[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79942-79975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27544]



[[Page 79941]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 248

December 28, 2022

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





50 CFR Part 17





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





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for `I`iwi; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 248 / Wednesday, December 28, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 79942]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0144; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG61


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for `I`iwi

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the federally threatened `i`iwi 
(Drepanis coccinea) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). In total, approximately 275,647 acres (111,554 hectares) 
on the islands of Kaua`i, Maui, and Hawai`i, in the State of Hawaii, 
fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We also announce a public informational meeting and public 
hearing and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or 
postmarked on or before February 27, 2023. Comments submitted 
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing date.
    Public informational meeting and public hearing: On February 10, 
2023, we will hold a public informational meeting from 6 to 6:45 p.m., 
Hawaii Time, followed by a public hearing from 6:45 to 8 p.m., Hawaii 
Time. See Public Hearing, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, for more 
information.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2022-0144, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2022-0144, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: The species status report and 
other materials relating to this critical habitat designation, 
including coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated, are included in the decision file and are available at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0144.
    Public informational meeting and public hearing: We are holding the 
public informational meeting and public hearing via the Zoom online 
video platform and via teleconference. See Public Hearing and 
Reasonable Accommodation, below, for more information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl Campbell, Project Leader, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 
300 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-
792-9400. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, 
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any 
species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species. 
Designations of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a 
rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule proposes to designate 
approximately 275,647 acres (111,554 hectares) as critical habitat for 
the federally threatened `i`iwi on three islands (Kaua`i, Maui, 
Hawai`i) in the State of Hawaii.
    The basis for our action. Under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if we 
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species we 
must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate 
critical habitat. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 
as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection; and 
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the 
designation on the basis of the best scientific data available and 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate 
and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or 
information from other governmental agencies, Native Hawaiian 
organizations, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments for the islands of Kaua`i, Maui, and 
Hawai`i, in the State of Hawaii concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information regarding the following factors that the 
current regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical 
habitat may be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;

[[Page 79943]]

    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (e) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    In addition, we seek comment regarding whether and how this 
information would differ under the factors that the pre-2019 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of `i`iwi habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
in the State of Hawaii, including on the islands of Moloka`i and O`ahu, 
that should be included in the designation because they (i) are 
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection, or (ii) 
are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the 
conservation of the species; and
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in the critical habitat areas we are proposing, including 
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) To evaluate the potential to include areas not occupied at the 
time of listing, we particularly seek comments regarding whether 
occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the species. 
Additionally, please provide specific information regarding whether or 
not unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to 
the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. We 
also seek comments or information regarding whether areas not occupied 
at the time of listing qualify as habitat for the species.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information 
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those based on a 
conservation program or plan. These may include Federal, Tribal, State, 
county, local, or private lands with permitted conservation plans 
covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans, 
safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements, or non-permitted 
conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. Detailed 
information regarding these plans, agreements, easements, and 
partnerships is also requested, including:
    (a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement, 
easement, or partnership;
    (b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;
    (c) Who holds or manages the land;
    (d) What management activities are conducted;
    (e) What land uses are allowable; and
    (f) If management activities are beneficial to the 'i'iwi and its 
habitat.
    If you think we should exclude any additional areas, please provide 
information supporting a benefit of exclusion.
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific information available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this 
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), our final critical habitat designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we 
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

Public Hearing

    We will hold a public informational meeting and public hearing on 
the date and at the times listed in DATES. We are holding the public 
informational meeting and public hearing via the Zoom online video 
platform and via teleconference so that participants can attend 
remotely. To listen and view the meeting and hearing via Zoom, listen 
to the meeting and hearing by telephone, or provide oral public 
comments at the public hearing via Zoom or by telephone, you must 
register. For information on how to register, or if you encounter 
problems joining Zoom the day of the meeting, visit https://empsi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_kg1fCOfUTxOXaznf1ezIig. Registrants 
will receive the Zoom link and the telephone number for the public 
informational meeting and public hearing. If applicable, interested 
members of the public not familiar with the Zoom platform should view 
the Zoom video tutorials (https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior to the public informational 
meeting and public hearing.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity 
to present verbal testimony (formal, oral

