This species is typically found in mesic forest often dominated by 
Metrosideros polymorpha or Metrosideros polymorpha and Acacia koa 
(koa), or on rocky or steep slopes of stream banks, at elevations 
between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft). Associated plants include 
Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Myrsine spp., Nestegis sandwicensis, 
Psychotria spp., and Xylosma sp. (61 FR 53108; Service 1999).
    The threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation and/or 
destruction caused by feral axis deer, goats, and pigs; competition 
with various alien plants; randomly naturally occurring events causing 
extinction due to the small number of existing individuals; fire; 
landslides; and predation by rats (Rattus rattus) and various slugs (59 
FR 53108; Service 1999).

Cyanea lobata (haha)

    Cyanea lobata, a short-lived member of the bellflower family 
(Campanulaceae), is a sparingly branched perennial shrub with smooth to 
somewhat rough stems and oblong, irregularly lobed leaves. This species 
is distinguished from other species of Cyanea by the size of the flower 
and the irregularly lobed leaves with petioles (Lammers 1990).
    Cyanea lobata is known to flower from August to February, even in 
individuals as small as 50 cm (20 in) in height. Little else is known 
about the life history of Cyanea lobata. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Rock 1919; Degener 
1936; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
    Historically, Cyanea lobata was known from Lanai and West Maui. It 
was last seen on Lanai in 1934 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 
1997; 57 FR 20772).

[[Page 9814]]

    This species occurs in gulches in mesic to wet forest and shrubland 
at elevations between 664 and 1,032 m (2,178 and 3,385 ft) and 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Freycinetia arborea, Touchardia latifolia (olona), Morinda 
trimera (noni kuahiwi), Metrosideros polymorpha, Clermontia kakeana 
(oha wai), Cyrtandra spp., Xylosma spp., Psychotria spp., Antidesma 
spp., Pipturus albidus, Peperomia spp., Pleomele spp. (halapepe), and 
Athyrium spp. (akolea) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR 
20772; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
    The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat degradation 
by feral pigs (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)

    Cyperus trachysanthos, a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), 
is a short-lived perennial grass-like plant with a short rhizome. The 
culms are densely tufted, obtusely triangular in cross section, tall, 
sticky, and leafy at the base. This species is distinguished from 
others in the genus by the short rhizome, the leaf sheath with 
partitions at the nodes, the shape of the glumes, and the length of the 
culms (Koyama 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Cyperus trachysanthos. 
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999).
    Historically, Cyperus trachysanthos was known on Niihau and Kauai, 
and from scattered locations on Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai. Currently it 
is found on Kauai, Niihau and Oahu. It was last observed on Lanai in 
1919 (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000).
    Cyperus trachysanthos is usually found in seasonally wet sites (mud 
flats, wet clay soil, or wet cliff seeps) on seepy flats or talus 
slopes in Heteropogon contortus (pili) grassland at elevations between 
0 and 46 m (0 and 151 ft). Hibiscus tiliaceus (hau) is often found in 
association with this species (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; 61 FR 53108; 
Koyama 1999; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
    On Lanai, the threats to this species included the loss of wetlands 
(61 FR 53108; Service 1999).

Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)

    Cyrtandra munroi is a short-lived perennial and a member of the 
African violet family (Gesneriaceae). It is a shrub with opposite, 
elliptic to almost circular leaves that are sparsely to moderately 
hairy on the upper surface and covered with velvety, rust-colored hairs 
underneath. This species is distinguished from other species of the 
genus by the broad opposite leaves, the length of the flower cluster 
stalks, the size of the flowers, and the amount of hair on various 
parts of the plant (Wagner et al., 1999).
    Some work has been done on the reproductive biology of some species 
of Cyrtandra, but not on Cyrtandra munroi specifically. These studies 
of other members of the genus suggest that a specific pollinator may be 
necessary for successful pollination. Seed dispersal may be via birds, 
which eat the fruits. Flowering time, longevity of plants and seeds, 
specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are 
unknown (Service 1995).
    Cyrtandra munroi was historically and is currently known from Lanai 
and Maui. Currently, on Lanai there are a total of two populations 
containing 17 individuals on privately owned land in the Kapohaku/
Waiapaa area, and in the gulch between Kunoa and Waialala gulches (GDSI 
2000; HINHP Database 2000).
    The habitat of this species is diverse mesic forest, wet 
Metrosideros polymorpha forest, and mixed mesic Metrosideros polymorpha 
forest, typically on rich, moderately steep gulch slopes at elevations 
between 667 and 1,016 m (2,188 and 3,332 ft). It occurs on soil and 
rock substrates on slopes from watercourses in gulch bottoms and up the 
sides of gulch slopes to near ridgetops. Associated native species 
include, Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior, Myrsine lessertiana, 
Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele fernaldii, 
Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense, 
Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis 
acuminata (au), Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis, Coprosma spp., 
Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope spp., Perrottetia 
sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis, and Psychotria spp. (HINHP 
Database 2000; Service 1995).
    The threats to this species on Lanai are browsing and habitat 
disturbance by axis deer; competition with the alien plant species 
Psidium cattleianum, Myrica faya, Leptospermum scoparium, Pluchea 
symphytifolia (sourbush), Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass), Rubus 
rosifolius (thimbleberry), and Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass); 
depressed reproductive vigor; and loss of appropriate pollinators 
(Service 1995; 57 FR 20772).

Diellia erecta (NCN)

    Diellia erecta, a short-lived perennial fern in the spleenwort 
family (Aspleniaceae), grows in tufts of three to nine lance-shaped 
fronds emerging from a rhizome covered with brown to dark gray scales. 
This species differs from other members of the genus in having large 
brown or dark gray scales, fused or separate sori along both margins, 
shiny black midribs that have a hardened surface, and veins that do not 
usually encircle the sori (Degener and Greenwell 1950; Wagner 1952).
    Little is known about the life history of Diellia erecta. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999).
    Historically, Diellia erecta was known on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, 
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is known from 
Molokai, Maui, Oahu, and the island of Hawaii and was recently 
rediscovered on Kauai. On Lanai it was last seen in 1929 (Service 1999; 
HINHP Database 2000).
    This species is found in brown granular soil with leaf litter and 
occasional terrestrial moss on north facing slopes in deep shade on 
steep slopes or gulch bottoms in Pisonia spp. forest at elevations 
between 651 and 955 m (2,135 and 3,132 ft). Associated native plant 
species include native grasses and ferns (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; 
Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Diellia erecta on Lanai included habitat 
degradation by pigs and goats, and competition with alien plant species 
(59 FR 56333; Service 1999).

Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved asplenium)

    Diplazium molokaiense, a short-lived perennial member of the 
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), has a short prostrate rhizome and 
green or straw-colored leaf stalks with thin-textured fronds. This 
species can be distinguished from other species of Diplazium in the 
Hawaiian Islands by a combination of characteristics, including 
venation pattern, the length and arrangement of the sori, frond shape, 
and the degree of dissection of the frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
    Little is known about the life history of Diplazium molokaiense. 
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1998a).

[[Page 9815]]

    Historically, Diplazium molokaiense was found on Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently, this species is known only from 
Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1914 (HINHP Database 2000).
    This species occurs in shady, damp places in wet forests at 
elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft) (J. Lau, pers. 
comm., 2001; Service 1998a; HINHP Database 2000).
    The primary threats to Diplazium molokaiense on Lanai included 
habitat degradation by feral goats and pigs and competition with alien 
plant species (59 FR 49025; Service 1998a; HINHP Database 2000).

Hedyotis mannii (pilo)

    Hedyotis mannii is a short-lived perennial and a member of the 
coffee family (Rubiaceae). It has smooth, usually erect stems 30 to 60 
cm (1 to 2 ft) long, which are woody at the base and four-angled or -
winged. This species' growth habit; its quadrangular or winged stems; 
the shape, size, and texture of its leaves; and its dry capsule, which 
opens when mature, separate it from other species of the genus (Wagner 
et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of this plant. Reproductive 
cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting 
factors are unknown (Service 1996b).
    Hedyotis mannii was once widely scattered on Lanai, West Maui, and 
Molokai. After a hiatus of 50 years, this species was rediscovered in 
1987 by Steve Perlman on Molokai. In addition, a population was 
discovered on Maui and two populations, now numbering between 35 and 40 
individual plants, were discovered on Lanai in 1991 on privately owned 
land in Maunalei and Hauola gulches (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 
Service 1996b).
    Hedyotis mannii typically grows on dark, narrow, rocky gulch walls 
and on steep stream banks in wet forests between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332 
and 3,385 ft) in elevation. Associated plant species include 
Thelypteris sandwicensis, Sadleria spp., Cyrtandra grayii, Scaevola 
chamissoniana, Freycinetia arborea, and Carex meyenii (J. Lau, pers. 
comm., 2001; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b).
    The limited number of individuals of Hedyotis mannii makes it 
extremely vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events. 
Feral pigs and alien plants, such as Melinis minutiflora, Psidium 
cattleianum, and Rubus rosifolius, degrade the habitat of this species 
and contribute to its vulnerability (57 FR 46325).

Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)

    Hesperomannia arborescens, a long-lived perennial of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is a small shrubby tree that usually stands 1.5 to 
5 m (5 to 16 ft) tall. This member of an endemic Hawaiian genus differs 
from other Hesperomannia species in having the following combination of 
characteristics: erect to ascending flower heads, thick flower head 
stalks, and usually hairless and relatively narrow leaves (Wagner et 
al., 1999).
    This species has been observed in flower from April through June 
and fruit during March and June. Little else is known about the life 
history of Hesperomannia arborescens. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 59 FR 
14482).
    Hesperomannia arborescens was formerly known from Lanai, Molokai, 
and Oahu. This species is now known from Oahu, Molokai, and Maui. It 
was last seen on Lanai in 1940 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 
1998b; 59 FR 14482).
    Hesperomannia arborescens is found on slopes or ridges in lowland 
mesic or wet forest at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 
3,385 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native 
plant species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Myrsine sandwicensis (kolea), 
Isachne distichophylla, Pipturus spp., Antidesma spp., Psychotria spp., 
Clermontia spp., Cibotium spp. (hapuu), Dicranopteris linearis, Bobea 
spp., Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp., Melicope spp., Machaerina spp. 
(uki), Cheirodendron spp. (olapa), or Freycinetia arborea (HINHP 
Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; R. Hobdy et al., pers. 
comm., 2001).
    The major threats to Hesperomannia arborescens on Lanai included 
habitat degradation by feral pigs and goats, and competition with alien 
plant species (Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; HINHP Database 2000).

Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)

    Hibiscus brackenridgei, a short-lived perennial and a member of the 
mallow family (Malvaceae), is a sprawling to erect shrub or small tree. 
This species differs from other members of the genus in having the 
following combination of characteristics: yellow petals, a calyx 
consisting of triangular lobes with raised veins and a single midrib, 
bracts attached below the calyx, and thin stipules that fall off, 
leaving an elliptic scar.
    Two subspecies are currently recognized, H. brackenridgei ssp. 
brackenridgei and H. brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus (Bates 1999).
    Hibiscus brackenridgei is known to flower continuously from early 
February through late May, and intermittently at other times of year. 
Intermittent flowering may possibly be tied to day length. Little else 
is known about the life history of this plant. Pollination biology, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999).
    Historically, Hibiscus brackenridgei was known from the islands of 
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and the island of Hawaii. Hibiscus 
brackenridgei was collected from an undocumented site on Kahoolawe, 
though the subspecies has never been determined. Currently, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus is only known from Oahu. Hibiscus 
brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei is currently known from Lanai, Maui, 
and the island of Hawaii. On Lanai, there are two populations 
containing an unknown number of individuals on privately owned land; 
one population is known from Keamuku Road, one from a fenced area on 
the dry plains of Kaena Point. Outplanted individuals that were 
initially planted in Kanepuu Preserve now appear to be reproducing 
naturally (Service 1999; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Wesley Wong, 
Jr., formerly of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, in litt. 
1998).
    Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei occurs in lowland dry to 
mesic forest and shrubland between 0 and 645 m (0 and 2,116 ft) in 
elevation. Associated plant species include Dodonea viscosa, Psydrax 
odoratum, Eurya sandwicensis (anini), Isachne distichophylla, and Sida 
fallax (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).
    The primary threats to Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei on 
Lanai are habitat degradation; possible predation by pigs, goats, axis 
deer, and rats (Rattus rattus); competition with alien plant species; 
fire; and susceptibility to extinction caused by naturally occurring 
events or reduced reproductive vigor (59 FR 56333; Service 1999).

Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)

    Isodendrion pyrifolium, a short-lived perennial of the violet 
family (Violaceae), is a small, branched shrub with elliptic to lance-
shaped leaf blades. The papery-textured blade is moderately hairy 
beneath (at least on the veins) and stalked. The petiole (stalk) is 
subtended

[[Page 9816]]

by oval, hairy stipules. Fragrant, bilaterally symmetrical flowers are 
solitary. The flower stalk is white-hairy, and subtended by two bracts. 
Bracts arise at the tip of the main flower stalk. The five sepals are 
lance-shaped, membranous-edged and fringed with white hairs. Five 
green-yellow petals are somewhat unequal, and lobed, the upper being 
the shortest and the lower the longest. The fruit is a three-lobed, 
oval capsule, which splits to release olive-colored seeds. Isodendrion 
pyrifolium is distinguished from other species in the genus by its 
smaller, green-yellow flowers, and hairy stipules and leaf veins 
(Wagner et al., 1999).
    During periods of drought, this species will drop all but the 
newest leaves. After sufficient rains, the plants produce flowers with 
seeds ripening one to two months later. Little else is known about the 
life history of Isodendrion pyrifolium. Flowering cycles, pollination 
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental 
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305).
    Isodendrion pyrifolium was historically found on six of the 
Hawaiian Islands: Niihau, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, Maui, and the island of 
Hawaii. Currently it is found only on the island of Hawaii. It was last 
seen on Lanai in 1870 (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; GDSI 2000; HINHP 
Database 2000).
    On Lanai, Isodendrion pyrifolium occured in dry shrubland at 
elevations between 132 and 574 m (433 and 1,883 ft) with one or more of 
the following associated native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa, 
Lipochaeta spp. (nehe), Heteropogon contortus, and Wikstroemia 
oahuensis (akia) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR 
10305; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Isodendrion pyrifolium on the 
island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in 1870.

Mariscus fauriei (NCN)

    Mariscus fauriei, a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a 
short-lived perennial plant with somewhat enlarged underground stems 
and three-angled, single or grouped aerial stems 10 to 50 cm (4 to 20 
in) tall. It has leaves shorter than or the same length as the stems 
and 1 to 3.5 mm (0.04 to 0.1 in) wide. This species differs from others 
in the genus in Hawaii by its smaller size and its more narrow, 
flattened, and more spreading spikelets (Koyama 1990; 59 FR 10305).
    Little is known about the life history of Mariscus fauriei. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (USFWS 1996a).
    Historically, Mariscus fauriei was found on Molokai, Lanai, and the 
island of Hawaii. It currently occurs on Molokai and the island of 
Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1929 (59 FR 10305; HINHP Database 
2000; GDSI 2000; Service 1996a).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Mariscus fauriei on the island of Lanai 
(Service 1996a).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Mariscus fauriei on the island 
of Lanai (Service 1996a).

Melicope munroi (alani)

    Melicope munroi, a long-lived perennial of the rue (citrus) family 
(Rutaceae), is a sprawling shrub up to 3 m (10 ft) tall. The new growth 
of this species is minutely hairy. This species differs from other 
Hawaiian members of the genus in the shape of the leaf and the length 
of the inflorescence (a flower cluster) stalk (Stone et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Melicope munroi. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 2001).
    Historically, this species was known from the Lanaihale summit 
ridge of Lanai and above Kamalo on Molokai. Currently, Melicope munroi 
is known only from the Lanaihale summit ridge on Lanai. There are two 
populations totaling an estimated 300 to 800 individuals on privately 
owned land on the Lanaihale summit, head of Hauola gulch, Waialala 
gulch, and the ridge of Waialala gulch (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 
48307; GDSI 2000; Service 2001).
    Melicope munroi is typically found on slopes in lowland wet 
shrublands, at elevations of 701 and 1,032 m (2,299 and 3,385 ft). 
Associated native plant species include Diplopterygium pinnatum, 
Dicranopteris linearis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron 
trigynum, Coprosma spp., Broussaisia arguta, other Melicope spp., and 
Machaerina angustifolia (HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001).
    The major threats to Melicope munroi on Lanai are trampling, 
browsing, and habitat degradation by axis deer and competition with the 
alien plant species Leptospermum scoparium and Psidium cattleianum. 
Random environmental events also threaten the two remaining populations 
(HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307; Service 2001).

Neraudia sericea (NCN)

    Neraudia sericea, a short-lived perennial member of the nettle 
family (Urticaceae), is a 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) tall shrub with 
densely hairy branches. The elliptic or oval leaves have smooth margins 
or slightly toothed margins on young leaves. The upper leaf surface is 
moderately hairy and the lower leaf surface is densely covered with 
irregularly curved, silky gray to white hairs along the veins. The male 
flowers may be stalkless or have short stalks. The female flowers are 
stalkless and have a densely hairy calyx that is either toothed, 
collar-like, or divided into narrow unequal segments. The fruits are 
achenes with the apical section separated from the basal portion by a 
deep constriction. Seeds are oval with a constriction across the upper 
half. N. sericea differs from the other four closely related species of 
this endemic Hawaiian genus by the density, length, color, and posture 
of the hairs on the lower leaf surface and by its mostly entire leaf 
margins (Wagner et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Neraudia sericea. 
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Neraudia sericea was historically found on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, 
and Kahoolawe. Currently, this species is extant on Molokai and Maui. 
It was last seen on Lanai in 1913 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
    Neraudia sericea generally occurs in gulch slopes or gulch bottoms 
in dry-mesic or mesic forest at elevations between 693 and 869 m (2,273 
and 2,850 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated 
native plant species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Diospyros sandwicensis, 
Nestegis sandwicensis, and Dodonaea viscosa (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 
56333; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Neraudia sericea on Lanai included habitat 
degradation by feral pigs and goats, and competition with alien plant 
species (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)

    Portulaca sclerocarpa of the purslane family (Portulacaceae) is a 
short-lived perennial herb with a fleshy tuberous taproot, which 
becomes woody and has stems up to about 20 cm (8 in) long. The 
stalkless, succulent, grayish-green leaves are almost circular in 
cross-

[[Page 9817]]

section. Dense tufts of hairs are located in each leaf axil (point of 
divergence between a branch or leaf) and underneath the tight clusters 
of three to six stalkless flowers grouped at the ends of the stems. 
Sepals (one of the modified leaves comprising a flower calyx) have 
membranous edges and the petals are white, pink, or pink with a white 
base. The hardened capsules open very late or not at all, and contain 
glossy, dark reddish-brown seeds. This species differs from other 
native and naturalized species of the genus in Hawaii by its woody 
taproot, its narrow leaves, and the colors of its petals and seeds. Its 
closest relative, P. villosa, differs mainly in its thinner-walled, 
opening capsule (Wagner et al., 1999).
    This species was observed in flower during March 1977, December 
1977, and June 1978. The presence of juveniles indicated that 
pollination and germination were occurring. Pollination vectors, seed 
dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental 
requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a).
    Portulaca sclerocarpa was historically and is currently found on 
the island of Hawaii, and on an islet (Poopoo Islet) off the south 
coast of the island of Lanai. The population on privately owned land on 
Poopoo Islet contains about 10 plants (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000; 
Service 1996a). Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop, 1 ha (2.4 ac) in 
area and approximately 200 m (600 ft) from the south shoreline of 
Lanai, and is considered part of the island of Lanai.
    This species grows on exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal 
communities at elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft) (Wagner et 
al., 1999; HINHP Database 2000).
    The major threats to Portulaca sclerocarpa on Lanai are herbivory 
(feeding on plants) by the larvae of an introduced sphinx moth (Hyles 
lineata); competition from alien plants; and fire (Frank Howarth, 
Bishop Museum, in litt. 2000; 59 FR 10305; Service 1996a).

Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)

    Sesbania tomentosa, a member of the pea family (Fabaceae), is 
typically a sprawling short-lived perennial shrub, but may also be a 
small tree. Each compound leaf consists of 18 to 38 oblong to elliptic 
leaflets, which are usually sparsely to densely covered with silky 
hairs. The flowers are salmon color tinged with yellow, orange-red, 
scarlet or, rarely, pure yellow. Sesbania tomentosa is the only endemic 
Hawaiian species in the genus, differing from the naturalized S. sesban 
by the color of the flowers, the longer petals and calyx, and the 
number of seeds per pod (Geesink et al., 1999).
    The pollination biology of Sesbania tomentosa is being studied by 
David Hopper, a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the 
University of Hawaii at Manoa. His preliminary findings suggest that 
although many insects visit Sesbania flowers, the majority of 
successful pollination is accomplished by native bees of the genus, 
Hylaeus, and that populations at Kaena Point on Oahu are probably 
pollinator-limited. Flowering at Kaena Point is highest during the 
winter-spring rains, and gradually declines throughout the rest of the 
year. Other aspects of this plant's life history are unknown (Service 
1999).
    Currently, Sesbania tomentosa occurs on six of the eight main 
Hawaiian Islands (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii) 
and on two islands in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Nihoa and 
Necker). Although once found on Niihau and Lanai, it is no longer 
extant on these islands. It was last seen on Lanai in 1957 (59 FR 
56333; HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000).
    Sesbania tomentosa is found on sandy beaches, dunes, or pond 
margins at elevations between 44 and 221 m (144 and 725 ft). It 
commonly occurs in coastal dry shrublands or mixed coastal dry cliffs 
with the associated native plant species Chamaesyce celastroides 
(akoko), Cuscuta sandwichiana (kaunaoa), Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon 
contortus, Myoporum sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis (nama), Scaevola 
sericea (naupaka kahakai), Sida fallax, Sporobolus virginicus (akiaki), 
Vitex rotundifolia (kolokolo kahakai) or Waltheria indica (uhaloa) 
(Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
    The primary threats to Sesbania tomentosa on Lanai included habitat 
degradation caused by competition with various alien plant species; 
lack of adequate pollination; seed predation by rats, mice (Mus 
musculus) and, potentially, alien insects; and fire (59 FR 56333; 
Service 1999).

Silene lanceolata (NCN)

    Silene lanceolata, a member of the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), 
is an upright, short-lived perennial plant with stems 15 to 51 cm (6 to 
20 in) long, which are woody at the base. The narrow leaves are smooth 
except for a fringe of hairs near the base. Flowers are arranged in 
open clusters. The flowers are white with deeply lobed, clawed petals. 
The capsule opens at the top to release reddish-brown seeds. This 
species is distinguished from Silene alexandri by its smaller flowers 
and capsules and its stamens, which are shorter than the sepals (Wagner 
et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Silene lanceolata. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (57 FR 46325; Service 1996b).
    The historical range of Silene lanceolata includes five Hawaiian 
Islands: Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii. Silene lanceolata is 
presently extant on the islands of Molokai, Oahu, and Hawaii. It was 
last observed on Lanai in 1930 (57 FR 46325; GDSI 2000; Service 1996b).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Silene lanceolata on the island of Lanai 
(Service 1996b).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Silene lanceolata on the island 
of Lanai (Service 1996b).

Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)

    Solanum incompletum, a short-lived perennial member of the 
nightshade family (Solanaceae), is a woody shrub. Its stems and lower 
leaf surfaces are covered with prominent reddish prickles or sometimes 
with yellow fuzzy hairs on young plant parts and lower leaf surfaces. 
The oval to elliptic leaves have prominent veins on the lower surface 
and lobed leaf margins. Numerous flowers grow in loose branching 
clusters with each flower on a stalk. This species differs from other 
native members of the genus by being generally prickly and having 
loosely clustered white flowers, curved anthers about 2 mm (0.08 in) 
long, and berries 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) in diameter (Symon 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Solanum incompletum. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (59 FR 56333; Service 1999).
    Historically, Solanum incompletum was known on Lanai, Maui, and the 
island of Hawaii. According to David Symon (1999), the known 
distribution of Solanum incompletum also extended to the islands of 
Kauai and Molokai. Currently, Solanum incompletum is only known from 
the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1925 (HINHP Database 
2000; Service 1999).
    On Lanai, Solanum incompletum occurred on broad, gently sloping 
ridges in dry, Dodonaea viscosa shrubland, at elevations between 151 
and 372 m (495 and 1,220 ft) with one or more of the

[[Page 9818]]

following associated native plant species: Heteropogon contortus, 
Lipochaeta spp., and Wikstroemia oahuensis (Service 1999; J. Lau pers 
comm., 2001).
    On Lanai, the threats to Solanum incompletum included habitat 
destruction by goats and competition with various alien plants (Service 
1999).

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)

    Spermolepis hawaiiensis, a member of the parsley family (Apiaceae), 
is a slender annual herb with few branches. Its leaves, dissected into 
narrow, lance-shaped divisions, are oblong to somewhat oval in outline 
and grow on stalks. Flowers are arranged in a loose, compound umbrella-
shaped inflorescence arising from the stem, opposite the leaves. 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis is the only member of the genus native to 
Hawaii. It is distinguished from other native members of the family by 
being a non-succulent annual with an umbrella-shaped inflorescence 
(Constance and Affolter 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Spermolepis hawaiiensis. 
Reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, 
and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).
    Historically, Spermolepis hawaiiensis was known from Kauai, Oahu, 
Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Based on recent collections it is now 
known to be extant on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island 
of Hawaii. On Lanai, this species is known from three populations of 
570 to 620 individuals on privately owned land: in the southern edge of 
Kapoho Gulch, Kamiki Ridge, and approximately 274 m (900 ft) downslope 
of Puu Manu (59 FR 56333; HINHP Database 2000; R Hobdy, pers. comm., 
2000; Service 1999).
    Spermolepis hawaiiensis is known from gulch slopes and ridge tops 
in dry forests dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis, or shrublands 
dominated by Dodonaea viscosa at elevations between 402 and 711 m 
(1,319 and 2,332 ft). Associated native plant species include Nestegis 
sandwicensis, Nesoluma polynesicum, Psydrax odorata, and Rauvolfia 
sandwicensis (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy, 
pers. comm., 2000; Service 1999).
    The primary threats to Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Lanai are habitat 
degradation by feral goats, competition with various alien plants, such 
as Lantana camara; and erosion, landslides, and rockslides due to 
natural weathering, which result in the death of individual plants as 
well as habitat destruction (59 FR 56333; Service 1999; R. Hobdy, pers. 
comm., 2000; Service 1999).

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (NCN)

    Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, a member of the aster 
family (Asteraceae), is an erect shrub 12 to 36 cm (4.7 to 14 in) tall, 
branching near the ends of the stems. Leaves of this taxon are lance-
shaped, wider at the leaf tip, and measure 1.0 to 1.8 in (25 to 45 mm) 
long and 0.04 to 0.3 in (1 to 7 mm) wide. Flower heads are arranged in 
groups of six to 12. The involucre is bell-shaped and less than 0.2 in 
(4 mm) high. Florets are either female or bisexual, with both occurring 
on the same plant. There are 21 to 40 white to pinkish-lavender ray 
florets 0.04 to 0.08 in (1 to 2 mm) long on the periphery of each head. 
In the center of each head there are four to eleven maroon to pale 
salmon disk florets. The fruits are achenes, 0.06 to 0.1 in (1.6 to 2.5 
mm) long and 0.02 to 0.03 in (0.5 to 0.8 mm) wide. This taxon can be 
distinguished from the other extant species on Oahu by its 
hermaphroditic disk flowers and its inflorescence of six to 12 heads 
(Lowrey 1999).
    Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is a short-lived perennial 
that has been observed producing fruit and flowers from April through 
July. No further information is available on reproductive cycles, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, or limiting factors (56 
FR 55770; Service 1998b).
    Historically, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum was known from 
Oahu and Lanai. It currently occurs only on Oahu. It was last seen on 
Lanai in 1928 (56 FR 55770; Service 1998b HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 
2000; EDA Database 2001).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the 
island of Lanai (Service 1998b).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum on the island of Lanai (Service 1998b).

Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)

    Tetramolopium remyi, a short-lived perennial member of the 
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is a many branched, decumbent 
(reclining, with the end ascending) or occasionally erect shrub up to 
about 38 cm (15 in) tall. Its leaves are firm, very narrow, and with 
the edges rolled inward when the leaf is mature. There is a single 
flower head per branch. The heads are each comprised of 70 to 100 
yellow disk and 150 to 250 white ray florets. The stems, leaves, flower 
bracts, and fruit are covered with sticky hairs. Tetramolopium remyi 
has the largest flower heads in the genus. Two other species of the 
genus are known historically from Lanai, but both have purplish rather 
than yellow disk florets and from 4 to 60 rather than 1 flower head per 
branch (Lowrey 1999).
    Tetramolopium remyi flowers between April and January. Field 
observations suggest that the population size of the species can be 
profoundly affected by variability in annual precipitation; the adult 
plants may succumb to prolonged drought, but apparently there is a 
seedbank in the soil that can replenish the population during favorable 
conditions. Such seed banks are of great importance for arid-dwelling 
plants to allow populations to persist through adverse conditions. The 
aridity of the area, possibly coupled with human-induced changes in the 
habitat and subsequent lack of availability of suitable sites for 
seedling establishment, may be a factor limiting population growth and 
expansion. Requirements of this taxon in these areas are not known, but 
success in greenhouse cultivation of these plants with much higher 
water availability implies that, although these plants are drought-
tolerant, perhaps the dry conditions in which they currently exist are 
not optimum. Individual plants are probably not long-lived. Pollination 
is hypothesized to be by butterflies, bees, or flies. Seed dispersal 
agents, environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are 
unknown (Lowrey 1986; Service 1995).
    Historically, the species was known from Maui and Lanai. Currently, 
Tetramolopium remyi is known only from two populations on Lanai on 
privately owned land, one near Awalua Road and the other near Awehi 
Road, with a total of approximately 66 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP 
Database 2000).
    Tetramolopium remyi is found in red, sandy, loam soil in dry 
Dodonea viscosa-Heteropogon contortus communities at elevations between 
65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft). Commonly associated native species 
include Bidens mauiensis (kookoolau), Waltheria indica, Wikstroemia 
oahuensis, and Lipochaeta lavarum (nehe) (HINHP Database 2000).
    Browsing by deer and mouflon sheep (Ovis musimon) and competition 
from alien species, primarily Andropogon viginicus (broomsedge) and 
Panicum maximum (guinea grass), are the main threats to the species on 
Lanai. Fire is also a potential threat (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

[[Page 9819]]

Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)

    Vigna o-wahuensis, a member of the legume family (Fabaceae), is a 
slender, twining, short-lived perennial herb with fuzzy stems. Each 
leaf is made up of three leaflets, which vary in shape from round to 
linear, and are sparsely or moderately covered with coarse hairs. 
Flowers, in clusters of 1 to 4, have thin, translucent, pale yellow or 
greenish-yellow petals. The two lowermost petals are fused and appear 
distinctly beaked. The sparsely hairy calyx has asymmetrical lobes. The 
fruits are long slender pods that may or may not be slightly inflated 
and contain 7 to 15 gray to black seeds. This species differs from 
others in the genus by its thin yellowish petals, sparsely hairy calyx, 
and thin pods, which may or may not be slightly inflated (Geesink et 
al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Vigna o-wahuensis. Its 
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1999).
    Historically, Vigna o-wahuensis was known from Niihau, Oahu, and 
Maui. Based on recent collections, Vigna o-wahuensis is now known to be 
extant on the islands of Molokai, Maui, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii. 
On Lanai, one population with at least one individual is known from 
Kanepuu on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; J. 
Lau, in litt. 2000; Service 1999).
    On Lanai, Vigna o-wahuensis is found in Nestegis sandwicensis or 
Diospyros sandwicensis dry forest at elevations between 98 and 622 m 
(321 and 2,040 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; 59 
FR 56333).
    Threats to Vigna o-wahuensis on Lanai include habitat degradation 
by pigs and axis deer; competition with various alien plant species; 
fire; and random naturally occurring events causing extinction and or 
reduced reproductive vigor of the only remaining individual on Lanai 
(Service 1999).

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae)

    Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is a medium-sized tree in the rue (citrus) 
family (Rutaceae) with pale to dark gray bark, and lemon-scented 
leaves. Alternate leaves are composed of three small triangular-oval to 
lance-shaped, toothed leaves (leaflets) with surfaces usually without 
hairs. A long-lived perennial tree, Z. hawaiiense is distinguished from 
other Hawaiian members of the genus by several characteristics: three 
leaflets all of similar size, one joint on the lateral leaf stalk, and 
sickle-shape fruits with a rounded tip (Stone et al., 1999).
    Little is known about the life history of Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. 
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, 
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors 
are unknown (Service 1996a).
    Historically, Zanthoxylum hawaiiense was known from five islands: 
Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and the island 
of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1947 (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 
2000).
    Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant 
species associated with Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the island of Lanai 
(Service 1996a).
    Nothing is known of the threats to Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the 
island of Lanai (Service 1996a).
    A summary of populations and landownership for the 37 plant species 
reported from the island of Lanai is given in Table 3.

  Table 3.--Summary of Existing Populations Occurring on Lanai, and Landownership for 37 Species Reported From
                                                      Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of              Landownership
                            Species                                current   -----------------------------------
                                                                 populations    Federal      State      Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum.......................................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Adenophorus periens...........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Bidens micrantha..............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Bonamia menziesii.............................................            3   ..........  ..........          X
Brighamia rockii..............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Cenchrus agrimonioides........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Centaurium sebaeoides.........................................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis........................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Ctenitis squamigera...........................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana.............................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Cyanea lobata.................................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii..............................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Cyperus trachysanthos.........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Cyrtandra munroi..............................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Diellia erecta................................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Diplazium molokaiense.........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Gahnia lanaiensis.............................................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Hedyotis mannii...............................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi........................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Hesperomannia arborescens.....................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Hibiscus brackenridgei........................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Isodendrion pyrifolium........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis............................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Mariscus fauriei..............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Melicope munroi...............................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Neraudia sericea..............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis...........................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Portulaca sclerocarpa.........................................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Sesbania tomentosa............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Silene lanceolata.............................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Solanum incompletum...........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Spermolepis hawaiiensis.......................................            3   ..........  ..........          X

[[Page 9820]]

 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum........................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
Tetramolopium remyi...........................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Vigna o-wahuensis.............................................            1   ..........  ..........          X
Viola lanaiensis..............................................            2   ..........  ..........          X
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense........................................            0   ..........  ..........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Federal Action

    Federal action on these plants began as a result of section 12 of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to 
prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or 
extinct in the United States. This report, designated as House Document 
No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. In that 
document, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cyanea lobata (as Cyanea 
baldwinii), Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii (as Hedyotis thyrsoidea 
var. thyrsoidea), Hesperomannia arborescens (as Hesperomannia 
arborescens var. bushiana and var. swezeyi), Hibiscus brackenridgei (as 
Hibiscus brackenridgei var. brackenridgei, var. mokuleianus, and var. 
``from Hawaii''), Neraudia sericea (as Neraudia kahoolawensis), 
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa (as Sesbania hobdyi and 
Sesbania tomentosa var. tomentosa), Silene lanceolata, Solanum 
incompletum (as Solanum haleakalense and Solanum incompletum var. 
glabratum, var. incompletum, and var. mauiensis), Tetramolopium 
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, Vigna o-wahuensis (as Vigna sandwicensis var. 
heterophylla and var. sandwicensis), Viola lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense var. citiodora) were considered 
endangered; Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Labordia tinifolia var. 
lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense var. 
hawaiiense and var. velutinosum) were considered threatened; and, 
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (as Bidens 
distans and Bidens micrantha spp. kalealaha), Ctenitis squamigera, 
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Diplazium molokaiense, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Melicope munroi (as Pelea munroi), Phyllostegia glabra var. 
lanaiensis, and Tetramolopium remyi were considered to be extinct. On 
July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
27823) of our acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a petition within 
the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and 
gave notice of our intention to review the status of the plant taxa 
named therein. As a result of that review, on June 16, 1976, we 
published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to 
determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act for 
approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including all of the above 
taxa except Cyrtandra munroi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and 
Melicope munroi. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the 
basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and 
the Service in response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 
1975, Federal Register publication (40 FR 27823).
    General comments received in response to the 1976 proposal were 
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 
17909). In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 
2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals 
already over 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice 
in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the 
June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final, along with four 
other proposals that had expired. We published updated Notices of 
Review for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82479), September 27, 
1985 (50 FR 39525), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6183), September 30, 1993 
(58 FR 51144), and February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596). A summary of the 
status categories for these 37 plant species in the 1980 through 1996 
notices of review can be found in Table 4(a). We listed the 37 species 
as endangered or threatened between 1991 and 1999. A summary of the 
listing actions can be found in Table 4(b).

                     Table 4(a).--Summary of Candidacy Status for 37 Plant Species on Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Federal Register Notice of Review
                       Species                       -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       12/15/80     9/27/85     2/20/90     9/30/93     2/28/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum.............................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Adenophorus periens.................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Bidens micrantha....................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Bonamia menziesii...................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Brighamia rockii....................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Cenchrus agrimonioides..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
Centaurium sebaeoides...............................  ..........  ..........          C1  ..........  ..........
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis..............  ..........  ..........          C1  ..........  ..........
Ctenitis squamigera.................................         C1*         C1*         C1*  ..........  ..........
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.grimesiana....................          C1          C1  ..........          C2  ..........
Cyanea lobata.......................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Cyanea macrostegia ssp.  gibsonii...................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Cyperus trachysanthos...............................  ..........  ..........  ..........          C2  ..........
Cyrtandra munroi....................................          C2          C2          C1  ..........  ..........
Diellia erecta......................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........