[[Page 79944]]

comments) on this proposed rule. While the public informational meeting 
will be an opportunity for dialogue with the Service, no such 
opportunity will be available at the public hearing. The purpose of the 
public hearing is to provide a forum for accepting formal verbal 
testimony, which will then become part of the record for the proposed 
rule. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for 
verbal testimony may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to provide 
verbal testimony at the public hearing is encouraged to provide a 
prepared written copy of their statement to us through the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal or by U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, above). There are no 
limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. Again, anyone 
wishing to provide verbal testimony at the public hearing must register 
before the hearing (https://empsi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_kg1fCOfUTxOXaznf1ezIig). The use of a virtual public hearing is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Reasonable Accommodation

    The Service is committed to providing access to the public 
informational meeting and public hearing for all participants. Closed 
captioning will be available during the public informational meeting 
and public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and 
transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands after the hearing. Participants will also 
have access to live audio during the public informational meeting and 
public hearing via their telephone or computer speakers. Persons with 
disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in the 
meeting and/or hearing should contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days prior to the date 
of the meeting and hearing to help ensure availability. An accessible 
version of the Service's public informational meeting presentation will 
also be posted online at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands prior to 
the meeting and hearing (see DATES, above). See https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands for more information about reasonable accommodation.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the final listing rule for the i'iiwi, which 
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43873), 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we will seek the expert opinions of at 
least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this 
proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our 
proposed critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to 
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions 
and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat. 
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Background

    The 'i'iwi is a bird endemic to the Hawaiian Islands whose name is 
often anglicized to ``iiwi.'' We prefer to, and will, include Hawaiian 
language spellings, including diacritical marks, to the degree possible 
and appropriate in the preambles of our Federal Register documents. For 
the text to be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
however, we will omit diacritical marks to ensure that no errors are 
inadvertently incorporated during the codification process.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features:
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the

[[Page 79945]]

extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, 
those physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected 
habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the species status report and information developed 
during the listing process for the species. Additional information 
sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or 
outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan 
for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; and (2) 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of those planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    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 shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary 
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be 
prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    As discussed in the final listing rule (82 FR 43873; September 20, 
2017), there is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism 
identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and 
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such 
threat. In our species status report and final listing determination 
for the `i`iwi, we determined that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a 
threat to `i`iwi and that those threats in some way can be addressed by 
the Act's section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The species occurs 
wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States, and we are able to 
identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, 
because none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because the Secretary has not 
identified other circumstances for which this designation of critical 
habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for the `i`iwi.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the `i`iwi 
is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that 
critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following 
situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is 
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the `i`iwi.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which

[[Page 79946]]

may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level 
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics 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 (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.

Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species

    The `i`iwi is an endemic Hawaiian forest bird belonging to the 
honeycreeper subfamily, Drepanidinae, of the Fringillidae (finch 
family). Historical abundance estimates are not available, but the 
`i`iwi was considered one of the most common of the native forest birds 
in Hawaii by early naturalists and was found from sea level to the tree 
line across all the major islands (Banko 1981, pp. 1-2). In the late 
1800s, `i`iwi began to disappear from low-elevation forests due to 
habitat loss and avian diseases (Banko 1981, pp. 2-3), and by the mid-
1900s, the species was largely absent from sea level to mid-elevation 
forests (Munro 1944, p. 94). Today `i`iwi are no longer found on Lanai 
and only a few individuals may be found on O'ahu, Moloka'i, and west 
Maui. Remaining populations of `i`iwi are restricted to high-elevation 
forests above 3,937 feet (ft) (1,200 meters (m)) on Hawai`i Island, 
east Maui, and Kaua`i because these areas contain temperatures low 
enough to reduce or inhibit the spread of avian malaria and avian pox, 
carried by Culex mosquitoes. At the time of listing, the rangewide 
population estimate was approximately 600,000 individuals. An estimated 
90 percent of `i`iwi occur on Hawai`i Island, with the remainder 
distributed on east Maui (about 10 percent), and Kaua`i (less than 1 
percent).