[[Page 9821]]

 
Diplazium molokaiense...............................         C1*         C1*          C1  ..........  ..........
Gahnia lanaiensis...................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Hedyotis mannii.....................................         C1*         C1*          C1  ..........  ..........
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi..............  ..........  ..........          C2          C2           C
Hesperomannia arborescens...........................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Hibiscus brackenridgei..............................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Isodendrion pyrifolium..............................         C1*         C1*          3A  ..........  ..........
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis..................          C2          C2          3C          3C  ..........
Mariscus fauriei....................................  ..........  ..........          C1  ..........  ..........
Melicope munroi.....................................         C1*         C1*          C2          C2           C
Neraudia sericea....................................          3A          3A          C1  ..........  ..........
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis.................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Portulaca sclerocarpa...............................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Sesbania tomentosa..................................         C1*         C1*          C1  ..........  ..........
Silene lanceolata...................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Solanum incompletum.................................         C1*         C1*          C1  ..........  ..........
Spermolepis hawaiiensis.............................  ..........  ..........          C1  ..........  ..........
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum..............          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Tetramolopium remyi.................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Vigna o-wahuensis...................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Viola lanaiensis....................................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense..............................          C1          C1          C1  ..........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Key:
 C: Taxa for which the Service has on file enough sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
  threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
 C1: Taxa for which the Service has on file enough sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
  threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
 C1*: Taxa of known vulnerable status in the recent past that may already have become extinct.
 C2: Taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support
  listing proposals at this time.
 3A: Taxa for which the Service has persuasive evidence of extinction. If rediscovered, such taxa might acquire
  high priority for listing.
 3C: Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are not
  subject to any identifiable threat. If further research or changes in habitat indicate a significant decline
  in any of these taxa, they may be reevaluated for possible inclusion in categories C1 or C2.
 Federal Register Notices of Review--
 1980: 45 FR 82479    1985: 50 FR 39525    1990: 55 FR 6183    1993: 58 FR 51144    1996: 61 FR 7596


                                         Table 4(b).--Summary of Listing Actions for 37 Plant Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed rule                        Final rule                Purdency and/or proposed critical
                                 Federal  ----------------------------------------------------------------------                 habitat
            Species               status                                                                        ----------------------------------------
                                              Date       Federal Register        Date       Federal Register         Date          Federal Register
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum.......          E   09/17.90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Adenophorus periens...........          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48102              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Bidens micrantha ssp.                   E   05/24/91  56 FR 23842              05/15/92  57 FR 20772                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
 kalealaha.
Bonamia menziesii.............          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                 11/7/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Brighamia rockii..............          E   09/20/91  56 FR 47718              10/08/92  57 FR 46325                12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Cenchrus agrimonioides........          E   10/02/95  60 FR 51417              10/10/96  61 FR 53108                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
Centaurium sebaeoides.........          E   09/28/90  55 FR 39664              10/29/91  56 FR 55770                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
                                                                                                                    01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.            E   05/24/91  56 FR 23842              05/15/92  57 FR 20772                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
 mauiensis.                                                                                                         12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Ctenitis squamigera...........          E   06/24/93  58 FR 34231              09/09/94  59 FR 49025                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 8315
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.                  E   10/02/95  60 FR 51417              10/10/96  64 FR 53108                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
 grimesiana.                                                                                                        12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 8315
Cyanea lobata.................          E   05/24/91  56 FR 23842              05/15/92  57 FR 20772                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
Cyanea macrostegia ssp.                 E   09/17/90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
 gilsonii.
Cyperus trachysanthos.........          E   10/02/95  60 FR 51417              10/10/96  61 FR 53108                 11/07/0  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    01/28/02  67 FR 3940

[[Page 9822]]

 
Cyrtandra munroi..............          E   05/24/91  56 FR 23842              05/15/92  57 FR 20772                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Diellia erecta................          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
                                                                                                                    01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Diplazium molokaiense.........          E   06/24/93  58 FR 34231              09/09/94  59 FR 49025                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
Gahnia lanaiensis.............          E   09/17/90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Hedyotis mannii...............          E   09/20/91  56 FR 47718              10/08/92  57 FR 46325                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana             E   05/15/97  62 FR 26757              09/03/99  64 FR 48307                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
 var. remyi.
Hesperomannia arborescens.....          E   10/14/92  57 FR 47028              03/28/94  59 FR 14482                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Hibiscus brackenridgei........          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
Isodendrion pyrifolium........          E   12/17/92  57 FR 59951              03/04/94  59 FR 10305                01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Labordia tinifolia var.                 E   05/15/97  62 FR 26757              09/03/99  64 FR 48307                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
 lanaiensis.
Mariscus fauriei..............          E   12/17/92  57 FR 59951              03/04/94  59 FR 10305                12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Melicope munroi...............          E   05/15/97  62 FR 26757              09/03/99  64 FR 48307                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Neraudia sericea..............          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Phyllostegia glabra var.                E   09/17/90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/29/00  65 FR 83157
 lanaiensis.
Portulaca sclerocarpa.........          E   12/17/92  57 FR 59951              03/04/94  59 FR 10305                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Sesbania tomentosa............          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
                                                                                                                    01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Silene lanceolata.............          E   09/20/91  56 FR 47718              10/08/92  57 FR 46325                12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Solanum incompletum...........          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                01/28/02  67 FR 3940
Spermolepis hawaiiensis.......          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/27/00  65 FR 82086
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
                                                                                                                    12/28/00  67 FR 3940
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.            E   09/28/90  55 FR 39664              10/29/91  56 FR 55770
 lepidotum.
Tetramolopium remyi...........          E   09/17/90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Vigna o-wahuensis.............          E   09/14/93  58 FR 48012              11/10/94  59 FR 56333                12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
Viola lanaiensis..............          E   09/17/90  55 FR 38236              09/20/91  56 FR 47686                12/27/00  65 FR 82086
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense........          E   12/17/92  57 FR 59951              03/04/94  59 FR 10305                11/07/00  65 FR 66808
                                                                                                                    12/18/00  65 FR 79192
                                                                                                                    12/29/00  65 FR 83157
                                                                                                                    12/28/00  67 FR 3940
                                                                                                                    01/28/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Key: E= Endangered, T= Threatened

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist: (1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. At the time each plant 
was listed, we determined that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent for three of these plants (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. 
remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi) and not 
prudent for the other 34 plants because it would not benefit the plant 
or would increase the degree of threat to the species.
    The not prudent determinations for these species, along with 
others, were challenged in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 
2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998). On March 9, 1998, the United States 
District Court for the District of Hawaii, directed us to review the 
prudency determinations for 245 listed plant species in Hawaii, 
including 34 of the 37 species reported from Lanai. Among other things, 
the court held that, in most cases we did not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the species are threatened by human activity or that such threats 
would increase with the designation of critical habitat. The court also 
held that we failed to balance any risks of designating critical 
habitat against any benefits (id. at 1283-85).

[[Page 9823]]

    Regarding our determination that designating critical habitat would 
have no additional benefits to the species above and beyond those 
already provided through the section 7 consultation requirement of the 
Act, the court ruled that we failed to consider the specific effect of 
the consultation requirement on each species (id. at 1286-88). In 
addition, the court stated that we did not consider benefits outside of 
the consultation requirements. In the court's view, these potential 
benefits include substantive and procedural protections. The court held 
that, substantively, designation establishes a ``uniform protection 
plan'' prior to consultation and indicates where compliance with 
section 7 of the Act is required. Procedurally, the court stated that 
the designation of critical habitat educates the public, State, and 
local governments and affords them an opportunity to participate in the 
designation (id. at 1288). The court also stated that private lands may 
not be excluded from critical habitat designation even though section 7 
requirements apply only to Federal agencies. In addition to the 
potential benefit of informing the public, State, and local governments 
of the listing and of the areas that are essential to the species' 
conservation, the court found that there may be Federal activity on 
private property in the future, even though no such activity may be 
occurring there at the present (id. at 1285-88).
    On August 10, 1998, the court ordered us to publish proposed 
critical habitat designations or non-designations for at least 100 
species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations or 
non-designations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002 
(Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. 
Haw. 1998)).
    At the time we listed Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, 
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi (64 FR 48307), 
we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent and that 
we would develop critical habitat designations for these three taxa, 
along with seven others, by the time we completed designations for the 
other 245 Hawaiian plant species. This timetable was challenged in 
Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 99-00283 HG (D. 
Haw. Aug. 19, 1999, Feb. 16, 2000, and March 28, 2000). The court 
agreed, however, that it was reasonable for us to integrate these ten 
Maui Nui (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the 
schedule established for designating critical habitat for the other 245 
Hawaiian plants, and ordered us to publish proposed critical habitat 
designations for the ten Maui Nui species with the first 100 plants 
from the group of 245 by November 30, 2000, and to publish final 
critical habitat designations by November 30, 2001.
    On November 30, 1998, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
requesting public comments on our reevaluation of whether designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for the 245 Hawaiian plants at issue (63 
FR 65805). The comment period closed on March 1, 1999, and was reopened 
from March 24, 1999, to May 24, 1999 (64 FR 14209). We received more 
than 100 responses from individuals, non-profit organizations, the 
State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), county governments, 
and Federal agencies (U.S. Department of Defense-Army, Navy, Air 
Force). Only a few responses offered information on the status of 
individual plant species or on current management actions for one or 
more of the 245 Hawaiian plants. While some of the respondents 
expressed support for the designation of critical habitat for 245 
Hawaiian plants, more than 80 percent opposed the designation of 
critical habitat for these plants. In general, these respondents 
opposed designation because they believed it would cause economic 
hardship, discourage cooperative projects, polarize relationships with 
hunters, or potentially increase trespass or vandalism on private 
lands. In addition, commenters also cited a lack of information on the 
biological and ecological needs of these plants which, they suggested, 
may lead to designation based on guesswork. The respondents who 
supported the designation of critical habitat cited that designation 
would provide a uniform protection plan for the Hawaiian Islands; 
promote funding for management of these plants; educate the public and 
State government; and protect partnerships with landowners and build 
trust.
    In early February 2000, we hand-delivered a letter to 
representatives of the private landowner on Lanai requesting any 
information considered germane to the management of any of the 37 
plants on the island, and containing a copy of the November 30, 1998, 
Federal Register notice, a map showing the general locations of the 
plants on Lanai, and a handout containing general information on 
critical habitat. On April 4, 2000, we met with representatives of the 
landowner to discuss their current land management activities. In 
addition, we met with Maui County DOFAW staff and discussed their 
management activities on Lanai.
    On December 27, 2000, we published the third of the court-ordered 
prudency determinations and proposed critical habitat designations or 
non-designations for 18 Lanai plants (65 FR 82086). The prudency 
determinations and proposed critical habitat designations for Kauai and 
Niihau plants were published on November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808), for 
Maui and Kahoolawe plants on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), and for 
Molokai plants on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83158). All of these 
proposed rules had been sent to the Federal Register by or on November 
30, 2000, as required by the court orders. In those proposals we 
determined that critical habitat was prudent for 33 species (Abutilon 
eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, 
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium 
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea 
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, 
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis 
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. 
lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, 
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, 
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola 
lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) that are reported from Lanai as 
well as on Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Molokai.
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that it was 
prudent to designate approximately 1,953 ha (4,826 ac) on Lanai as 
critical habitat. The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day 
public comment period, which closed on February 26, 2001. On February 
22, 2001, we published a notice (66 FR 11133) announcing the reopening 
of the comment period until April 2, 2001, on the proposal to designate 
critical habitat for plants from Lanai and a notice of a public 
hearing. On March 22, 2001, we held a public hearing at the Lanai 
Public Library Meeting Room, Lanai. On April 6, 2001, we published a 
notice (66 FR 18223) announcing corrections to the proposed rule. These 
corrections included changes to the map of general locations of units 
and new UTM coordinates and increased the total proposed critical 
habitat to 2,034 ha (5,027 ac).
    On October 3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with Earth 
Justice Legal Defense Fund requesting extension of the court order for 
the final rules to

[[Page 9824]]

designate critical habitat for plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30, 
2002), Maui and Kahoolawe (August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16, 
2002), and Molokai (October 16, 2002), citing the need to revise the 
proposals to incorporate or address new information and comments 
received during the comment periods. The joint stipulation was approved 
and ordered by the court on October 5, 2001. On January 28, 2002, in 
the Kauai revised proposal, we determined that designation of critical 
habitat was prudent for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Solanum incompletum, 
two species reported from Lanai as well as Kauai, Maui, and Molokai. 
The designation of critical habitat is proposed for both of these 
species on Lanai. Publication of this revised proposal for plants from 
Lanai is consistent with the court-ordered stipulation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the December 27, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR 82086), we requested 
all interested parties to submit comments on the specifics of the 
proposal, including information, policy, and proposed critical habitat 
boundaries as provided in the proposed rule. The first comment period 
closed on February 26, 2001. We reopened the comment period from 
February 22, 2001, to April 2, 2001 (66 FR 11133), to accept comments 
on the proposed designations and to hold a public hearing on March 22, 
2001, in Lanai City, Lanai.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through 
the publication of notices in the following newspapers: the Honolulu 
Advertiser on January 8, 2001, and the Maui News on January 4, 2001. We 
received one request for a public hearing. We announced the date and 
time of the public hearing in letters mailed to all interested parties, 
appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, and elected 
officials, and in notices published in the Honolulu Advertiser and in 
the Maui News newspapers on March 2, 2001. A transcript of the hearing 
held in Lanai City, Lanai on March 22, 2001, is available for 
inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
    We requested three botanists who have familiarity with Lanai plants 
to peer review the proposed critical habitat designations. One peer 
reviewer submitted comments on the proposed critical habitat 
designations, providing updated biological information, critical 
review, and editorial comments.
    We received a total of two oral comments, three written comments, 
and two comments both in written and oral form during the two comment 
periods. These included responses from one State office, and six 
private organizations or individuals. We reviewed all comments received 
for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat 
and the Lanai plants. Of the seven comments we received, five supported 
designation, one was opposed and one provided information and declined 
to oppose or support the designation. Similar comments were grouped 
into eight general issues relating specifically to the proposed 
critical habitat determinations. These are addressed in the following 
summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

    (1) Comment: The designation of critical habitat for these plant 
species in unoccupied habitat is particularly important, since this may 
be the only mechanism available to ensure that Federal actions do not 
eliminate the habitat needed for the conservation of these species.
    Our Response: We agree. Our recovery plans for these species 
(Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001) identify 
the need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild 
populations within their historical range. We have revised the December 
27, 2000, proposal to include areas of unoccupied habitat for some of 
the species from Lanai.
    (2) Comment: The proposal provides very limited information on the 
criteria and data used to determine the areas proposed as critical 
habitat. For example, some of the data used by the Service was 30 years 
old or older.
    Our Response: When developing the December 27, 2000, proposal to 
designate critical habitat for 18 plants from Lanai, we used the best 
scientific and commercial data available at the time, including but not 
limited to information from the known locations, site-specific species 
information from the HINHP database and our own rare plant database; 
species information from the Center for Plant Conservation's (CPC) rare 
plant monitoring database housed at the University of Hawaii's Lyon 
Arboretum; the final listing rules for these species; recent biological 
surveys and reports; our recovery plans for these species; information 
received in response to outreach materials and requests for species and 
management information we sent to all landowners, land managers, and 
interested parties on the island of Lanai; discussions with botanical 
experts; and recommendations from the Hawaii Pacific Plant Recovery 
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 
1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; HPPRCC 1998; HINHP Database 2000; CPC in 
litt. 1999).
    We have revised the proposed designations to incorporate new 
information, and address comments and new information received during 
the comment periods. This additional information comes from Geographic 
Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, annual 
rainfall, elevation contours, land ownership), and information received 
during the public comment periods and the public hearing (R. Hobdy, in 
litt. 2001; Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 
2001).
    (3) Comment: The proposed critical habitat designations should be 
delayed until a coordinated plan with public input is coordinated.
    Our Response: We must comply with the orders of the Federal courts. 
As stated earlier, on August 10, 1998, the Court ordered us to publish 
proposed critical habitat designations or non-designations for at least 
100 species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations 
or non-designations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002 (24 
F. Supp. 2d 1074). On March 28, 2000, the Court ordered us to integrate 
10 Maui Nui (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the 
schedule for designating critical habitat for the other 245 Hawaiian 
plants.
    On December 27, 2000, we published the third of the court-ordered 
prudency determinations and/or proposed critical habitat designations, 
for 18 Lanai plants (65 FR 82086). On October 5, 2001, the joint 
stipulation with Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund requesting extension 
of the court orders for the final rules to designate critical habitat 
for plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe 
(August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16, 2002), Molokai (October 16, 
2002) was approved and ordered by the court.
    Publication of this revised proposed critical habitat designations 
for Lanai plants is consistent with the court-ordered stipulation.

Issue 2: Site-specific Biological Comments

    (4) Comment: Critical habitat should be designated for Phyllostegia 
glabra var. lanaiensis because habitats have not been adequately 
surveyed and this species may still be extant in the wild.
    Our Response: No change is made here to the prudency determination 
for

[[Page 9825]]

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a species known only from 
Kaiholena on Lanai, published in the December 27, 2000, proposal (65 FR 
82086). Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis has not been seen on Lanai 
for over 80 years. This species was last observed at Kaiholena on Lanai 
in 1914 and has not been observed since. A report of this plant from 
the early 1980s probably was erroneous and should be referred to as 
Phyllostegia glabra var. glabra (R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 1992). In 
addition, this species is not known to be in storage or under 
propagation. Given these circumstances, we determined that designation 
of critical habitat for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis was not 
prudent because such designation would be of no benefit to this 
species. If this species is rediscovered we may revise this proposal to 
incorporate or address new information as new data becomes available 
(See 16 U.S.C. 1532 (5) (B); 50 CFR 424.13(f)).

Issue 3: Legal Issues

    (5) Comment: The Service failed to comply with court deadlines set 
forth in both Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 
1074 (D.Haw. 1998), and Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 
Civ. No. 99-00283 (D.Haw. Mar. 28, 2000).
    Our Response: The proposed rules for plants from Kauai, Niihau, 
Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molokai were sent to the Federal Register 
by or on November 30, 2000, as required by the court orders. On October 
3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with Earth Justice Legal 
Defense Fund requesting extension of the court orders for the final 
rules to designate critical habitat for plants from Kauai and Niihau 
(July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe (August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 
16, 2002), and Molokai (October 16, 2002), citing the need to revise 
the proposals to incorporate or address new information and comments 
received during the comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal 
for plants from Lanai. The joint stipulation was approved and ordered 
by the court on October 5, 2001. Publication of this revised proposal 
for plants from Lanai is consistent with the joint stipulation.
    (6) Comment: The Service should designate critical habitat on the 
Kanepuu Preserves since excluding them potentially violates the 
mandatory duty to designate critical habitat ``to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)).
    Our Response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 
as: (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special 
management consideration or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened 
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer 
necessary.
    The Service found that the plants and their habitats within the 
Kanepuu Preserve receive long-term protection and management and, thus 
these lands are not in need of special management considerations or 
protection. In our December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that the 
lands within the Kanepuu Preserve do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat in the Act, and we did not propose designation of 
these lands as critical habitat. No change is made to this 
determination in this revised proposal. Should the status of this 
preserve change, for example by non-renewal of a partnership agreement 
or termination of funding, we will reconsider whether the lands within 
Kanepuu Preserve meet the definition of critical habitat. If so, we 
have the authority to propose to amend critical habitat to include such 
area at that time 50 CFR 424.12(g).

Issue 4: Mapping and Primary Constituent Elements

    (7a) Comment: The designated areas are too large. (7b) Comment: The 
units are not large enough, and don't allow for changes that occur 
during known environmental processes. (7c) Comment: Make units B, C, D, 
E, F, H, I , and J smaller. (7d) Comment: The highly irregular and 
fragmented shape of proposed units make it difficult to determine if 
projects are within critical habitat.
    Our Response: We have revised the proposed designations published 
in the December 27, 2000, proposal for Lanai plants to incorporate new 
information, and address comments and new information received during 
the comment periods. Areas that contain habitat necessary for the 
conservation of the species were identified and delineated on a species 
by species basis. When species units overlapped, we combined units for 
ease of mapping (see also Methods section). The areas we are proposing 
to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat 
components essential for the conservation of 32 plant species from 
Lanai.

Issue 5: Effects of Designation

    (8) Comment: Designation of critical habitat will result in 
restrictions on subsistence hunting and State hunting programs funded 
under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program (Pittman-
Robertson Program).
    Our Response: We believe that game bird and mammal hunting in 
Hawaii is an important recreational and cultural activity, and we 
support the continuation of this tradition. The designation of critical 
habitat requires Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the Act 
with us on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize that might 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This requirement applies 
to us and includes funds distributed by the Service to the State 
through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program (Pittman-
Robertson Program). Under the Act, activities funded by us or other 
Federal agencies cannot result in jeopardy to listed species, and they 
cannot adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. It is well 
documented that game mammals affect listed plant and animal species. In 
such areas, we believe it is important to develop and implement sound 
land management programs that provide both for the conservation of 
listed species and for continued game hunting. We are committed to 
working closely with the State and other interested parties to ensure 
that game management programs are implemented consistent with this 
need.
    (9) Comment: Critical habitat could be the first step toward making 
the area a national park or refuge.
    Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not in any way 
create a wilderness area, preserve, national park, or wildlife refuge, 
nor does it close an area to human access or use. Its regulatory 
implications apply only to activities sponsored at least in part by 
Federal agencies. Land uses such as logging, grazing, and recreation 
that may require Federal permits may take place if they do not 
adversely modify critical habitat. Critical habitat designations do not 
constitute land management plans.

Summary of Changes From the Previous Proposal

    We originally determined that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent for six plants (Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia 
ssp. gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium 
remyi, and Viola lanaiensis) from the

[[Page 9826]]

island of Lanai on December 27, 2000. In proposals published on 
November 7, 2000, and December 18, 2000, we determined that designation 
of critical habitat was prudent for ten plants that are reported from 
Lanai as well as from Kauai and Niihau, and Maui and Kahoolawe. These 
ten plants are: Bonamia menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana 
ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii (we incorrectly 
determined prudency for this species in the December 27, 2000, proposal 
as well), Hibiscus brackenridgei, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-
wahuensis. In addition, at the time we listed Hedyotis 
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and 
Melicope munroi, on September 3, 1999, we determined that the 
designation of critical habitat was prudent for these three taxa from 
Lanai. No change is made to these 19 prudency determinations in this 
revised proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (64 FR 
48307, 65 FR 82086, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192).
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that critical 
habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a 
species endemic to Lanai, because it had not been seen since 1914 and 
no viable genetic material of this species is known to exist. No change 
is made here to the December 27, 2000, prudency determination for 
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis and it is hereby incorporated by 
reference (65 FR 82086).
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we proposed designation of 
critical habitat for 18 plants from the island of Lanai. These species 
are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana 
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, 
Melicope munroi, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, 
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In this proposal, we have 
revised the proposed designations for these 18 plants based on new 
information received during the comment periods. In addition, we 
incorporate new information, and address comments and new information 
received during the comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal.
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal, we did not propose designation 
of critical habitat on Lanai for 17 species that no longer occur on 
Lanai but are reported from one or more other islands. We determined 
that critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species (Adenophorus 
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Mariscus faurei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) in 
other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808), 
December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83157), and 
January 28, 2002 (67 FR 3940). In this proposal we incorporate the 
prudency determinations for these 16 species and propose designation of 
critical habitat for Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. 
kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, 
Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, 
Sesbania tomentosa, and Solanum incompletum on the island of Lanai, 
based on new information and information received during the comment 
periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is not 
proposed on Lanai for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense because they no longer occur on Lanai and we are 
unable to identify habitat which is essential to their conservation on 
this island.
    In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat is prudent for 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum for which a prudency 
determination has not been made previously, and that no longer occurs 
on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu). However, 
critical habitat for this species is not included in this proposal 
because it no longer occurs on Lanai and we are unable to identify 
habitat which is essential to its conservation on this island.
    Based on a review of new biological information and public comments 
received we have revised our December 27, 2000, proposal to incorporate 
the following additional changes: changes in our approach to 
delineating proposed critical habitat (see Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat); adjustment and refinement of previously identified 
critical habitat units to more accurately follow the natural 
topographic features and to avoid nonessential landscape features 
(agricultural crops, urban or rural development) without primary 
constituent elements; and inclusion of new areas, such as Hawaiilanui 
Gulch within unit Lanai C and Paliamano Gulch within unit Lanai F, that 
are essential for the conservation of one or more of the 32 plant 
species.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added 
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not 
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply 
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve 
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any 
additional regulatory protections under the Act.
    Critical habitat also provides non-regulatory benefits to the 
species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are 
important for species recovery and where conservation actions would be 
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where

[[Page 9827]]

significant threats to the species have been identified to help to 
avoid accidental damage to such areas.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using 
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide at least one of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species (primary constituent elements, as 
defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that 
not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be designated as 
critical habitat unless the Secretary determines that all such areas 
are essential to the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 
CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, 
establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that decisions 
made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data 
available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, use primary and original sources of information as the 
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should be the listing rule for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or 
other unpublished materials.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas 
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as determined 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of the 
action. Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species 
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in 
jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls 
for a different outcome.

A. Prudency Redeterminations

    We originally determined that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent for six plants (Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia 
ssp. gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium 
remyi, and Viola lanaiensis) from the island of Lanai on December 27, 
2000. In proposals published on November 7, 2000, and December 18, 
2000, we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent 
for ten plants that are reported from Lanai as well as from Kauai and 
Niihau, and Maui and Kahoolawe. These ten plants are: Bonamia 
menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis. In addition, at the time we listed 
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. 
lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, on September 3, 1999, we determined 
that the designation of critical habitat was prudent for these three 
taxa from Lanai. No change is made to these 19 prudency determinations 
in this revised proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference 
(64 FR 48307, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 82086).
    No change is made here to the prudency determination for 
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a species known only from Lanai, 
published in the December 27, 2000, proposal and hereby incorporated by 
reference (65 FR 82086). Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis has not 
been seen on Lanai since 1914. In addition, this plant is not known to 
be in storage or under propagation. Given these circumstances, we 
determined that designation of critical habitat for Phyllostegia glabra 
var. lanaiensis was not prudent because such designation would be of no 
benefit to this taxon. If this species is rediscovered we may revise 
this proposal to incorporate or address new information as new data 
becomes available (See 16 U.S.C. 1532 (5) (B); 50 CFR 424.13(f)).
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal, we did not determine prudency 
nor propose designation of critical habitat for 17 species that no 
longer occur on Lanai but are reported from one or more other islands. 
We determined that critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species 
(Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia 
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania 
tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense) in other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000 
(Kauai and Niihau), December 18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), December 
29, 2000 (Molokai), and January 28, 2002 (Kauai reproposal). No change 
is made to these prudency determinations for these 16 species in this 
proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808, 65 
FR 79192, 65 FR 83158, 65 FR 83157, 67 FR 3940). Critical habitat is 
not proposed for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense on the island of Lanai because we are unable to identify 
habitat which is essential to their conservation on this island.
    To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for 
Tetramolopium lepidotum spp. lepidotum, a species for which a prudency 
determination has not been made previously, and that no longer occurs 
on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu) we analyzed the 
potential threats and benefits for this species in accordance with the 
court orders. This plant was listed as an endangered species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) in 1991. At that time, 
we determined that designation of critical habitat for Tetramolopium 
lepidotum spp. lepidotum was not prudent because

[[Page 9828]]

designation would increase the degree of threat to this species and/or 
would not benefit the plant. We examined the evidence available for 
this species and have not, at this time, found specific evidence of 
taking, vandalism, collection or trade of this species or of similar 
species. Consequently, while we remain concerned that these activities 
could potentially threaten T. lepidotum ssp. lepidotum in the future, 
consistent with applicable regulations (50 CFR 424, 12(a)(1)(i)) and 
the court's discussion of these regulations, we do not find that this 
species is currently threatened by taking or other human activity, 
which would be exacerbated by the designation of critical habitat. In 
the absence of finding that critical habitat would increase threats to 
a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat designation, 
then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include: 
(1) Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas where it would not 
otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or 
the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on 
the most essential areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State 
or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people 
from causing inadvertent harm to the species. In the case of T. 
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum there would be some benefits to critical 
habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the 
section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any 
action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is reported from Federal lands 
on Oahu (the U.S. Army's Schofield Barracks Military Reservation) where 
actions are subject to section 7 consultation, as well as on State and 
private lands. Although currently there may be limited Federal 
activities on these State and private lands, there could be Federal 
actions affecting these lands in the future. While a critical habitat 
designation for habitat currently occupied by T. lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum would not likely change the section 7 consultation outcome, 
since an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical 
habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species, 
there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered 
only if critical habitat were designated. There may also be some 
educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical 
habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of landowner(s), 
land managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting 
the habitat of this species and dissemination of information regarding 
its essential habitat requirements. Therefore, we propose that 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for Tetramolopium lepidotum 
ssp. lepidotum.

B. Methods

    As required by the Act (section 4(b)(2)) and regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12, we used the best scientific data available to determine areas 
that are essential to conserve Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus 
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia 
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana 
ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, 
Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis 
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. 
lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, 
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum 
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis, 
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. This information included the known 
locations, site-specific species information from the HINHP database 
and our own rare plant database; species information from the CPC's 
rare plant monitoring database housed at the University of Hawaii's 
Lyon Arboretum; island-wide GIS coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, 
annual rainfall, elevation contours, land ownership); the final listing 
rules for these 36 species; the December 27, 2000, proposal; 
information received during the public comment periods and the public 
hearing; recent biological surveys and reports; our recovery plans for 
these species; information received in response to outreach materials 
and requests for species and management information we sent to all 
landowners, land managers, and interested parties on the island of 
Lanai; discussions with botanical experts; and recommendations from the 
HPPRCC (see also the discussion below) (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 
1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; HPPRCC 1998; HINHP Database 2000, CPC 
in litt. 1999; 65 FR 82086; GDSI 2000).
    In 1994, the HPPRCC initiated an effort to identify and map habitat 
it believed to be important for the recovery of 282 endangered and 
threatened Hawaiian plant species. The HPPRCC identified these areas on 
most of the islands in the Hawaiian chain, and in 1999, we published 
them in our Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island Plants (Service 1999). 
The HPPRCC expects there will be subsequent efforts to further refine 
the locations of important habitat areas and that new survey 
information or research may also lead to additional refinement of 
identifying and mapping of habitat important for the recovery of these 
species.
    The HPPRCC identified essential habitat areas for all listed, 
proposed, and candidate plants and evaluated species of concern to 
determine if essential habitat areas would provide for their habitat 
needs. However, the HPPRCC's mapping of habitat is distinct from the 
regulatory designation of critical habitat as defined by the Act. More 
data has been collected since the recommendations made by the HPPRCC in 
1998. Much of the area that was identified by the HPPRCC as 
inadequately surveyed has now been surveyed in some way. New location 
data for many species has been gathered. Also, the HPPRCC identified 
areas as essential based on species clusters (areas that included 
listed species as well as candidate species, and species of concern) 
while we have only delineated areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the 32 listed species at issue. As a result, the 
proposed critical habitat designations in this proposed rule include 
not only some habitat that was identified as essential in the 1998 
recommendation but also habitat that was not identified as essential in 
those recommendations.

C. Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. Such requirements 
include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, germination, 
or seed dispersal; and habitats that are

[[Page 9829]]

protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we identified the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential to the conservation 
of the 19 species on the island of Lanai (65 FR 82086). Based on new 
information and information received during the comment periods on the 
December 27, 2000, proposal we have revised our description of these 
physical and biological features in this proposal.
    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we did not propose designation 
of critical habitat for the 16 species that no longer occur on Lanai 
but are reported from one or more other islands and for which we had 
determined, in other rules, that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent. Based on new information and information received during the 
comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal, we have identified 
the physical and biological features on Lanai that are considered 
essential to the conservation of 13 of the 16 species. We are unable to 
identify these features for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and 
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, which no longer occur on the island of Lanai, 
because information on the physical and biological features (i.e., the 
primary constituent elements) that are considered essential to the 
conservation of these three species on Lanai is not known. Mariscus 
faurei and Silene lanceolata have not been observed on Lanai since 1930 
while Zanthoxylum hawaiiense has not been observed on Lanai since 1947, 
and we are not able to identify the primary constituent elements that 
are considered essential to their conservation on Lanai from the 
historical records. Therefore, we were not able to identify the 
specific areas outside the geographic areas occupied by these species 
at the time of their listing (unoccupied habitat) that are essential 
for the conservation of these species on the island of Lanai. However, 
proposed critical habitat designations for Mariscus fauriei, Silene 
lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense were included in proposals 
published on November 7, 2000, December 18, 2000, or on December 29, 
2000 (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 83158). In addition, we will 
consider proposing designation of critical habitat for Mariscus 
fauriei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense within the 
historic range for each species on other Hawaiian islands.
    In this proposal, we determine that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for one species (Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 
lepidotum) for which a prudency determination has not been made 
previously, and that no longer occurs on Lanai but is reported from one 
other island (Oahu). We are unable to identify the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for the conservation 
of Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, which no longer occurs on 
the island of Lanai, because information on the physical and biological 
features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that are considered 
essential to the conservation of this species on Lanai is not known. 
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum has not been observed on Lanai 
since 1928, and we are not able to identify the primary constituent 
elements that are considered essential to its conservation on Lanai 
from the historical record. Therefore, we are not able to identify the 
specific areas outside the geographic areas occupied by this species at 
the time of its listing (unoccupied habitat or where the species is not 
present) that are essential for the conservation of Tetramolopium 
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the island of Lanai. However, we will 
consider proposing designation of critical habitat for Tetramolopium 
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum within the historic range for this species on 
other Hawaiian islands.
    All areas proposed as critical habitat are within the historical 
range of one or more of the 32 species at issue and contain one or more 
of the physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) 
essential for the conservation of one or more of the species.
    As described in the discussions for each of the 32 species for 
which we are proposing critical habitat, we are proposing to define the 
primary constituent elements on the basis of the habitat features of 
the areas from which the plant species are reported, as described by 
the type of plant community, associated native plant species, locale 
information (e.g., steep rocky cliffs, talus slopes, stream banks), and 
elevation. The habitat features provide the ecological components 
required by the plant. The type of plant community and associated 
native plant species indicates specific microclimate conditions, 
retention and availability of water in the soil, soil microorganism 
community, and nutrient cycling and availability. The locale indicates 
information on soil type, elevation, rainfall regime, and temperature. 
Elevation indicates information on daily and seasonal temperature and 
sun intensity. Therefore, the descriptions of the physical elements of 
the locations of each of these species, including habitat type, plant 
communities associated with the species, location, and elevation, as 
described in the Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant 
Taxa section above, constitute the primary constituent elements for 
these species on the island of Lanai.

D. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In the December 27, 2000, proposal we defined the primary 
constituent elements based on the general habitat features of the areas 
in which the plants currently occur such as the type of plant community 
the plants are growing in, their physical location (e.g., steep rocky 
cliffs, talus slopes, stream banks), and elevation. The areas we 
proposed to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the 
habitat components essential for the conservation of the 18 plant 
species. Specific details regarding the delineation of the proposed 
critical habitat units are given in the December 27, 2000, proposal (65 
FR 82086). In that proposal we did not include potentially suitable 
unoccupied habitat that is important to the conservation of the 18 
species due to our limited knowledge of the historical range (the 
geographical area outside the area presently occupied by the species) 
and our lack of more detailed information on the specific physical or 
biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
    However, following publication of the December 27, 2000 (65 FR 
82086) proposal we received new information regarding the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for the conservation 
of many of these 32 species and information on potentially suitable 
habitat within the historical range for many of these species. Based on 
a review of this new biological information and public comments 
received following publication of the other three proposals to 
designate critical habitat for Hawaiian plants on Kauai and Niihau (65 
FR 66808), Maui and Kahoolawe (65 FR 79192), and Molokai (65 FR 83158), 
we have reevaluated the manner in which we delineated proposed critical 
habitat. In addition, we met with members of the HPPRCC, and State, 
Federal, and private entities to discuss criteria and methods to 
delineate critical habitat units for these Hawaiian plants.
    The lack of detailed scientific data on the life history of these 
plant species makes it impossible for us to develop a robust 
quantitative model (e.g., population viability analysis (NRC 1995)) to 
identify the optimal number, size, and location of critical habitat 
units to achieve recovery (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; Burgman et al. 
2001; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Menges 1990;

[[Page 9830]]

Murphy et al. 1990; Taylor 1995). At this time, and consistent with the 
listing of these species and their recovery plans, the best available 
information leads us to conclude that the current size and distribution 
of the extant populations are not sufficient to expect a reasonable 
probability of long-term survival and recovery of these plant species. 
Therefore, we used available information, including expert scientific 
opinion, to identify potentially suitable habitat within the known 
historic range of each species.
    We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of 
specific boundaries for critical habitat for these 32 species. For each 
of these species, the overall recovery strategy outlined in the 
approved recovery plans includes: (1) stabilization of existing wild 
populations, (2) protection and management of habitat, (3) enhancement 
of existing small populations and reestablishment of new populations 
within historic range, and (4) research on species' biology and ecology 
(Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). Thus, the 
long-term recovery of these species is dependent upon the protection of 
existing population sites and potentially suitable unoccupied habitat 
within their historic range.
    The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of 
these species includes the establishment of 8 to 10 populations with a 
minimum of 100 mature individuals per population for long-lived 
perennials, 300 individuals per population for short-lived perennials, 
and 500 mature individuals per population for annuals. There are some 
specific exceptions to this general recovery goal of 8 to 10 
populations for species that are believed to be very narrowly 
distributed on a single island (e.g., Gahnia lanaiensis and Viola 
lanaiensis), and the proposed critical habitat designations reflect 
this exception for these species. To be considered recovered each 
population of a species endemic to the island of Lanai should occur on 
the island to which it is endemic, and likewise the populations of a 
multi-island species should be distributed among the islands of its 
known historic range (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 
1999, 2001). A population, for the purposes of this discussion and as 
defined in the recovery plans for these species, is a unit in which the 
individuals could be regularly cross-pollinated and influenced by the 
same small-scale events (such as landslides), and which contains 100, 
300, or 500 individuals, depending on whether the species is a long-
lived perennial, short-lived perennial, or annual.
    By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the 
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events 
and catastrophes, such as landslides, hurricanes or tsunamis, that 
could destroy a large percentage of a species at any one time, may be 
reduced (Menges 1990, Podolsky 2001). These recovery objectives were 
initially developed by the HPPRCC and are found in all of the recovery 
plans for these species. While they are expected to be further refined 
as more information on the population biology of each species becomes 
available, the justification for these objectives is found in the 
current conservation biology literature addressing the conservation of 
rare and endangered plants and animals (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; 
Burgman et al. 2001; Falk et al. 1996; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Hendrix 
and Kyhl 2000; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Luijten et al. 2000; Meffe 
and Carroll 1996; Podolsky 2001; Menges 1990; Murphy et al. 1990; 
Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996; Taylor 1995; Tear et al. 1995; Wolf 
and Harrison 2001). The overall goal of recovery in the short-term is a 
successful population that can carry on basic life-history processes, 
such as establishment, reproduction, and dispersal, at a level where 
the probability of extinction is low. In the long-term, the species and 
its populations should be at a reduced risk of extinction and be 
adaptable to environmental change through evolution and migration.
    The long-term objectives, as reviewed by Pavlik (1996), require 
from 50 to 2,500 individuals per population, based largely on research 
and theoretical modeling on endangered animals, since much less 
research has been done on endangered plants. Many aspects of species 
life history are typically considered to determine guidelines for 
species interim stability and recovery, including longevity, breeding 
system, growth form, fecundity, ramet (a plant that is an independent 
member of a clone) production, survivorship, seed duration, 
environmental variation, and successional stage of the habitat. 
Hawaiian species are poorly studied, and the only one of these 
characteristics that can be uniformly applied to all Hawaiian plant 
species is longevity (i.e., long-lived perennial, short-lived 
perennial, and annual). In general, long-lived woody perennial species 
would be expected to be viable at population levels of 50 to 250 
individuals per population, while short-lived perennial species would 
be viable at population levels of 1,500 to 2,500 individuals or more 
per population. These population numbers were refined for Hawaiian 
plant species by the HPPRCC (1994) due to the restricted distribution 
of suitable habitat typical of Hawaiian plants and the likelihood of 
smaller genetic diversity of several species that evolved from one 
single introduction. For recovery of Hawaiian plants, the HPPRCC 
recommended a general recovery guideline of 100 mature individuals per 
population for long-lived perennial species, 300 individuals per 
population for short-lived perennial species, and 500 individuals per 
population for annual species.
    The HPPRCC also recommended the conservation and establishment of 8 
to 10 populations to address the numerous risks to the long-term 
survival and conservation of Hawaiian plant species. Although absent 
the detailed information inherent to the types of PVA models described 
above (Burgman et al. 2001), this approach employs two widely 
recognized and scientifically accepted goals for promoting viable 
populations of listed species--(1) creation or maintenance of multiple 
populations so that a single or series of catastrophic events cannot 
destroy the entire listed species (Luijten et al. 2000; Menges 1990; 
Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996); and (2) increasing the size of each 
population in the respective critical habitat units to a level where 
the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental 
uncertainties are diminished (Hendrix and Kyhl 2000; Luijten et al. 
2000; Meffe and Carroll 1996; Podolsky 2001; Service 1997; Tear et al. 
1995; Wolf and Harrison 2001). In general, the larger the number of 
populations and the larger the size of each population, the lower the 
probability of extinction (Raup 1991; Meffe and Carroll 1996). This 
basic conservation principle of redundancy applies to Hawaiian plant 
species. By maintaining 8 to 10 viable populations in the several 
proposed critical habitat units, the threats represented by a 
fluctuating environment are alleviated and the species has a greater 
likelihood of achieving long-term survival and conservation. 
Conversely, loss of one or more of the plant populations within any 
critical habitat unit could result in an increase in the risk that the 
entire listed species may not survive and recover.
    Due to the reduced size of suitable habitat areas for these 
Hawaiian plant species, they are now more susceptible to the variations 
and weather fluctuations affecting quality and quantity of available 
habitat, as well as direct pressure from hundreds of