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    `I`iwi are found primarily in closed canopy, montane wet or mesic 
forests of tall stature, dominated by native `[omacr]hi`a (Metrosideros 
polymorpha) or `[omacr]hi`a and koa (Acacia koa) trees. `I`iwi are 
nectarivorous; their diet consists predominantly of nectar from the 
flowers of `[omacr]hi`a, but they may also feed on m[amacr]mane 
(Sophora chrysophylla), and plants in the lobelia family 
(Campanulaceae) (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 4). They also feed 
opportunistically upon insects and spiders (Fancy and Ralph 1998, pp. 
4-5). The `i`iwi's long, curved bill is a result of coevolution with 
native Hawaiian plants in the lobelia family, which have long, curved 
corollas (groups of petals that encircle the reproductive structures of 
a flower) (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 4, and references therein). 
Hawaiian lobelioids in the subfamily Lobelioideae, provide an important 
food source for `i`iwi and represent the largest plant radiation on any 
island archipelago with 126 species in six genera (Givnish et al. 2008, 
p. 410). However, many of Hawai`i's lobelioids are impacted by feral 
ungulates and contain few defenses against herbivory. `I`iwi now feed 
primarily on `[omacr]hi`a flowers, which have stamens that extend 1-3 
cm (0.4-1.2 in) out from the flower and give the blossoms a pompom, 
brush, or hairlike appearance (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 4). `I`iwi are 
strong fliers that move long distances to locate nectar sources, and 
are well known for their seasonal movements in response to the 
availability of flowering `[omacr]hi`a (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 3.) 
The `i`iwi's seasonal movement to lower elevation areas in search of 
nectar sources is an important factor in the exposure of the species to 
avian diseases, particularly malaria.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    On the islands of Hawai`i, Kaua`i, and Maui, the three islands that 
currently support populations of `i`iwi, the species breeds and winters 
in mesic and wet forests that are dominated by `[omacr]hi`a and koa 
trees (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 3). `I`iwi do not demonstrate high 
fidelity to a local breeding area (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 9); rather, 
individual birds switch breeding sites from year to year to take 
advantage of localized nectar availability (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 
9). `I`iwi pairs remain together during the breeding season and defend 
a small area around their nest, but disperse after breeding and raising 
young (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 2). The `i`iwi breeding season starts 
as early as October and continues through to the following August 
(Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 7). However, the majority of breeding occurs 
from February through June, coinciding with peak flowering of 
`[omacr]hi`a (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 2). `I`iwi construct cup-shaped 
nests comprised of twigs and lined with lichens and moss in the upper 
canopy of `[omacr]hi`a trees at an average nest height of 23.6 ft (7.2 
m) (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 8).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    `[Omacr]hi`a and other flowering trees and shrubs are distributed 
across the landscape and flower asynchronously (Ralph and Fancy 1995, 
pp. 735-741). `I`iwi require large areas of suitable habitat for 
foraging. They are strong fliers that move long distances to locate 
nectar sources (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 3;). `I`iwi move several miles 
(several kilometers) in search of large forest patches of seasonally 
asynchronous flowering trees or shrubs (Guillaumet et al. 2017, p. 1). 
`I`iwi forage in flocks of two to nine `i`iwi and with other Hawaiian 
honeycreeper species such as `Apapane (Himatione sanguinea), 
particularly after the breeding season (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 7). 
`I`iwi move according to available nector sources, and other than 
defending a small area around their nest when

[[Page 79947]]