[[Page 9831]]

species of non-native plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8 
to 10 viable populations on one or more island(s) within the historic 
range of the species will provide each species with a reasonable 
expectation of persistence and eventual recovery, even with the high 
potential that one or more of these populations will be eliminated by 
normal or random adverse events, such as hurricanes which occurred in 
1982 and 1992 on Kauai, fires, and alien plant invasions (HPPRCC 1994; 
Luijten et al. 2000; Mangel and Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey and 
Taper 1992). We conclude that designation of adequate suitable habitat 
for 8 to 10 populations as critical habitat is essential give the 
species a reasonable likelihood of long-term survival and recovery, 
based on currently available information.
    In summary, the long-term survival and recovery requires the 
designation of critical habitat units on one or more of the Hawaiian 
islands with suitable habitat for 8 to 10 populations of each plant 
species. Some of this habitat is currently not known to be occupied by 
these species. To recover the species, it will be necessary to conserve 
suitable habitat in these unoccupied units, which in turn will allow 
for the establishment of additional populations through natural 
recruitment or managed reintroductions. Establishment of these 
additional populations will increase the likelihood that the species 
will survive and recover in the face of normal and stochastic events 
(e.g., hurricanes, fire, and non-native species introductions) (Pimm et 
al. 1998; Stacey and Taper 1992; Mangel and Tier 1994).
    In this proposal, we have defined the primary constituent elements 
based on the general habitat features of the areas in which the plants 
are reported from such as the type of plant community, the associated 
native plant species, the physical location (e.g., steep rocky cliffs, 
talus slopes, streambanks), and elevation. The areas we are proposing 
to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat 
components essential for the conservation of the 32 plant species.
    Changes in our approach to delineate proposed critical habitat 
units were incorporated in the following manner:
    1. We focused on designating units representative of the known 
current and historical geographic and elevational range of each 
species;
    2. Proposed critical habitat units would allow for expansion of 
existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations 
within historic range, as recommended by the recovery plans for each 
species; and
    3. Critical habitat boundaries were delineated in such a way that 
areas with overlapping occupied or suitable unoccupied habitat could be 
depicted clearly (multi-species units).
    We began by creating rough units for each species by screen 
digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcView (ESRI), a computer GIS 
program. The polygons were created by overlaying current and historic 
plant location points onto digital topographic maps of each of the 
islands.
    The resulting shape files (delineating historic elevational range 
and potential, suitable habitat) were then evaluated. Elevation ranges 
were further refined and land areas identified as not suitable for a 
particular species (i.e., not containing the primary constituent 
elements) were avoided. The resulting shape files for each species then 
were considered to define all suitable habitat on the island, including 
occupied and unoccupied habitat.
    These shape files of suitable habitat were further evaluated. 
Several factors were then used to delineate the proposed critical 
habitat units from these land areas. We reviewed the recovery 
objectives as described above and in recovery plans for each of the 
species to determine if the number of populations and population size 
requirements needed for conservation would be available within the 
critical habitat units identified as containing the appropriate primary 
constituent elements for each species. If more than the area needed for 
the number of recovery populations was identified as potentially 
suitable, only those areas within the least disturbed suitable habitat 
were designated as proposed critical habitat. A population for this 
purpose is defined as a discrete aggregation of individuals located a 
sufficient distance from a neighboring aggregation such that the two 
are not affected by the same small-scale events and are not believed to 
be consistently cross-pollinated. In the absence of more specific 
information indicating the appropriate distance to assure limited 
cross-pollination, we are using a distance of 1,000 m (3,281 ft) based 
on our review of current literature on gene flow (Barret and Kohn 1991; 
Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; M.H. Schierup and F.B. 
Christiansen 1996). For each multi-island species we evaluated areas 
that have been proposed as critical habitat for each species in other 
published critical habitat proposals to determine if additional areas 
were essential on Lanai for the conservation of the species. If 
additional areas, on Lanai, were determined to be essential for the 
species' conservation we then followed the afore-mentioned protocol to 
delineate proposed critical habitat for the species.
    Using the above criteria, we delineated the proposed critical 
habitat for each species. When species units overlapped, we combined 
units for ease of mapping. Such critical habitat units encompass a 
number of plant communities. Using satellite imagery and parcel data we 
then eliminated areas that did not contain the appropriate vegetation 
or associated native plant species, as well as features such as 
cultivated agriculture fields, housing developments, and other areas 
that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of one or more of 
the 32 plant species. Geographic features (ridge lines, valleys, 
streams, coastlines, etc.) or man-made features (roads or obvious land 
use) that created an obvious boundary for a unit were used as unit area 
boundaries. We also used watershed delineations for some larger 
proposed critical habitat units in order to simplify the unit mapping 
and their descriptions.
    Within the critical habitat boundaries, section 7 consultation is 
generally necessary and adverse modification could occur only if the 
primary constituent elements are affected. Therefore, not all 
activities within critical habitat would trigger an adverse 
modification conclusion. In defining critical habitat boundaries, we 
made an effort to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other 
similar lands, that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of 
the 32 species. However, the minimum mapping unit that we used to 
approximate our delineation of critical habitat for these species did 
not allow us to exclude all such developed areas. In addition, existing 
man-made features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped 
unit, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, telecommunications 
equipment, radars, telemetry antennas, missile launch sites, arboreta 
and gardens, heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines), airports, 
other paved areas, and other rural residential landscaped areas do not 
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements and would be 
excluded under the terms of this proposed regulation. Federal actions 
limited to those areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation 
unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in 
adjacent critical habitat.
    In summary, for most of these species we utilized the approved 
recovery plan guidance to identify appropriately sized land units 
containing suitable occupied and unoccupied habitat. Based on the

[[Page 9832]]

best available information, we believe these areas constitute the 
habitat necessary on Lanai to provide for the recovery of these 32 
species.

E. Managed Lands

    Currently occupied and historically known sites containing one or 
more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the 
conservation of these 32 plant species were examined to determine if 
additional special management considerations or protection are required 
above those currently provided. We reviewed all available management 
information on these plants at these sites, including published reports 
and surveys; annual performance and progress reports; management plans; 
grants; memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements; DOFAW 
planning documents; internal letters and memos; biological assessments 
and environmental impact statements; and section 7 consultations. 
Additionally, we contacted the major private landowner on Lanai by mail 
and we met with the landowner's representatives in April 2000 to 
discuss their current management for the plants on their lands. We also 
met with Maui County DOFAW office staff to discuss management 
activities they are conducting on Lanai. In addition, we reviewed new 
biological information and public comments received during the public 
comment periods and at the public hearing.
    Pursuant to the definition of critical habitat in section 3 of the 
Act, the primary constituent elements as found in any area so 
designated must also require ``special management considerations or 
protections.'' Adequate special management or protection is provided by 
a legally operative plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement 
of the essential elements and provides for the long-term conservation 
of the species. We consider a plan adequate when it: (1) provides a 
conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must maintain or 
provide for an increase in the species' population or the enhancement 
or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by the plan); (2) 
provides assurances that the management plan will be implemented (i.e., 
those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of 
accomplishing the objectives, have an implementation schedule and have 
adequate funding for the management plan); and, (3) provides assurances 
the conservation plan will be effective (i.e., it identifies biological 
goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration 
sufficient to implement the plan and achieves the plan's goals and 
objectives). If an area is covered by a plan that meets these criteria, 
it does not constitute critical habitat as defined by the Act because 
the primary constituent elements found there are not in need of special 
management.
    In determining whether a management plan or agreement provides a 
conservation benefit to the species, we considered the following:
    (1) The factors that led to the listing of the species, as 
described in the final rules for listing each of the species. Effects 
of clearing and burning for agricultural purposes and of invasive non-
native plant and animal species have contributed to the decline of 
nearly all endangered and threatened plants in Hawaii (Smith 1985; 
Howarth 1985; Stone 1985; Wagner et al. 1985; Scott et al. 1986; 
Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Vitousek 1992; Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 
1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Loope 1998).
    Current threats to these species include non-native grass and 
shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from 
feral ungulates (including goats, deer, and pigs); direct and indirect 
effects of non-native plant invasions, including alteration of habitat 
structure and microclimate; and disruption of pollination and gene-flow 
processes by adverse effects of mosquito-borne avian disease on forest 
bird pollinators, direct competition between native and non-native 
insect pollinators for food, and predation of native insect pollinators 
by non-native hymenopteran insects (ants). In addition, physiological 
processes such as reproduction and establishment continue to be stifled 
by fruit and flower eating pests such as non-native arthropods, 
mollusks, and rats, and photosynthesis and water transport affected by 
non-native insects, pathogens, and diseases. Many of these factors 
interact with one another, thereby compounding effects. Such 
interactions include non-native plant invasions altering wildfire 
regimes, feral ungulates vectoring weeds and disturbing vegetation and 
soils thereby facilitating dispersal and establishment of non-native 
plants, and numerous non-native insects feeding on native plants, 
thereby increasing their vulnerability and exposure to pathogens and 
disease (Howarth 1985; Smith 1985; Scott et al. 1986; Cuddihy and Stone 
1990; Mack 1992; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Tunison et al. 1992; 
Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Bruegmann 
et al. 2001);
    (2) The recommendations from the HPPRCC in their 1998 report to us 
(``Habitat Essential to the Recovery of Hawaiian Plants''). As 
summarized in this report, recovery goals for endangered Hawaiian plant 
species cannot be achieved without the effective control of non-native 
species threats, wildfire, and land use changes; and
    (3) The management actions needed for assurance of survival and 
ultimate recovery of Hawaii's endangered plants. These actions are 
described in our recovery plans for these 32 species (Service 1995, 
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001), in the 1998 HPPRCC 
report to us (HPPRCC 1998), and in various other documents and 
publications relating to plant conservation in Hawaii (Mueller-Dombois 
1985; Smith 1985; Stone 1985; Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Stone et al. 
1992). In addition to monitoring the plant populations, these actions 
include, but are not limited to: (1) Feral ungulate control; (2) 
nonnative plant control; (3) rodent control; (4) invertebrate pest 
control; (5) fire management; (6) maintenance of genetic material of 
the endangered and threatened plants species; (7) propagation, 
reintroduction, and augmentation of existing populations into areas 
deemed essential for the recovery of these species; (8) ongoing 
management of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; and (9) 
habitat management and restoration in areas deemed essential for the 
recovery of these species.
    In general, taking all of the above recommended management actions 
into account, the following management actions are ranked in order of 
importance (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 
2001): feral ungulate control; wildfire management; non-native plant 
control; rodent control; invertebrate pest control; maintenance of 
genetic material of the endangered and threatened plant species; 
propagation, reintroduction, and augmentation of existing populations 
into areas deemed essential for the recovery of the species; ongoing 
management of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; 
maintenance of natural pollinators and pollinating systems, when known; 
habitat management and restoration in areas deemed essential for the 
recovery of the species; monitoring of the wild, outplanted, and 
augmented populations; rare plant surveys; and control of human 
activities/access. On a case-by-case basis, some of these actions may 
rise to a higher level of importance for a particular species or area, 
depending on the biological and physical

[[Page 9833]]

requirements of the species and the location(s) of the individual 
plants.
    As shown in Table 3, the proposed critical habitat designations for 
32 species of plants are found on private lands on the island of Lanai. 
Information received in response to our public notices, meetings with 
representatives of the landowner and Maui County, DOFAW staff, the 
December 27, 2000, proposal, public comment periods, and the March 22, 
2001, public hearing, as well as information in our files, indicated 
that there is little on-going conservation management action for these 
plants, except as noted below. Without management plans and assurances 
that the plans will be implemented, we are unable to find that the land 
in question does not require special management or protection.

Private Lands

    One species (Bonamia menziesii) is reported from The Nature 
Conservancy of Hawaii's Kanepuu Preserve which is located in the 
northeast central portion of Lanai (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; The 
Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH) 1997). This preserve was 
established by a grant of a perpetual conservation easement from the 
private landowner to TNCH and is included in the State's Natural Area 
Partnership (NAP) program, which provides matching funds for the 
management of private lands that have been permanently dedicated to 
conservation (TNCH 1997).
    Under the NAP program, the State of Hawaii provides matching funds 
on a two-for-one basis for management of private lands dedicated to 
conservation. In order to qualify for this program, the land must be 
dedicated in perpetuity through transfer of fee title or a conservation 
easement to the State or a cooperating entity. The land must be managed 
by the cooperating entity or a qualified landowner according to a 
detailed management plan approved by the Board of Land and Natural 
Resources. Once approved, the 6-year partnership agreement between the 
State and the managing entity is automatically renewed each year so 
that there is always 6 years remaining in the term, although the 
management plan is updated and funding amounts are re-authorized by the 
board at least every 6 years. By April 1 of any year, the managing 
partner may notify the State that it does not intend to renew the 
agreement; however, in such case the partnership agreement remains in 
effect for the balance of the existing 6 year term, and the 
conservation easement remains in full effect in perpetuity. The 
conservation easement may be revoked by the landowner only if State 
funding is terminated without the concurrence of the landowner and 
cooperating entity. Prior to terminating funding, the State must 
conduct one or more public hearings. The NAP program is funded through 
real estate conveyance taxes which are placed in a Natural Area Reserve 
Fund. Participants in the NAP program must provide annual reports to 
the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), and DLNR 
makes annual inspections of the work in the reserve areas. See Haw. 
Rev. Stat. Secs. 195-1-195-11, and Hawaii Administrative Rules Sec. 13-
210.
    The management program within the preserve is documented in long-
range management plans and yearly operational plans. These plans detail 
management measures that protect, restore, and enhance the rare plant 
and its habitat within the preserve (TNCH 1997, 1998, 1999). These 
management measures address the factors which led to the listing of 
this species including control of non-native species of ungulates, 
rodents, and weeds; and fire control. In addition, habitat restoration 
and monitoring are also included in these plans.
    The primary goals within Kanepuu Preserve are to: (1) Control non-
native species; (2) suppress wildfires; and (3) restore the integrity 
of the dryland forest ecosystem through monitoring and research. 
Specific management actions to address feral ungulates include the 
replacement of fences around some of the management units with 
Benzinal-coated wire fences as well as staff hunting and implementation 
of a volunteer hunting program with the DLNR. Additionally, a small 
mammal control program has been established to prevent small mammals 
from damaging rare native species and limit their impact on the 
preserve's overall native biota.
    To prevent further displacement of native vegetation by non-native 
plants, a non-native plant control plan has been developed, which 
includes monitoring of previously treated areas, and the control of 
non-native plants in management units with restoration projects.
    The fire control program focuses on suppression and pre-
suppression. Suppression activities consist of coordination with State 
and county fire-fighting agencies to develop a Wildfire Management Plan 
for the preserve (TNCH 1998). Pre-suppression activities include mowing 
inside and outside of the fence line to minimize fuels.
    A restoration, research, and monitoring program has been developed 
at Kanepuu to create a naturally regenerating Nestegis sandwicensis-
Diospyros sandwicensis dryland forest, and expand the current range of 
native-dominated vegetation. Several years of casual observation 
indicate that substantial natural regeneration is occurring within 
native forest patches in the deer-free units (TNCH 1999). A draft of 
the Kanepuu Restoration Plan was completed in June 1999. This plan 
identifies sites for rare plant outplanting and other restoration 
activities. Monitoring is an important component to measure the success 
or failure rate of the animal and weed control programs. Management of 
these non-native species control programs is continually amended to 
preserve the ecological integrity of the preserve.
    Because this plant and its habitat within the preserve is protected 
and managed, this area is not in need of special management 
considerations or protection. Therefore, we have determined that the 
private land within Kanepuu Preserve does not meet the definition of 
critical habitat in the Act, and we are not proposing to designate this 
land as critical habitat. Should the status of this reserve change, for 
example, by non-renewal of the partnership agreement or termination of 
NAP funding, we will reconsider whether it meets the definition of 
critical habitat, and if so, we may propose to amend critical habitat 
to include the preserve at that time (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
    We believe that Kanepuu Preserve is the only potential critical 
habitat area on Lanai at this time that does not require special 
management considerations or protection. However, we are specifically 
soliciting comments on the appropriateness of this approach. If we 
receive information during the public comment period that any of the 
lands within the proposed designations are actively managed to promote 
the conservation and recovery of the 32 listed species at issue in this 
proposed designation, in accordance with long term conservation 
management plans or agreements, and there are assurances that the 
proposed management actions will be implemented and effective, we can 
consider this information when making a final determination of critical 
habitat. We are also soliciting comments on whether future development 
and approval of conservation measures (e.g., Conservation Agreements, 
Safe Harbor Agreements) should trigger revision of designated critical 
habitat to exclude such lands and, if so, by what mechanism.
    The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our 
best

[[Page 9834]]

assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the 
conservation of the 32 plant species, and the special management needs 
of these species, and are based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available and described above. We put forward this revised 
proposal acknowledging that we have incomplete information regarding 
many of the primary biological and physical requirements for these 
species. However, both the Act and the relevant court orders require us 
to proceed with designation at this time based on the best information 
available. As new information accrues, we may reevaluate which areas 
warrant critical habitat designation. We anticipate that comments 
received through the public review process will provide us with 
additional information to use in our decision-making process and in 
assessing the potential impacts of designating critical habitat for one 
or more of these species.
    The approximate areas of proposed critical habitat by landownership 
or jurisdiction are shown in Table 5.
    Proposed critical habitat includes habitat for these 32 species 
predominantly on the eastern side of Lanai in the Lanaihale area. Lands 
proposed as critical habitat have been divided into 8 units (Lanai A 
through Lanai H). A brief description of each unit is presented below.

  Table 5.--Approximate Proposed Critical Habitat Area by Unit and Land Ownership or Jurisdiction, Maui County,
                                                   Hawaii.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Unit name                 State/Local           Private             Federal              Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai A.........................  ..................  574 ha (1,418 ac).  ..................  574 ha (1,418 ac)
Lanai B.........................  ..................  551 ha (1,363 ac).  ..................  551 ha (1,363 ac)
Lanai C.........................  ..................  222 ha (549 ac)...  ..................  222 ha (549 ac)
Lanai D.........................  ..................  5,861 ha (14,482    ..................  5,861 ha (14,482
                                                       ac).                                    ac)
Lanai E.........................  ..................  162 ha (400 ac)...  ..................  162 ha (400 ac)
Lanai F.........................  ..................  331 ha (818 ac)...  ..................  331 ha (818 ac)
Lanai G.........................  ..................  151 ha (373 ac)...  ..................  151 ha (373 ac)
Lanai H.........................  ..................  1 ha (2 ac).......  ..................  1 ha (2 ac)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total.................  ..................  7,853 ha (19,405    ..................  7,853 ha (19,405
                                                       ac).                                    ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Area differences due to digital mapping discrepancies between TMK data (GDSI 2000) and USGS coastline, or
  difference due to rounding.

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

Lanai A

    The proposed unit Lanai A provides occupied habitat for one 
species, Hibiscus brackenridgei. It is proposed for designation because 
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for its conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more of the 8 to10 populations and 300 mature 
individuals per population for Hibiscus brackenridgei, throughout its 
known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be necessary 
for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai A below).
    This unit provides unoccupied habitat for one species, Cyperus 
trachysanthos. Designation of this unit is essential to the 
conservation of this species because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for its conservation 
on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more additional 
populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives for this species 
of 8 to 10 populations, with 300 mature individuals per population, 
throughout its known historical range considered by the recovery plan 
to be necessary for the conservation of this species (see the 
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai 
A below).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9836]]

    The unit contains a total of 574 ha (1,418 ac) on privately owned 
land. It is bounded on the north by Puumaiekahi watershed and on the 
south by Kaapahu watershed. The natural features include: Kaea, Kaena 
Point, Kaenaiki Cape, and Keanapapa Point.

Lanai B

    The proposed unit Lanai B provides occupied habitat for one 
species, Tetramolopium remyi. It is proposed for designation because it 
contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for its conservation on Lanai and provides habitat to support 
one or more of the 8 to10 populations of 300 mature individuals per 
population for Tetramolopium remyi, throughout its known historical 
range considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the 
conservation of this species (see the discussion of conservation 
requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai B below).
    The unit contains a total of 551 ha (1,363 ac) on privately owned 
land. It is bounded on the west by Puumaiekahi watershed and on the 
east by Lapaiki watershed. The natural features include: Puumaiekahi 
Gulch and Lapaiki Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9838]]

Lanai C

    The proposed unit Lanai C provides unoccupied habitat for one 
species, Sesbania tomentosa. Designation of this unit is essential to 
the conservation of S. tomentosa because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for its conservation 
on Lanai, and it provides habitat to support one or more additional 
populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives, throughout its 
known historical range, of 8 to 10 populations with 300 mature 
individuals per population considered by the recovery plan to be 
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai C below).
    The unit contains a total of 222 ha (549 ac) on privately owned 
land. It is bounded on the west by Lapaiki watershed and on the east by 
Hawaiilanui watershed. The natural features include: Hawaiilanui Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9840]]

Lanai D

    The proposed unit Lanai D provides occupied habitat for 17 species: 
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea 
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana 
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, 
Melicope munroi, Spermolepis hawaiiense, Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola 
lanaiensis. It is proposed for designation because it contains the 
physical and biological features that are considered essential for 
their conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or 
more of the 8 to 10 populations of 100 mature individuals per 
population for Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. 
gibsonii, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, or 
300 mature individuals per population for Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia 
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana 
ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, 
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis, or 500 mature individuals 
per population for Centaurium sebaeoides and Spermolepis hawaiiense 
throughout their known historical range considered by the recovery 
plans to be necessary for the conservation of each species (see the 
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai 
D below). This unit provides unoccupied habitat for 11 species: 
Adenophorus periens, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea 
lobata, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Solanum 
incompletum, and Vigna o-wahuensis. Designation of this unit is 
essential to the conservation of these species because it contains the 
physical and biological features that are considered essential for 
their conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or 
more additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives 
of 8 to 10 populations for each species of 100 mature individuals per 
population for Brighamia rockii and Hesperomannia arborescens, or 300 
mature individuals per population for Adenophorus periens, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, and 
Vigna o-wahuensis throughout their known historical range considered by 
the recovery plans to be necessary for the conservation of each species 
(see the discussion of conservation requirements in Section D) (see 
Table Lanai D below).
    The unit contains a total of 5,861 ha (14,482 ac) on privately 
owned land. It is in portions of the Awehi, Halulu, Haua, Hauola, Kaa, 
Kahea, Kapoho, Kapua, Kuahua, Lopa, Maunalei, Naha, Nahoko, Palawai 
Basin, Poaiwa, Wahane, and Waiopa watersheds. The natural features 
include: Haalelepaakai (summit), Hookio Gulch, Kaaealii (summit), 
Kaapahu (summit), Kahinahina Ridge, Kamiki Ridge, Kaonohiokala Ridge, 
Kauiki (summit), Lanaihale (summit), Naio Gulch, Palea Ridge, Puhielelu 
Ridge, Puu Aalii, Puu Alii, Puu Kole, Puu Nene, Umi, Mauna o (summit), 
Waialala Gulch, and Wawaeku (summit).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.003


[[Page 9842]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.004


[[Page 9843]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.005


[[Page 9844]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.006


[[Page 9845]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.007

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9846]]

Lanai E

    The proposed unit Lanai E (units E1, E2, and E3) provides 
unoccupied habitat for one species, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha. 
Designation of this unit is essential to the conservation of this 
species because it contains the physical and biological features that 
are considered essential for its conservation on Lanai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet 
the recovery objectives of 8 to 10 populations of 300 mature 
individuals per population, throughout its known historical range 
considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the conservation of 
this species (see the discussion of conservation requirements in 
Section D) (see Table Lanai E below).
    The unit cluster contains a total of 162 ha (400 ac) on privately 
owned land. It is contained in the Palawai Basin watershed. The natural 
features include: in E1, Kapohaku Gulch; in E2, Waiakaiole Gulch and 
Waipaa Gulch; and in E3, Palikoae Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9848]]

Lanai F

    The proposed unit Lanai F provides unoccupied habitat for one 
species, Hibiscus brackenridgei. Designation of this unit is essential 
to the conservation of this species because it contains the physical 
and biological features that are considered essential for its 
conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more 
additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives of 8 
to 10 populations of 300 mature individuals per population, throughout 
its known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be 
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai F below).
    The unit contains a total of 331 ha (818 ac) on privately owned 
land. It is completely within the Paliamano watershed. The natural 
features include: Paliamano Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.009

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9850]]

Lanai G

    The proposed unit Lanai G provides unoccupied habitat for one 
species, Portulaca sclerocarpa. Designation of this unit is essential 
to the conservation of this species because it contains the physical 
and biological features that are considered essential for its 
conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more 
additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives of 8 
to 10 populations of 300 mature individuals per population, throughout 
its known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be 
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai G below).
    The unit contains a total of 151 ha (373 ac) on privately owned 
land. It is bounded on the west by Anapuka watershed and on the east by 
Manele watershed. The natural features include: Huawai Bay, Kaluakoi 
Point, and the western portion of Kapihua Bay.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9851]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.010

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 9852]]

Lanai H

    The proposed unit Lanai H provides occupied habitat for one 
species, Portulaca sclerocarpa. It is proposed for designation because 
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for its conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations of 300 mature 
individuals per population, throughout its known historical range 
considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the conservation of 
the species (see the discussion of conservation requirements in Section 
D) (see Table Lanai H below).
    The unit contains a total of 1 ha (2 ac) on privately owned land. 
The natural features include: Poopoo Islet.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.011

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C


[[Page 9854]]


    Key for Tables Lanai A-H
    Not all suitable habitat is proposed to be 
designated, only those areas essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    1. This unit is needed to meet the recovery plan objectives of 8 
to 10 viable populations (self-perpetuating and sustaining for at 
least 5 years) with 100 to 500 mature, reproducing individuals per 
species throughout its historical range as specified in the recovery 
plans.
    2. Island endemic.
    3. Multi-island species with current locations on other islands.
    4. Multi-island species with no current locations on other 
islands.
    5. Current locations do not necessarily represent viable 
populations with the required number of mature individuals.
    6. Several current locations may be affected by one naturally 
occurring, catastrophic event.
    7. Species with variable habitat requirements, usually over wide 
areas. Wide ranging species require more space per individual over 
more land area to provide needed primary constituent elements to 
maintain healthy population size.
    8. Not all currently occupied habitat was determined to be 
essential to the recovery of the species.
    9. Life history, long-lived perennial--100 mature, reproducing 
individuals needed per population.
    10. Life history, short-lived perennial--300 mature, reproducing 
individuals needed per population.
    11. Life history, annual--500 mature, reproducing individuals 
needed per population.
    12. Narrow endemic, the species probably never naturally 
occurred in more than a single or a few populations.
    13. Species has extremely restricted, specific habitat 
requirements.
    14. Hybridization is possible so distinct populations of related 
species should not overlap, requiring more land area.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out, do 
not destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent it 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the 
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or 
involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, to evaluate 
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports 
provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in 
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The 
conservation measures in a conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the 
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14 as if a species was listed 
or critical habitat was designated. We may adopt the formal conference 
report as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical 
habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in 
the action alter the content of the opinion. (See 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the 
Federal action agency would ensure that the permitted actions do not 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain 
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is 
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement, or control has been retained or is 
authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for 
which formal consultation has been completed if those actions may 
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy 
proposed critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight 
project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent 
alternative are similarly variable.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect critical habitat of one 
or more of the 32 plant species will require Section 7 consultation. 
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal 
agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.), or a 
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us, or some other Federal action, 
including funding (e.g. from the Federal Highway Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA)), permits from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, activities funded by the EPA, Department of Energy, or any 
other Federal agency; regulation of airport improvement activities by 
the FAA; and construction of communication sites licensed by the 
Federal Communication Commission will also continue to be subject to 
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting 
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not 
federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 
consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and 
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. We 
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat include, but are not limited to--
    (1) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the primary 
constituent elements including, but not limited to: overgrazing; 
maintenance of feral

[[Page 9855]]

ungulates; clearing or cutting of native live trees and shrubs, whether 
by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting, 
bulldozing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide 
application); introducing or enabling the spread of non-native species; 
and taking actions that pose a risk of fire;
    (2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that 
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, dynamic 
wetland or other vegetative communities. Such activities may include 
water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, 
manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, residential and 
commercial development, and grazing of livestock or horses that 
degrades watershed values;
    (3) Rural residential construction that includes concrete pads for 
foundations and the installation of septic systems in wetlands where a 
permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required by 
the Corps;
    (4) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation;
    (5) Mining of sand or other minerals;
    (6) Introducing or encouraging the spread of non-native plant 
species into critical habitat units; and
    (7) Importation of non-native species for research, agriculture, 
and aquaculture, and the release of biological control agents that 
would have unanticipated effects on the listed species and the primary 
constituent elements of their habitat.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed 
plants and animals, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered 
Species/Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 
(telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Economic and Other Relevant Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We 
will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these 
areas as critical habitat in light of this new proposal and in 
accordance with recent decisions in the N.M. Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) prior to a 
final determination. The economic analysis will include detailed 
information on the baseline costs and benefits attributable to listing 
these 32 plant species, where such estimates are available. This 
information on the baseline will allow a fuller appreciation of the 
economic impacts associated with listing and with critical habitat 
designation. When completed, we will announce the availability of the 
draft economic analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and we 
will open a public comment period on the draft economic analysis and 
reopen the comment period on the proposed rule at that time.
    We will utilize the final economic analysis, and take into 
consideration all comments and information regarding economic or other 
impacts submitted during the public comment period to make final 
critical habitat designations. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions 
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of critical 
habitat; however, we cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when 
such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.

Public Comments Solicited

    It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule.
    We invite comments from the public that provide information on 
whether lands within proposed critical habitat are currently being 
managed to address conservation needs of these listed plants. As stated 
earlier in this revised proposed rule, if we receive information that 
any of the areas proposed as critical habitat are adequately managed, 
we may delete such areas from the final rule, because they would not 
meet the definition in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. In determining 
adequacy of management, we must find that the management effort is 
sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to 
contribute to the elimination or adequate reduction of relevant threats 
to the species.
    We are soliciting comment in this revised proposed rule on whether 
current land management plans or practices applied within areas 
proposed as critical habitat adequately address the threats to these 
listed species.
    We are aware that the State of Hawaii and the private landowner is 
considering the development and implementation of land management plans 
or agreements that may promote the conservation and recovery of 
endangered and threatened plant species on the island of Lanai. We are 
soliciting comments in this proposed rule on whether current land 
management plans or practices applied within the areas proposed as 
critical habitat provide for the conservation of the species by 
adequately addressing the threats. We are also soliciting comments on 
whether future development and approval of conservation measures (e.g., 
HCPs, Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements) should be 
excluded from critical habitat and if so, by what mechanism.
    In addition, we are seeking comments on the following:
    (1) The reasons why critical habitat for any of these species is 
prudent or not prudent as provided by section 4 of the Act and 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1), including those species for which prudency determinations 
have been published in previous proposed rules and which have been 
incorporated by reference;
    (2) The reasons why any particular area should or should not be 
designated as critical habitat for any of these species, as critical 
habitat is defined by section 3 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532 (5));
    (3) Specific information on the amount and distribution of habitat 
for the 32 species, and what habitat is essential to the conservation 
of the species and why;
    (4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed 
designations of critical habitat, including any impacts on small 
entities or families;
    (6) Economic and other potential values associated with designating 
critical habitat for the above plant species such as those derived from 
non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birding, enhanced 
watershed protection, increased soil retention, ``existence values,'' 
and reductions in administrative costs); and
    (7) The methodology we might use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
in

[[Page 9856]]

determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. 
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a 
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold 
your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at 
the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous 
comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address (see ADDRESSES section).
    The comment period closes on May 3, 2002. Written comments should 
be submitted to the Service Office listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning the proposed rule.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of such a review is to ensure listing and critical habitat decisions 
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We 
will send copies of this proposed rule to these peer reviewers 
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will 
invite the peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, 
on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed 
designations of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and data received during the 60-day 
comment period on this revised proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 
description of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' 
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the document? (5) What 
else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
    Please send any comments that concern how we could make this notice 
easier to understand to the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office 
(see ADDRESSES).

Taxonomic Changes

    At the time we listed Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana and Cyanea 
lobata we followed the taxonomic treatments in Wagner et al. (1990), 
the widely used and accepted Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 
Subsequent to the final listing we became aware of new taxonomic 
treatments of these species. Due to the court-ordered deadlines we are 
required to publish this proposal to designate critical habitat on 
Lanai before we can prepare and publish a notice of taxonomic changes 
for these two species. We plan to publish a taxonomic change notice for 
these two species after we have published the final critical habitat 
designations on Lanai. At that time we will evaluate the critical 
habitat designations on Lanai for these two species in light of any 
changes that may result from taxonomic changes in each species current 
and historical range and primary constituent elements.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below. We 
are preparing an economic analysis of this proposed action, which will 
be available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences 
of designating the specific areas identified as critical habitat. The 
availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced in the 
Federal Register so that it is available for public review and comment.
    a. We will prepare an economic analysis to assist us in considering 
whether areas should be excluded pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we 
do not believe this rule will have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments or 
communities. Therefore, at this time, we do not believe a cost benefit 
and economic analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866 is required. We 
will revisit this if the economic analysis indicates greater impacts 
than currently anticipated.
    The dates for which the 32 plant species were listed as threatened 
or endangered can be found in Table 4(b). Consequently, and as needed, 
we will conduct formal and informal section 7 consultations with other 
Federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the 
continued existence of these species. Under the Act, critical habitat 
may not be adversely modified by a Federal agency action. Critical 
habitat does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless 
they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored, 
authorized, or permitted by a Federal agency (see Table 6).

[[Page 9857]]



            Table 6.--Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation for 32 Plants From the Island of Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Additional activities
                                          Activities potentially affected by species     potentially affected by
       Categories of activities                          listing only                        critical habitat
                                                                                             designation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal activities potentially         Activities the Federal Government (e.g., Army     These same activities
 affected.\2\.                          Corps of Engineers, Department of                 carried out by Federal
                                        Transportation, Department of Defense,            Agencies in designated
                                        Department of Agriculture, Environmental          areas where section 7
                                        Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management   consultations would
                                        Agency, Federal Aviation Administration,          not have occurred but
                                        Federal Communications Commission, Department     for the critical
                                        of the Interior) carries out or that require a    habitat designation.
                                        Federal action (permit, authorization, or
                                        funding) and may remove or destroy habitat for
                                        these plants by mechanical, chemical, or other
                                        means (e.g., overgrazing, clearing, cutting
                                        native live trees and shrubs, water diversion,
                                        impoundment, groundwater pumping, road
                                        building, mining, herbicide application,
                                        recreational use etc.) or appreciably decrease
                                        habitat value or quality through indirect
                                        effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic
                                        plants or animals, fragmentation of habitat)..
Private or other non-Federal           Activities that require a Federal action          These same activities
 Activities Potentially Affected.\3\.   (permit, authorization, or funding) and may       carried out by Federal
                                        remove or destory habitat for these plants by     agencies in desgianted
                                        mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g.,       areas where section 7
                                        overgrazing, clearing, cutting native live        consultations would
                                        trees and shrubs, water diversion, impoundment,   not have occurred but
                                        groundwater pumping, road building, mining,       for the critical
                                        herbicide application, recreational use etc.)     habitat designation.
                                        or appreciably decrease habitat value or
                                        quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge
                                        effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals,
                                        fragmentation of habitat).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to
  those activities potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
  funding.