breeding, `I`iwi are not territorial, nor do they have a defined home 
range.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of `i`iwi from studies of the species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information 
can be found in the species status report (Service 2016, entire; 
available on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-
0144). We have determined that the following physical or biological 
features are essential to the conservation of `i`iwi:
    (1) Multiple patches of seasonally flowering trees including 
`[omacr]hi`a and m[amacr]mane and/or shrubs that collectively provide a 
year-round nectar source. The number of patches of flowering trees and 
shrubs needed may be few if patch size is large. For example, a few 
large contiguous areas of forest containing seasonally asynchronously 
flowering trees and shrubs that are several square miles (several 
kilometers) in size, or many small patches with concentrated, 
seasonally asynchronously flowering trees and shrubs would meet the 
`i`iwi's year-round nectar source needs. Patches can be close together, 
such as individual flowering trees a few hundred feet (hundred meters) 
apart in an open landscape, or far apart, such as large forest patches 
of seasonally asynchronous flowering trees or shrubs as much as several 
miles (several kilometers) apart.
    (2) Tall stature trees (height taller than 26 ft (8 m)) 
characteristic of a mesic and wet forest ecosystem, including 
`[omacr]hi`a and koa for nesting. We define tall stature forest as 
forest with a minimum canopy height of 26 ft (8 m) based on mean nest 
height for `i`iwi of 24 feet.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. As discused above, `i`iwi habitat is characterized by mesic 
and wet forests that are dominated by `[omacr]hi`a and koa trees. This 
ecosystem is a multi-layered structure of tall canopy trees, secondary 
shrubs (e.g., Lobelioids) and fern layers, and ground-hugging mosses 
and lichens. The functionality of this system is dependent on native 
plant regeneration, pollination, and seed dispersal. A keystone species 
in this system is the `[omacr]hi`a tree. `[Omacr]hi`a are specificially 
adapted for bird pollination because they produce copius nectar; newly 
secreted nectar has low sugar concentration, and flowers are 
predominantly red in color (Carpenter 1976, p. 1139.) Red flowers, the 
most common type of `[omacr]hi`a blossoms are partially self-
incompatible and require an animal pollinator for high-levels of fruit 
set and good seed set (Carpenter 1976, p. 1134.) The Hawaiian 
honeycreepers, including `i`iwi, serve an important role as pollinators 
in Hawai`i's mesic and wet forest ecosystem and are necessary to ensure 
the health of this ecosystem. Unfortunately, Hawaiian honeycreepers, 
especially `i`iwi, are highly susceptible to avian disease. For 
example, a single bite from the southern house mosquito (Culex 
quinquefasciatus) carrying avian malaria can be fatal to individuals of 
the Hawaiian honeycreeper genera (Atkinson et al. 1995, p. S65; 
Atkinson et al. 2000, p. 199). Climate change exacerbates the threat of 
mosquito-borne avian disease by increasing forest temperatures allowing 
cold-intolerant mosquitos to climb higher in elevation, constricting 
the range of Hawaiian honeycreepers. Degradation and fragmentation of 
forests caused by nonnative plants, ungulates, fire, and plant 
pathogens are also threats to `i`iwi habitat. For a detailed discussion 
of threats to `i`iwi and its habitat, see the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43873).
    Any stressors that result in further degradation or fragmentation 
of the forests on which the `i`iwi relies for foraging and nesting are 
likely to exacerbate the impacts of avian disease on the species and 
directly affect habitat features which `i`iwi rely on for their life 
history processes. These stressors include invasive plants, which 
outcompete and displace native `[omacr]hi`a. Several species of 
nonnative grasses are widely documented to fuel a grass/fire cycle of 
intrusion into Hawai`i's native `[omacr]hi`a forests, further degrading 
biodiversity. In addition, feral ungulates including pigs (Sus scrofa), 
cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis aries), and axis deer (Axis axis) 
degrade `[omacr]hi`a forest habitat by spreading nonnative plant seeds, 
grazing and trampling native vegetation, contributing to erosion, and 
creating mosquito breeding habitat (Mountainspring 1986, p. 95; Camp et 
al. 2010, p. 198). In addition to the effects of nonnative plants and 
animals on `[omacr]hi`a and its habitat, `[omacr]hi`a forest is 
impacted by several diseases and natural processes including 
`[omacr]hi`a dieback, `[omacr]hi`a rust, and rapid `[omacr]hi`a death 
caused by the Ceratocystis fungus.
    Features essential to the conservation of `i`iwi may require 
special management considerations to reduce the following threats: (1) 
extirpation of native avian pollinators by mosquito-borne diseases 
which negatively impact mesic and wet forest health and persistence; 
(2) degradation of forest habitat by nonnative ungulates; (3) 
establishment and spread of habitat-altering nonnative plants; and (4) 
spread of nonnative pathogens including those that cause rapid 
`[omacr]hi`a death, a fungal wilt disease.
    Management actions that could minimize or ameliorate these threats 
include, but are not limited to, removal of mosquito breeding sources 
(such as application of larvicides to standing water), control or 
eradication of significant habitat-modifying invasive plants, ungulate 
removal and exclusion fencing, reduction of the spread of rapid 
`[omacr]hi`a death and other plant pathogens, and habitat restoration 
to encourage multiple types of native flowering plants at higher 
elevations. These management actions would result in the enhancement of 
`i`iwi breeding and foraging areas. In addition, the incompatible 
insect technique may be used in some areas to limit southern house 
mosquito populations. This technique involves the release of male 
southern house mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia bacteria, which 
renders them incapable of producing viable offspring when they mate 
with wild-type females, thereby reducing mosquito populations that 
carry avian diseases (Pagendam et al. 2020, entire).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat. The area of occupied `i`iwi habitat 
fulfills the species' recovery criteria for size and distribution of 
forest and shrubland

[[Page 79948]]

habitat needed for recovery (Service 2021, pp. 110-112). Therefore, the 
areas occupied by the `i`iwi are adequate to ensure the conservation of 
the species. For areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we used the methodology described below 
to delineate critical habitat unit boundaries.
    To determine the area occupied at the time of listing, we relied 
primarily on a summary of abundance, distribution, and trends compiled 
by the U.S. Geological Survey (Paxton et al. 2013, entire). This 
dataset represents the most recent and best available dataset for 
`i`iwi populations. Where this summary was incomplete, specifically 
within the Kula region of Maui, we used information provided by the 
National Park Service and the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project (Judge 
et al. 2019, p. 34). Rangewide, `i`iwi are constrained to a narrow band 
of montane forest at an elevation of 4,265-6,233 ft (1,300-1,900 m). 
Most `i`iwi are found on the island of Hawai`i (90 percent), followed 
by east Maui (about 10 percent), and Kaua`i (less than 1 percent). 
Relict populations may exist on O`ahu, west Maui, and Moloka`i (Paxton 
et al. 2013, p. 10).
    Within occupied areas, we identified the areas that support the 
highest densities of `i`iwi. Areas of `i`iwi abundance are proxies for 
patches of flowering `[omacr]hi`a and other nectar sources within mesic 
and wet forest ecosystems. `I`iwi are known to undertake seasonal 
movements that mirror `[omacr]hi`a flowering periods. Due to the 
variability of mesic and wet forest ecosystems and the limitations of 
satellite imagery to distinguish physical and biological features, 
`i`iwi abundance was used as a proxy for seasonal flowering 
`[omacr]hi`a and other nectar sources. Therefore, forest bird surveys 
conducted during the late 1970s and early 1980s (Scott et al. 1986, 
entire) were our primary source of information for delineating high-
density areas. More recent surveys (Paxton et al. 2013, entire) show 
some contraction of the species' range, particularly at lower 
elevations. However, the high-density bands described in Paxton et al. 
2013 correspond closely with 1970s-80s density maps. Because of this 
close correspondence and because the older mapped densities provide 
more detailed information for locations of high-density populations, 
both across and along the elevation contour, we relied primarily on the 
older dataset to delineate the highest density areas. We also 
considered the most recent surveys for the Kula region on Maui 
conducted by the National Park Service and Maui Forest Bird Recovery 
Project (Judge et al. 2019, p. 34).
    `I`iwi foraging behavior required that we delineate critical 
habitat areas that are large enough to ensure regionally resilient 
populations. To ensure redundancy and representation of the species at 
a rangewide scale, we determined that the islands of Kaua`i, Maui, and 
Hawai`i should be included in the critical habitat designation. These 
three islands represent the functional distribution of the species and 
are separated by enough distance that if one island suffered a 
catastrophic population decline due to a hurricane or other 
environmental catastrophe, populations on other islands would likely be 
spared. Populations across this distribution also represent the 
genetic, ecological, and behavioral diversity of the species. For Maui 
and Hawai`i, the two islands that support multiple populations, we also 
considered redundancy and representation at an island scale. 
Maintaining habitat to support multiple regional populations on each 
island safeguards against the effects of smaller-scale catastrophic 
events and ensures inclusion of diverse habitats that represent the 
behavioral and ecological diversity of the species. Based on the Scott 
et al. (1986) dataset, we included all areas with a maximum mapped 
density of 100 birds per square kilometer (birds/km\2\), a density that 
maximized connectivity between the highest density population centers 
within a region, therefore promoting resiliency. This resulted in 
delineation of areas within seven geographical regions, i.e., critical 
habitat units distributed across the islands of Kaua`i, Maui, and 
Hawai`i. In addition, we delineated areas within the Kula Unit on east 
Maui based on the National Park Service and Maui Forest Bird Recovery 
Project dataset (Judge et al. 2019, p. 34), as this area was not well 
surveyed until recently and, therefore, was not included in the Scott 
et al. 1986 dataset. Next, within each of the units, we determined 
whether the area delineated was large enough to support a highly 
resilient population of `i`iwi. Although the viable population size of 
`i`iwi is unknown, a population of 5,000 is a generalized estimate of 
population size required for long-term viability for a range of 
vertebrate species (Traill et al. 2010, p. 31). We used this estimate 