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that they 
do not jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Based on 
our experience with these species and their needs, we conclude that 
most Federal or federally-authorized actions that could potentially 
cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat would 
currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act in areas occupied 
by the species because consultation would already be required due to 
the presence of the listed species, and the duty to avoid adverse 
modification of critical habitat would not trigger additional 
regulatory impacts beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species. 
Accordingly, we do not expect the designation of currently occupied 
areas as critical habitat to have any additional incremental impacts on 
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons that receive Federal authorization or funding.
    The designation of areas as critical habitat where section 7 
consultations would not have occurred but for the critical habitat 
designation (that is, in areas currently unoccupied by listed species), 
may have impacts that are not attributable to the species listing on 
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding. We will 
evaluate any impact through our economic analysis (under section 4 of 
the Act; see Economic Analysis section of this rule). Non-Federal 
persons who do not have a Federal nexus with their actions are not 
restricted by the designation of critical habitat.
    b. We do not expect this rule to create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been 
required to ensure that their actions not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the 32 plant species since their listing between 1991 and 
1999. For the reasons discussed above, the prohibition against adverse 
modification of critical habitat would be expected to impose few, if 
any, additional restrictions to those that currently exist in the 
proposed critical habitat on currently occupied lands. However, we will 
evaluate any impact of designating areas where section 7 consultations 
would not have occurred but for the critical habitat designation 
through our economic analysis. Because of the potential for impacts on 
other Federal agency activities, we will continue to review this 
proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal agency 
actions.
    c. We do not expect this proposed rule, if made final, to 
significantly affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or 
the rights and obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are 
currently required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize 
the continued existence of a listed species, and, as discussed above, 
we do not anticipate that the adverse modification prohibition, 
resulting from critical habitat designation will have any incremental 
effects in areas of occupied habitat on any Federal entitlement, grant, 
or loan program. We will evaluate any impact of designating areas where 
section 7 consultation would not have occurred but for the critical 
habitat designation through our economic analysis.
    d. OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or 
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) of 
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification 
statement. In today's rule, we are certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities

[[Page 9858]]

because the lands which are proposed for critical habitat designation 
are solely owned by one landowner, Castle and Cooke Resorts, which is 
not a small entity as defined below. However, should our economic 
analysis provide a contrary indication, we will revisit this 
determination at that time. The following discussion explains our 
rationale.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, 
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer 
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small 
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are 
not affected by the designation. In areas where the species is present, 
Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under section 
7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement that 
may affect Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia 
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, 
Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis. If these critical habitat designations 
are finalized, Federal agencies must also consult with us if their 
activities may affect designated critical habitat. However, in areas 
where the species is present, we do not believe this will result in any 
additional regulatory burden on Federal agencies or their applicants 
because consultation would already be required due to the presence of 
the listed species, and the duty to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat likely would not trigger additional regulatory impacts 
beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species.
    Even if the duty to avoid adverse modification does not trigger 
additional regulatory impacts in areas where the species is present, 
designation of critical habitat could result in an additional economic 
burden on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, since these 32 
plant species were listed (between 1991 and 1999), there have been no 
formal consultations and seven informal consultations, in addition to 
consultations on Federal grants to State wildlife programs, which would 
not affect small entities. Two informal consultations were conducted on 
behalf of a private consulting firm, representing Maui Electric 
Company, who requested species lists for a proposed generating station 
at Miki Basin. None of the 32 species were reported from this area. Two 
informal consultations were conducted on behalf of the Federal Aviation 
Administration for airport navigational or improvement projects. None 
of the 32 species were reported from the project areas. One informal 
consultation was conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Navy 
regarding nighttime, low-altitude terrain flights and confined area 
landings over and on limited areas of northwestern Lanai by the Marine 
Corps. None of the 32 species were reported from the project area. One 
informal consultation was conducted on behalf of NRCS for the 
construction of a wildlife exclusion fence and removal of alien 
ungulates from the enclosure, control of invasive alien plants within 
the enclosure, and outplanting of native plants in the Lanaihale 
watershed area. Thirty of the 32 species, Adenophorus periens, Bidens 
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus 
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, 
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, 
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia 
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, 
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia 
var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca 
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola 
lanaiensis were reported from the project area. Funding for the project 
will be provided by NRCS, through their Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
Program, to Castle and Cooke Resorts. One informal consultation was 
conducted on behalf of the Service, for the effects of fencing and 
replanting on listed and endangered species within Awehi Gulch. None of 
the 32 species were reported from the Awehi Gulch project area. In 
addition, we are in the early stages of defining a project area in the 
Lanaihale watershed for fencing and restoration of native vegetation. 
Funding for the project will be provided by the Service to Castle and 
Cooke Resorts, in partnership with the State Department of Land and 
Natural Resources.
    We have determined that Maui Electric Company is not a small entity 
because it is not an independent non-profit organization, small 
governmental jurisdiction, nor a small business. The Federal Aviation 
Administration, U.S. Department of the Navy, and NRCS are not small 
entities. The informal consultations on the Lanaihale watershed area 
project and the Awehi Gulch project indirectly affected or concerned 
the major landowner on Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts. We have 
determined that Castle and Cooke Resorts is not a small entity because 
it is not a small retail and service business with less than $5 million 
in annual sales nor is it a small agricultural business with annual 
sales less than $750,000.

[[Page 9859]]

We concurred with NRCS's determination that the Lanaihale watershed 
area project, as proposed, and the only project in which any of the 
plant species at issue were reported in, was not likely to adversely 
affect listed species. At this time, only the Lanaihale watershed area 
project is ongoing. Therefore, the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation for ongoing projects will not affect a substantial number 
of small entities on Lanai.
    In areas where the species is clearly not present, designation of 
critical habitat could trigger additional review of Federal activities 
under section 7 of the Act, that would otherwise not be required. 
However, there will be little additional impact on State and local 
governments and their activities because all but one of the proposed 
critical habitat areas are occupied by at least one species. Other than 
the Federally funded habitat restoration projects in the Lanaihale 
watershed area, we are aware of relatively few activities in the 
proposed critical habitat areas for these 32 plants that have Federal 
involvement, and thus, would require consultation for on-going 
projects. As mentioned above, currently we have conducted only seven 
informal consultations under section 7 on Lanai, and only one 
consultation involved any of the 32 species. As a result, we can not 
easily identify future consultations that may be due to the listing of 
the species or the increment of additional consultations that may be 
required by this critical habitat designation. Therefore, for the 
purposes of this review and certification under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, we are assuming that any future consultations in the 
area proposed as critical habitat will be due to the critical habitat 
designations.
    On Lanai, all of the proposed designations are on private land 
under one landowner. Nearly all of the land within the critical habitat 
units is unsuitable for development, land uses, and activities. This is 
due to their remote locations, lack of access, and rugged terrain. The 
majority of this land (about 71 percent) is within the State 
Conservation District where State land-use controls severely limit 
development and most activities. Approximately 27 percent of this land 
is within the State Agricultural District, approximately less than one 
percent is within the State Urban District and approximately less than 
one percent is within the State Rural District. On non-Federal lands, 
activities that lack Federal involvement would not be affected by the 
critical habitat designations. However, activities of an economic 
nature that are likely to occur on non-Federal lands in the area 
encompassed by these proposed designations consist of improvements in 
communications and tracking facilities; ranching; road improvements; 
recreational use such as hiking, camping, picnicking, game hunting, 
fishing; botanical gardens; and, crop farming. With the exception of 
communications and tracking facilities improvements by the Federal 
Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, these 
activities are unlikely to have Federal involvement. On lands that are 
in agricultural production, the types of activities that might trigger 
a consultation include irrigation ditch system projects that may 
require section 404 authorizations from the Corps, and watershed 
management and restoration projects sponsored by NRCS. However the NRCS 
restoration projects typically are voluntary, and the irrigation ditch 
system projects within lands that are in agricultural production are 
rare, and would likely affect only the major landowner on the island 
(who is not a small entity), within these proposed critical habitat 
designations.
    Lands that are within the State Urban District are located within 
undeveloped coastal areas. The types of activities that might trigger a 
consultation include shoreline restoration or modification projects 
that may require section 404 authorizations from the Corps or FEMA, 
housing or resort development that may require permits from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and activities funded or 
authorized by the EPA. However, we are not aware of a significant 
number of future activities that would be federal funds, permits, or 
authorizations in these coastal areas.
    Lands that are within the State Rural District are primarily 
located within undeveloped coastal areas. The types of activities that 
might trigger a consultation include shoreline restoration or 
modification projects that may require section 404 authorizations from 
the Corps or FEMA, housing or resort development that may require 
permits from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, small 
farms that may receive funding or require authorizations from the 
Department of Agriculture, watershed management and restoration 
projects sponsored by NRCS, and activities funded or authorized by the 
EPA. However, we are not aware of a significant number of future 
activities that would require federal funds, permits, or authorizations 
in these coastal areas.
    Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to 
critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations 
for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those that, 
in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse 
modification determinations under section 7--can be implemented 
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. These measures must be economically feasible and within 
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the 
consultation. As we have a very limited consultation history for these 
32 species from Lanai, we can only describe the general kinds of 
actions that may be identified in future reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs of 
these species and the threats they face, especially as described in the 
final listing rules and in this proposed critical habitat designation, 
as well as our experience with similar listed plants in Hawaii. In 
addition, all of these species are protected under the State of 
Hawaii's Endangered Species Act (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chap. 195D-
4). Therefore, we have also considered the kinds of actions required 
under the State licensing process for these species. The kinds of 
actions that may be included in future reasonable and prudent 
alternatives include conservation set-asides, management of competing 
non-native species, restoration of degraded habitat, propagation, 
outplanting and augmentation of existing populations, construction of 
protective fencing, and periodic monitoring. These measures are not 
likely to result in a significant economic impact to a substantial 
number of small entities because any measure included as a reasonable 
and prudent alternative would have to be economically feasible to the 
individual landowner, and because as discussed above, we do not believe 
there will be a substantial number of small entities affected by Act's 
consultation requirements.
    As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we will conduct an 
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this proposed critical 
habitat designation, and will make that analysis available for public 
review and comment before finalizing these designations.
    In summary, as stated above, this proposed rule would not affect 
small entities because all of the designations are on lands under one 
landownership. The landowner is not a small entity and, therefore, this 
proposed rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities 
and would not result in a significant economic effect on a substantial 
number of small entities. Most of this private land within the

[[Page 9860]]

proposed designation is currently being used for recreational or 
conservation purposes, and therefore, not likely to require any Federal 
authorization. In the remaining areas, Federal involvement--and thus 
section 7 consultations, the only trigger for economic impact under 
this rule--would be limited to a subset of the area proposed. The most 
likely future section 7 consultations resulting from this rule would be 
for informal consultations on federally funded land and water 
conservation projects, species-specific surveys and research projects, 
and watershed management and restoration projects sponsored by NRCS. 
These consultations would likely occur on only a subset of the total 
number of parcels, all under one ownership, and, therefore, would not 
affect a substantial number of small entities. This rule would result 
in project modifications only when proposed Federal activities would 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it 
is not expected frequently enough to affect the single landowner. Even 
when it does occur, we do not expect it to result in a significant 
economic impact, as the measures included in reasonable and prudent 
alternatives must be economically feasible and consistent with the 
proposed action. Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the following species: Abutilon 
eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, 
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium 
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis 
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea 
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, 
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis 
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia 
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia 
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca 
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis 
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola 
lanaiensis will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. However, should the economic analysis of this 
rule indicate otherwise, or should landownership change on the island 
of Lanai, we will revisit this determination.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is 
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    a. We believe this rule, as proposed, will not ``significantly or 
uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is 
not required. Small governments will not be affected unless they 
propose an action requiring Federal funds, permits or other 
authorizations. Any such activities will require that the Federal 
agency ensure that the action will not adversely modify or destroy 
designated critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions 
are currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing 
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated 
to result from critical habitat designation of occupied areas. In our 
economic analysis, we will evaluate any impact of designating areas 
where section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the 
critical habitat designation.
    b. This rule, as proposed, will not produce a Federal mandate on 
State or local governments or the private sector of $100 million or 
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the 32 species from Lanai in a 
preliminary takings implication assessment. The takings implications 
assessment concludes that this proposed rule does not pose significant 
takings implications. Once the economic analysis is completed for this 
proposed rule, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as 
warranted.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of Interior policy, we requested 
information from appropriate State agencies in Hawaii. The designation 
of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by one or more of the 
32 plant species imposes no additional restrictions to those currently 
in place, and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and 
local governments and their activities. The designation of critical 
habitat in unoccupied areas may require section 7 consultation on non 
Federal lands (where a Federal nexus occurs) that might otherwise not 
have occurred. However, there will be little additional impact on State 
and local governments and their activities because only 4 of 8 areas 
are occupied by at least one species. The designations may have some 
benefit to these governments in that the areas essential to the 
conservation of these species are more clearly defined, and the primary 
constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the 
species are specifically identified. While this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long 
range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultation to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The rule 
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary 
constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public 
in understanding the habitat needs of the 32 plant species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of

[[Page 9861]]

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species 
Act, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reason for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This proposed determination does not constitute a major Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) Executive Order 13175 and 512 DM 2, we 
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 
recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have 
determined that there are no Tribal lands essential for the 
conservation of these 32 plant species. Therefore, designation of 
critical habitat for these 32 species has not been proposed on Tribal 
lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are Marigold Zoll, Christa 
Russell, Michelle Stephens, and Gregory Koob (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entries for Abutilon eremitopetalum, 
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, 
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia 
ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, 
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra 
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana 
var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope 
munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, 
Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, 
Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' and 
Adenophorus periens, Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, and Diplazium 
molokaiense under ``FERNS AND ALLIES'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------   Historic  range           Family            Status          When       Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                   listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Abutilon eremitopetalum..........  none................  U.S.A (HI).........  Malvaceae..........  E                       435     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha..  Kookoolau...........  U.S.A (HI).........  Asteraceae.........  E                       467     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Bonamia menziesii................  none................  U.S.A (HI).........  Convolvulaceae.....  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Brighamia rockii.................  Pua ala.............  U.S.A (HI).........  Campanulaceae......  E                       530     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Cenchrus agromonioides...........  Kamanomano            U.S.A (HI).........  Poaceae............  E                       592     17.96(a)           NA
                                    (=sandbur,
                                    agrimony).
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Centaurium sebaeoides............  Awiwi...............  U.S.A (HI).........  Gentianaceae.......  E                       448     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.       Oha wai.............  U.S.A (HI).........  Campanulaceae......  E                       467     17.96(a)           NA
 mauiensis.
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana  Haha................  U.S.A (HI).........  Campanulaceae......  E                       592     17.96(a)           NA
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Cyanea lobata....................  Haha................  U.S.A (HI).........  Campanulaceae......  E                       467     17.96(a)           NA
 

[[Page 9862]]

 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii.  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Campanulaceae......  E                       592     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Cyperus trachysanthos............  Puukaa..............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Cyperaceae.........  E                       592     17.96(a)         (NA)
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Cyrtandra munroi.................  Haiwale.............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Gesneriaceae.......  E                       467     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Gahnia lanaiensis................  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Cyperaceae.........  E                       435     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Hedyotis mannii..................  Pilo................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Rubiaceae..........  E                       480     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Hedyotis sclechtendahliana var.    Kopa................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Rubiaceae..........  E                       441     17.96(a)           NA
 remyi.
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Hesperomannia arborescens........  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asteraceae.........  E                       536     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Hibiscus brackenridgei...........  Mao hau hele........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Malvaceae..........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Isodendrion pyrifolium...........  Wahine noho kula....  U.S.A. (HI)........  Violaceae..........  E                       532     17.96(a)           NA
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Labordia tinifolia var.            Kamakahala..........  U.S.A. (HI)........  Loganiaceae........  E                       666     17.96(a)           NA
 lanaiensis.
 
                    *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
Melicope munroi..................  Alani...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Rutaceae...........  E                       666     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Neraudia sericea.................  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Urticaceae.........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Portulaca sclerocarpa............  Poe.................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Portulacaceae......  E                       432     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Sesbania tomentosa...............  Ohai................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Solanum incompletum..............  Popolo ku mai.......  U.S.A. (HI)........  Solanaceae.........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Spermolepis hawaiiensis..........  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Apiaceae...........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Tetramalopium remyi..............  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Asteraceae.........  E                       435     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Vigna o-wahuensis................  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Viola lanaiensis.................  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Violaceae..........  E                       435     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
         Ferns and Allies
 
Adenophorus periens..............  Pendant kihi fern...  U.S.A. (HI)........  Grammitidaceae.....  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Ctenitis squamigera..............  Pauoa...............  U.S.A. (HI)........  Aspleniaceae.......  E                       553     17.96(a)           NA
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Diellia erecta...................  Asplenium-leaved      U.S.A. (HI)........  Aspleniaceae.......  E                       559     17.96(a)           NA
                                    diellia.

[[Page 9863]]

 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Diplazium molokiaense............  none................  U.S.A. (HI)........  Aspleniaceae.......  E                       553     17.96(a)           NA
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 17.96, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 66865 
(November 7, 2000), 65 FR 79192 (December 18, 2000), 65 FR 82086 
(December 27, 2000), 65 FR 83193 (December 29, 2000), and 67 FR 4072 
(January 28, 2002) is proposed to be further amended as follows:
    a. Revise the heading of paragraph (a) to read ``Critical habitat 
unit descriptions and maps by State'';
    b. Revise the heading of paragraph (b) to read ``All other critical 
habitat unit descriptions and maps by Family'';
    c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1)(i);
    d. Add paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E);
    e. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
    The revised and added text reads as follows:


Sec. 17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions. The following 
sections contain the legal descriptions of the critical habitat units 
designated for each of the Hawaiian Islands. Existing man-made features 
and structures within proposed areas, such as buildings, roads, 
aqueducts, telecommunications equipment, telemetry antennas, radars, 
missile launch sites, arboreta and gardens, heiau (indigenous places of 
worship or shrines), airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other 
rural residential landscaped areas do not contain one or more of the 
primary constituent elements described for each species in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and therefore, are not included in the 
critical habitat designations.
* * * * *
    (E) Lanai. Critical habitat units are described below. Coordinates 
in UTM Zone 4 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 
(NAD83). The following map shows the general locations of the eight 
critical habitats units designated on the island of Lanai.
    (1) Note: Map 1--Index map follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.012
    
    (2) Lanai A (574 ha; 1,418 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 17 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: 702882, 2313787; 702921, 2313674; 702928, 
2313512; 702871, 2313459; 703058, 2313104; 703357, 2312863; 703811, 
2312361; 704081, 2312052; 704342, 2311956; 704525, 2311656; 704439, 
2311405; 704381,

[[Page 9864]]

2310990; 704197, 2310846; 703888, 2310749; 703155, 2310797; 702024, 
2310634; 702882, 2313787.
    (ii) Note: Map 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.013
    
    (3) Lanai B (551 ha; 1,363 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: 706438, 
2313925; 707201, 2314002; 709962, 2313947; 710017, 2313829; 710177, 
2312823; 710191, 2312372; 709303, 2312524; 708179, 2312600; 706722, 
2312579; 706452, 2312496; 706382, 2312524; 706348, 2312801; 706202, 
2313190; 706091, 2313773; 706438, 2313925.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.014
    
    (4) Lanai C (222 ha; 549 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 22 boundary points: 711188, 
2313923; 711429, 2313965; 711487, 2314003; 711749, 2314015; 712049, 
2314065; 712768, 2314082; 712814, 2314057; 712797, 2313974; 712980, 
2313641; 713013, 2313458; 712922, 2313100; 712777, 2312897; 712693, 
2312660; 712477, 2312701; 712377, 2312693; 711683, 2312780; 711596, 
2312768; 711159, 2312834; 711147, 2312926; 711209, 2313662; 711163, 
2313815; 711188, 2313923.
    (ii) Note: Map 4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.015
    
    (5) Lanai D (5861 ha; 14,482 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 50 boundary points: 721080, 
2302560; 720773, 2302431; 720277, 2303011; 719410, 2303246; 718032, 
2304246; 718198, 2304371; 717783, 2304820; 717871, 2304936; 718055, 
2304902; 718572, 2304638; 718670, 2304691; 718422, 2304982; 718181, 
2305085; 718055, 2305246; 718157, 2305319; 718468, 2305154; 718652, 
2305154; 718870, 2305453; 719006, 2305448; 718885, 2305755; 718957, 
2305935; 718018, 2307384; 717926, 2307299; 717586, 2307403; 717484, 
2307510; 717654, 2307744; 717302, 2308086; 718137, 2309521; 718547, 
2309943; 716674, 2311623; 716648, 2312011; 717399, 2312731; 719438, 
2310984; 722501, 2308704; 724829, 2306647; 726262, 2304867; 726648, 
2303344; 726728, 2302198; 725517, 2299595; 725216, 2299615; 724348, 
2298741; 723596, 2299480; 724115, 2300023; 723526, 2300379; 723832, 
2301639;