to ensure that, within each unit, the designation included sufficient 
habitat to support highly resilient populations.
    We calculated the area required to support a highly resilient 
population by multiplying regionally specific population densities by 
5,000. For all units except the Alaka`i Plateau Unit on Kaua`i, we used 
the current highest density estimate for that respective unit. In the 
Alaka`i region,`i`iwi range contraction and population decline has been 
precipitous over the last 20 years due to avian disease; however, 
abundant habitat still exists and carrying capacity is high, therefore 
we used historical densities to maintain this critical habitat area for 
`i`iwi. Specifically, we used the average of the interior and exterior 
survey densities for the Alaka`i Plateau survey area from the year 2000 
as the most representative of `i`iwi density and habitat carrying 
capacity (Paxton et al. 2013, p. 57). Year 2000 survey data were used 
for the Alaka`i Plateau area because this survey data point represents 
the most recent survey data prior to the rapid population decline of 
`i`iwi beginning around year 2000, due primarily to avian disease.
    Through further analysis, including a review of satellite imagery 
and the area required to support long-term viability for a range of 
vertebrate species (Traill et al. 2010, p. 31), we determined that two 
geographical regions, the West Maui region and the Kohala region on 
Hawai`i Island, were not large enough to support a population of 5,000 
birds. Therefore, we did not delineate critical habitat within these 
two regions.
    Because our critical habitat areas concentrate on areas of high 
`i`iwi density as surveyed in the 1970s and 80s, we used satellite 
imagery and land management information to refine the larger contiguous 
areas containing high `i`iwi densities. Specifically, we removed all 
parcels that were smaller than 1,235 acres (ac) (500 hectares (ha)), 
unless they were owned by a State or Federal agency, or already managed 
for conservation. Small private parcels were found to have negligible 
identified physical or biological features essential for `i`iwi 
conservation and represented a small proportion of the area that 
otherwise meets our criteria for critical habitat designation. In order 
to provide for adequate `i`iwi foraging areas encompassing one or more 
physical and biological features and prevent an artificial range 
constriction of high densities of `i`iwi, the delineated critical 
habitat area in every region is greater than the habitat area needed to 
support the conservation of the species. In summary, for areas within 
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we 
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following 
criteria:
    1. Habitat contains primarily mesic and wet forest ecosystem 
dominated by `[omacr]hi`a and koa;
    2. Area has high population density of `i`iwi, defined as more than 
100 birds/

[[Page 79949]]

km\2\, which is a proxy for multiple patches of seasonally flowering 
trees including `[omacr]hi`a and m[amacr]mane and/or shrubs that 
collectively provide a year-round nectar source; and
    3. Each regional area meeting criteria 1 and 2 above is able to 
support at least 5,000 birds.
    We then removed the smallest parcels (less than 1,235 ac (500 ha)) 
in private ownership within larger contiguous areas and all areas that 
were smaller than 62 ac (25 ha) and discontinuous from larger habitat 
units.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for `i`iwi. The scale of the 
maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code 
of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded 
by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as 
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as 
proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger 
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat. We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species.
    Seven units are proposed for designation based on one or more of 
the physical or biological features being present to support `i`iwi. 
Some units contain only some of the physical or biological features 
necessary to support the `i`iwi's use of that habitat. All units 
contain at least one of the identified physical or biological features 
and support multiple life-history processes for `i`iwi.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2022-0144.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing seven units as critical habitat for the `i`iwi. 
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the `i`iwi. The seven units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) 
Alaka`i Plateau; (2) Kula; (3) East Haleakal[amacr]; (4) Windward 
Hawai`i; (5) Ka`[umacr]; (6) South Kona; and (7) North Kona. All units 
were occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied. Table 
1 shows the proposed critical habitat units, their ownership, and the 
approximate area of each unit.

                                                   Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for `i`iwi
                                             [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat units]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Area of overlap with
                   Unit                               Occupied                      Landowner             Total area (ac (ha))      existing critical
                                                                                                                                    habitat  (ac (ha))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Alaka`i Plateau (Kaua`i Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaka`i Plateau..........................  Yes..........................  State.......................           10,359 (4,192)            9,262 (3,748)
Alaka`i Plateau..........................  Yes..........................  Private.....................              2,150 (870)                 131 (53)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................           12,510 (5,063)            9,393 (3,801)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Kula (Maui Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kula.....................................  Yes..........................  State.......................            4,396 (1,779)            4,346 (1,759)
Kula.....................................  Yes..........................  Private.....................                830 (336)                825 (334)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................            5,226 (2,115)            5,171 (2,093)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           East Haleakal[amacr] (Maui Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Haleakal[amacr].....................  Yes..........................  Federal.....................            5,670 (2,294)            5,666 (2,293)
East Haleakal[amacr].....................  Yes..........................  State.......................           10,283 (4,162)           10,265 (4,154)
East Haleakal[amacr].....................  Yes..........................  Private.....................            3,440 (1,392)                   20 (8)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................           19,393 (7,848)           15,951 (6,455)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Windward Hawai`i (Hawai`i Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windward.................................  Yes..........................  Federal.....................          34,694 (14,040)           24,061 (9,737)
Windward.................................  Yes..........................  State.......................          91,547 (37,048)          36,202 (14,650)
Windward.................................  Yes..........................  Private.....................           14,844 (6,007)                514 (208)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................         141,085 (57,095)          60,777 (24,595)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Ka`[umacr] (Hawai`i Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ka`[umacr]...............................  Yes..........................  State.......................          32,059 (12,974)            5,498 (2,225)
Ka`[umacr]...............................  Yes..........................  Private.....................                399 (162)                    0 (0)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------

[[Page 79950]]

 
    Total................................  .............................  ............................          32,458 (13,136)            5,498 (2,225)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               South Kona (Hawai`i Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Kona...............................  Yes..........................  Federal.....................            8,234 (3,332)            3,447 (1,395)
South Kona...............................  Yes..........................  State.......................            8,357 (3,382)            2,861 (1,158)
South Kona...............................  Yes..........................  Private.....................          34,785 (14,077)                 148 (60)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................          51,376 (20,791)            6,456 (2,613)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               North Kona (Hawai`i Island)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Kona...............................  Yes..........................  State.......................            9,457 (3,827)            2,982 (1,207)
North Kona...............................  Yes..........................  Private.....................            4,142 (1,676)                  47 (19)
                                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  .............................  ............................           13,599 (5,503)            3,029 (1,226)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the `i`iwi, below.