[[Page 9865]]

722680, 2301793; 722544, 2301470; 721858, 2302099; 721339, 2302216; 
721080, 2302560.
    (ii) Excluding one area as follows: Bounded by the following 20 
boundary points (218 ha; 539 ac): 722030, 2305656; 721281, 2304684; 
721384, 2304179; 721361, 2304053; 721278, 2303995; 721137, 2304078; 
721051, 2304305; 720895, 2304397; 720500, 2304833; 720511, 2305106; 
720570, 2305199; 720608, 2305397; 720431, 2305786; 720064, 2306027; 
719647, 2305891; 719553, 2306068; 719613, 2306239; 721002, 2306152; 
721675, 2305940; 722030, 2305656.
    (iii) Note: Map 5 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.016
    

[[Page 9866]]


    (6) Lanai E1 (53 ha; 132 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: 718727, 
2301883; 718642, 2302092; 718720, 2302377; 718928, 2302637; 719228, 
2302896; 719550, 2302974; 719799, 2303078; 719975, 2303021; 720193, 
2302917; 720261, 2302858; 719948, 2302788; 719846, 2302865; 719474, 
2302802; 719277, 2302635; 719253, 2302561; 719078, 2302494; 719042, 
2302419; 719144, 2302231; 719136, 2302009; 719078, 2301859; 718727, 
2301883.
    (ii) Note: See Map 6.
    (7) Lanai E2 (60 ha; 148 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 19 boundary points: 719586, 
2301160; 719361, 2301274; 719868, 2302031; 719968, 2302070; 720134, 
2302344; 720198, 2302369; 720411, 2302710; 720524, 2302530; 720933, 
2302146; 720741, 2302073; 720699, 2302012; 720600, 2302026; 720464, 
2301954; 720259, 2301901; 720187, 2301857; 720106, 2301890; 719937, 
2301876; 719749, 2301413; 719586, 2301160.
    (ii) Note: See Map 6.
    (8) Lanai E3 (49 ha; 120 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 12 boundary points: 721435, 
2301743; 721647, 2301574; 720952, 2301142; 720824, 2300969; 720507, 
2300707; 720411, 2300796; 720164, 2300917; 720283, 2301104; 720513, 
2301353; 721094, 2301439; 721161, 2301532; 721435, 2301743.
    (ii) Note: Map 6 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.017
    
    (9) Lanai F (331 ha; 818 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 41 boundary points: 710563, 
2301975; 710554, 2302948; 710511, 2303264; 710389, 2303545; 710194, 
2303783; 710165, 2303941; 710864, 2304323; 711181, 2304676; 711332, 
2304712; 711678, 2304619; 711836, 2304655; 711905, 2304708; 712023, 
2304705; 712031, 2304626; 712016, 2304532; 711452, 2304254; 711367, 
2304099; 711491, 2303913; 711735, 2303942; 711836, 2303985; 711951, 
2304107; 712084, 2304075; 712196, 2303949; 712190, 2303878; 712098, 
2303861; 712028, 2303760; 711793, 2303659; 711717, 2303473; 711745, 
2303370; 711818, 2303354; 711800, 2303250; 711710, 2303264; 711442, 
2303104; 711423, 2303022; 711564, 2302535; 711901, 2302580; 711959, 
2302361; 712182, 2302292; 712225, 2302156; 712115, 2301973; 710563, 
2301975.
    (ii) Note: Map 7 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.018
    
    (10) Lanai G (151 ha; 373 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points and the 
intermediate coastline: 714418, 2294529; 714470, 2294599; 715200, 
2294703; 716591, 2294709; 716742, 2294778; 716997, 2294784; 717130, 
2294726; 717425, 2294738; 717964, 2294819; 718219, 2294773; 718433, 
2294804; 718534, 2294660; 718604, 2294694; 718611, 2294686; 714408, 
2294259; 714418, 2294529.
    (ii) Note: Map 8 follows:

[[Page 9867]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.019

    (11) Lanai H (1 ha; 2 ac).
    (i) Unit consists of the entire offshore island, located at: 
716393, 2294216.
    (ii) Note: Map 9 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR02.020
    
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Table (a)(1)(i)(E).--Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
                                for Lanai
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unit name          Species occupied           Species unoccupied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai A           Hibiscus brackenridgei....  Cyperus trachysanthos.
Lanai B           Tetramolopium remyi.......
Lanai C           ..........................  Sesbania tomentosa.
Lanai D           Abutilon eremitopetalum,    Adenophorus periens,
                   Bonamia menziesii,          Brighamia rockii,
                   Centaurium sebaeoides,      Cenchrus agrimonioides,
                   Clermontia oblongifolia     Cyanea lobata, Diellia
                   ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis    erecta, Diplazium
                   squamigera, Cyanea          molokaiensis,
                   grimesiana ssp              Hesperomannia
                   grimesiana, Cyanea          arborescens, Isodendrion
                   macrostegia ssp.            pyrifolium, Neraudia
                   gibsonii, Cyrtandra         sericea, Solanum
                   munroi, Gahnia              incompletum, and Vigna o-
                   lanaiensis, Hedyotis        wahuensis.
                   mannii, Hedyotis
                   schlechtendahliana var.
                   remyi, Hibiscus
                   brackenridgei, Labordia
                   tinifolia var.
                   lanaiensis, Melicope
                   munroi, Spermolepis
                   hawaiiense, Tetramolopium
                   remyi, and Viola
                   lanaiensis.
Lanai E           ..........................  Bidens micrantha ssp.
                                               kalealaha.
Lanai F           ..........................  Hibiscus brackenridgei.
Lanai G           ..........................  Portulaca sclerocarpa.
Lanai H           Portulaca sclerocarpa.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9868]]

    (ii) Hawaiian plants--Constituent elements.
    (A) Flowering plants.

Family Apiaceae: Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Lanai. 
Within this unit the currently known primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulch slopes and ridge tops in dry forests dominated by 
Diospyros sandwicensis, or shrublands dominated by Dodonaea viscosa, 
with one or more of the following native plant species: Nestegis 
sandwicensis, Nesoluma polynesicum, Psydrax odorata, or Rauvolfia 
sandwicensis; and
    (2) Elevations between 402 and 711 m (1,319 and 2,332 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau)

    Lanai E, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha on 
Lanai. Within this unit the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland; and
    (2) Elevations between 409 and 771 m (1,342 and 2,529 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Hesperomannia arborescens on Lanai. 
Within this unit the currently known primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Slopes or ridges in lowland mesic or wet forest containing one 
or more of the following associated native plant species: Metrosideros 
polymorpha, Myrsine sandwicensis, Isachne distichophylla, Pipturus 
spp., Antidesma spp., Psychotria spp., Clermontia spp., Cibotium spp., 
Dicranopteris linearis, Bobea spp., Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp., 
Melicope spp., Machaerina spp., Cheirodendron spp., or Freycinetia 
arborea; and
    (2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)

    Lanai B and D, identified in the legal descriptions in 
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Tetramolopium remyi on 
Lanai. Within these units the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Red, sandy, loam soil in dry Dodonea viscosa-Heteropogon 
contortus communities with one or more of the following associated 
native species: Bidens mauiensis, Waltheria indica, Wikstroemia 
oahuensis, or Lipochaeta lavarum; and
    (2) Elevations between 65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Brighamia rockii (pua ala)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Brighamia rockii on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Sparsely vegetated ledges of steep, rocky, dry cliffs, with 
native grasses, sedges, herbs or shrubs; and
    (2) Elevations between 119 and 756 m (390 and 2,480 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (oha 
wai)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis 
on Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulch bottoms in mesic forests; and
    (2) Elevations between 700 and 1,032 m (2,296 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana on 
Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Mesic forest often dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha or 
Metrosideros polymorpha and Acacia koa, or rocky or steep slopes of 
stream banks, with one or more of the following associated native 
plants: Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Myrsine spp., Nestegis 
sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., or Xylosma spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea lobata (haha)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Cyanea lobata on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulches in mesic to wet forest and shrubland containing one or 
more of the following associated native plant species: Freycinetia 
arborea, Touchardia latifolia, Morinda trimera, Metrosideros 
polymorpha, Clermontia kakeana, Cyrtandra spp., Xylosma spp., 
Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp., Pipturus albidus, Peperomia spp., 
Touchardia latifolia, Freycinetia arborea, Pleomele spp., or Athyrium 
spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 664 and 1,032 m (2,178 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (haha)

    Lanai D, identified in (a)(1)(i)(E), constitutes critical habitat 
for Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii on Lanai. Within this unit, the 
currently known primary constituent elements of critical habitat are 
the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Flat to moderate or steep slopes, on lower gulch slopes or 
gulch bottoms, at edges of streambanks in lowland wet Metrosideros 
polymorpha forest or Diplopterygium pinnatum-Metrosideros polymorpha 
shrubland with one or more of the following associated native plants: 
Dicranopteris linearis, Perrottetia sandwicensis, Scaevola 
chamissoniana, Pipturus albidus, Antidesma platyphyllum, Cheirodendron 
trigynum, Freycinetia arborea, Psychotria spp., Cyrtandra spp., 
Broussaisia arguta, Clermontia spp., Dubautia spp., Hedyotis spp., Ilex 
anomala, Labordia spp., Melicope spp., Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, or 
Sadleria spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 738 and 1,032 m (2,421 and 3,385 ft).

Family Convolvulaceae: Bonamia menziesii (NCN)

    Lanai D identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Bonamia menziesii on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Dry Nestegis sandwicensis-Diospyros spp. forest or dry Dodonea 
viscosa shrubland with one or more of the following associated native 
plants: Bobea spp., Nesoluma polynesicum, Erythrina sandwicensis, 
Rauvolfia sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Psydrax odorata, 
Dienella sandwicensis, Diospyros sandwicensis, Hedyotis terminalis, 
Melicope spp., Myoporum sandwicense, Nestegis sandwicense, Pisonia 
spp., Pittosporum

[[Page 9869]]

spp., Pouteria sandwicensis, or Sapindus oahuensis; and
    (2) Elevations between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft).

Family Cyperaceae: Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)

    Lanai A, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Cyperus trachysanthos on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Seasonally wet sites (mud flats, wet clay soil, or wet cliff 
seeps) on seepy flats or talus slopes in Heteropogon contortus 
grassland with Hibiscus tiliaceus; and
    (2) Elevations between 0 and 46 m (0 and 151 ft).

Family Cyperaceae: Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Gahnia lanaiensis on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Flat to gentle ridgecrests in moist to wet clay in open areas 
or in moderate shade within lowland wet forest (shrubby rainforest to 
open scrubby fog belt or degraded lowland mesic forest), wet 
Diplopterygium pinnatum-Dicranopteris linearis-Metrosideros polymorpha 
shrubland, or wet Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis 
shrubland with one or more of the following associated native species: 
mat ferns, Doodia spp., Odontosoria chinensis, Ilex anomala, Hedyotis 
terminalis, Sadleria spp., Coprosma spp., Lycopodium spp., Scaevola 
spp., or Styphelia tameiameiae; and
    (2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Fabaceae: Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)

    Lanai C, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Sandy beaches, dunes, or pond margins in coastal dry shrublands 
or mixed coastal dry cliffs with one or more of the following 
associated native plant species: Chamaesyce celastroides, Cluscuta 
sandwichiana, Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon contortus, Myoporum 
sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis, Scaevola sericea, Sida fallax, 
Sporobolus virginicus, Vitex rotundifolia or Waltheria indica; and
    (2) Elevations between 44 and 221 m (144 and 725 ft).

Family Fabaceae: Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal descriptions in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Nestegis sandwicensis or Diospyros sandwicensis dry forest; and
    (2) Elevations between 98 and 622 m (321 and 2,040 ft).

Family Gentianaceae: Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) The dry ledges which may or may not contain Hibiscus 
brackenridgei; and
    (2) Elevations between 39 and 331 m (128 and 1,086 ft).

Family Gesneriaceae: Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Cyrtandra munroi on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Soil and rock substrates on slopes from watercourses in gulch 
bottoms and up the sides of gulch slopes to near ridgetops in rich, 
diverse mesic forest, wet Metrosideros polymorpha forest, and mixed 
mesic Metrosiderospolymorpha forest, with one or more of the following 
native plant species: Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior, Myrsine 
lessertiana, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele 
fernaldii, Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana, Xylosma 
hawaiiense, Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana Diplopterygium 
pinnatum, Hedyotis acuminata, Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis, 
Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope 
spp., Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis, or Psychotria 
spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 667 and 1,016 m (2,188 and 3,332 ft).

Family Loganiaceae: Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis (kamakahala)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis on 
Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulch slopes in lowland mesic forest with one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Diospyros sandwicensis, 
Bobea elatior, Myrsine lessertiana, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum 
confertiflorum, Pleomele fernaldii, Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola 
chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense, Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana, 
Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis acuminata, Clermontia spp., Alyxia 
oliviformis, Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia 
arborea, Melicope spp., Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria 
sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., Dicranopteris linearis, or Scaevola 
chamissoniana; and
    (2) Elevations between 558 and 1,013 m (1,830 and 3,323 ft).

Family Malvaceae: Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Abutilon eremitopetalum on Lanai. 
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Open lowland dry Erythrina sandwicensis or Diospyros ferrea 
forest on moderately steep north-facing slopes on red sandy soil and 
rock with one or more of the following native plant species: Psydrax 
odorata, Dodonaea viscosa, Nesoluma polynesicum, Rauvolfia 
sandwicensis, Sida fallax, or Wikstroemia spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 108 and 660 m (354 and 2,165 ft).

Family Malvaceae: Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)

    Lanai A, D and F, identified in the legal descriptions in 
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei on 
Lanai. Within these units, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Lowland dry to mesic forest and shrubland with one or more of 
the following associated native plant species: Dodonea viscosa, Psydrax 
odorata, Eurya sandwicensis, Isachne distichophylla, or Sida fallax; 
and
    (2) Elevations between 0 and 645 m (0 and 2,116 ft).

[[Page 9870]]

Family Poaceae: Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano (= sandbur, 
agrimony))

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Cenchrus agrimonioides on Lanai. 
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Slopes in mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest and shrubland; 
and
    (2) Elevations between 583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft).

Family Portulacaceae: Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)

    Lanai G and H, identified in the legal descriptions in 
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa on 
Lanai. Within these units, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal communities; and
    (2) At elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft).

Family Rubiaceae: Hedyotis mannii (pilo)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Hedyotis mannii on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Dark, narrow, rocky gulch walls and steep stream banks in wet 
forests with one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Thelypteris sandwicensis, Sadleria spp., Cyrtandra grayii, 
Scaevola chamissoniana, Freycinetia arborea, or Carex meyenii; and
    (2) Elevations between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332 and 3,385 ft).

Family Rubiaceae: Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (kopa)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi 
on Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent 
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland with a mixture of 
dominant plant taxa that may include Metrosideros polymorpha, 
Dicranopteris linearis, or Styphelia tameiameiae with one or more of 
the following associated native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa, 
Odontosoria chinensis, Sadleria spp., Dubautia spp., or Myrsine spp.; 
and
    (2) Elevations between 558 and 1,032 m (1,830 and 3,385 ft).

Family Rutaceae: Melicope munroi (alani)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Melicope munroi on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Slopes in lowland wet shrublands with one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Diplopterygium pinnatum, 
Dicranopteris linearis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron 
trigynum, Coprosma spp., Broussaisia arguta, other Melicope spp., or 
Machaerina angustifolia; and
    (2) Elevations between 701 and 1,032 m (2,299 and 3,385 ft).

Family Solanaceae: Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Solanum incompletum on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Broad, gently sloping ridges in dry, Dodonaea viscosa shrubland 
with one or more of the following associated native plant species: 
Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta spp., or Wikstroemia oahuensis; and
    (2) Elevations between 151 and 372 m (495 and 1,220 ft).

Family Urticaceae: Neraudia sericea (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Neraudia sericea on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat for Neraudia sericea are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Gulch slopes or gulch bottoms in dry-mesic or mesic forest 
containing one or more of the following associated native plant 
species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Diospyros sandwicensis, Nestegis 
sandwicensis, or Dodonaea viscosa; and
    (2) Elevations between 693 and 869 m (2,273 and 2,850 ft).

Family Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium on Lanai. 
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Dry shrubland with one or more of the following associated 
native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa, Lipochaeta spp., Heteropogon 
contortus, or Wikstroemia oahuensis; and
    (2) Elevations between 132 and 574 m (433 and 1,883 ft).

Family Violaceae: Viola lanaiensis (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Viola lanaiensis on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Soil and decomposed rock substrate in open to shaded areas on 
moderate to steep slopes from lower gulches to ridgetops in 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest or 
lowland mesic shrubland with one or more of the following associated 
native plants: ferns and short windswept shrubs, Scaevola 
chamissoniana, Hedyotis terminalis, Hedyotis centranthoides, Styphelia 
tameiameiae, Carex spp., Ilex anomala, Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp., 
Coprosma spp., Freycinetia arborea, Myrsine spp., Nestegis spp., 
Psychotria spp., or Xylosma spp.; and
    (2) Elevations between 639 and 1,032 m (2,096 and 3,385 ft).
    (B) Ferns and Allies.

Family Aspleniaceae: Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Forest understory in diverse mesic forest and scrubby mixed 
mesic forest with one or more of the following native plant species: 
Nestegis sandwicensis, Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp., Selaginella spp., 
Carex meyenii, Blechnum occidentale, Pipturus spp., Melicope spp., 
Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, Pittosporum spp., Alyxia oliviformis, 
Freycinetia arborea, Antidesma spp., Cyrtandra spp., Peperomia spp., 
Myrsine spp., Psychotria spp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Syzygium 
sandwicensis, Wikstroemia spp., Microlepia spp., Doodia spp., Boehmeria 
grandis, Nephrolepis spp., Perrotettia sandwicensis, or Xylosma spp.; 
and
    (2) Elevations between 640 and 944 m (2,099 and 3,096 ft).

[[Page 9871]]

Family Aspleniaceae: Diellia erecta (NCN)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Diellia erecta on Lanai. Within this 
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Brown granular soil with leaf litter and occasional terrestrial 
moss on north facing slopes in deep shade on steep slopes or gulch 
bottoms in Pisonia spp. forest with one or more native grasses or 
ferns; and
    (2) Elevations between 651 and 955 m (2,135 and 3,132 ft).

Family Aspleniaceae: Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved 
asplenium)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Diplazium molokaiense on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Shady, damp places in wet forests; and
    (2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Grammitidaceae: Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi fern)

    Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E), 
constitutes critical habitat for Adenophorus periens on Lanai. Within 
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
    (1) Riparian banks of streams in well-developed, closed canopy 
areas of deep shade or high humidity in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium pinnatum wet forests, open 
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, or Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest with one or more of the 
following associated native plant species: Machaerina angustifolia, 
Cheirodendron trigynum, Sadleria spp., Clermontia spp., Psychotria 
spp., Melicope spp., Freycinetia arborea, Broussaisia arguta, Syzygium 
sandwicensis, or Hedyotis terminalis; and
    (2) Elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and 3,385 ft).

    Dated: February 19, 2002.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-4335 Filed 3-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P