Alaka`i Plateau Unit

    The Alaka`i Plateau Unit consists of 12,510 ac (5,063 ha) of 
montane wet forest ecosystem from Koke`e State Park to the summit of 
Mount Wai`ale`ale, in Kaua`i County. The unit consists of State lands 
within Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, N[amacr] Pali-Kona Forest Reserve, 
and Hono O N[amacr] Pali Natural Area Reserve, and some private land. 
State lands comprise approximately 83 percent and private land 
approximately 17 percent of the Alaka`i Plateau Unit. Approximately 
75.1 percent, or 9,393 ac (3,801 ha) of the Alaka`i Plateau Unit is 
within already designated critical habitat for species other than the 
`i`iwi. This unit is essential for maintaining the geographical range 
of the `i`iwi and, therefore, contributing to the redundancy and 
representation necessary for species' recovery. In particular, the 
Kaua`i `i`iwi population is important for maintaining the species' 
genetic diversity, as it is likely there is little or no genetic 
exchange between `i`iwi on Kaua`i Island and Maui Island, the nearest 
island to Kaua`i with a substantial `i`iwi population. `I`iwi is not 
known to fly long distances over open water and the two islands are 
separated by over 200 miles (mi) (322 kilometers (km)) of open ocean. 
Threats identified within Alaka`i Plateau Unit include avian disease, 
habitat degradation due to rooting by feral ungulates; intrusion of 
ecosystem-altering invasive plants; and the rapid `[omacr]hi`a death 
fungal disease. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate threats may include mosquito control, 
feral ungulate control, invasive plant control, and measures to reduce 
the spread of rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (see Special Management 
Considerations or Protection, above). There are five land parcels 
defined by landownership within Alaka'i Plateau Unit: State of Hawaii 
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Alaka`i Wilderness 
Preserve and N[amacr] Pali-Kona Forest Reserve and Hono O N[amacr] Pali 
Natural Area Reserve total 10,359 ac (4,192 ha); Alexander & Baldwin, 
Inc. total 203 ac (82 ha); and Robinson Family Partners total 1,948 ac 
(788 ha).

Kula Unit

    The Kula Unit consists of 5,226 ac (2,115 ha) on the west slope of 
Haleakal[amacr] Volcano, in Maui County. This unit consists of State 
lands within Kula Forest Reserve and the Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui 
Forest Reserve, and some private land. State lands comprise 
approximately 84 percent, and private land approximately 16 percent, of 
the Kula Unit. Approximately 99 percent, or 5,171 ac (2,093 ha), of the 
Kula Unit is within already designated critical habitat for species 
other than the `i`iwi. The Kula Unit is comprised of mixed introduced/
native mesic montane forest with sub-alpine shrubland (Judge et al. 
2019, p. 7), representing different habitat types than other units, 
which are predominantly native wet montane forest. This unit is 
essential for maintaining the geographical range, as well as the 
ecological and behavioral diversity, of the species, therefore 
contributing to the redundancy and representation necessary for 
species' recovery. Threats identified within Kula Unit include avian 
disease, habitat degradation due to rooting by feral ungulates; 
intrusion of ecosystem-altering, invasive plants; and fire. Special 
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate 
threats may include mosquito control, ungulate control, invasive plant 
control, and fire management planning and wildfire response (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). There are 
three land parcels defined by landownership within Kula Unit: DLNR, 
Kula Forest Reserve and Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui Forest Reserve 
total 3,518 ac (1,424 ha); DLNR, Kula Forest Reserve is 878 ac (355 
ha); and Ka`ono`ulu Ranch is 830 ac (336 ha).

East Haleakal[amacr] Unit

    The East Haleakal[amacr] Unit consists of 19,393 ac (7,848 ha) on 
the north and east slopes of Haleakal[amacr] Volcano, Maui County. This 
unit consists of Federal lands within Haleakal[amacr] National Park; 
State lands within Ko`olau Forest Reserve, H[amacr]na Forest Reserve, 
K[imacr]pahulu Forest Reserve, and Hanaw[imacr] Natural Area Reserve; 
and some private lands. Federal lands comprise approximately 29 
percent, State lands approximately 53 percent, and private land 
approximately 18 percent of the East Haleakal[amacr] Unit. 
Approximately 82 percent, or 15,951 ac (6,455 ha), of the 
Haleakal[amacr] Unit is within already designated critical habitat for 
species other than the `i`iwi. The Haleakal[amacr] Unit is comprised 
predominantly of native wet montane forest and some native sub-alpine 
shrubland. This unit is essential for maintaining the geographical 
range, as well as the ecological and behavioral diversity of

[[Page 79951]]

the species, therefore contributing to the redundancy and 
representation necessary for species' recovery. Threats identified 
within East Haleakal[amacr] Unit include avian disease, habitat 
degradation due to rooting by feral ungulates; intrusion of ecosystem-
altering, invasive plants; and fire. Special management considerations 
or protection measures to reduce or alleviate threats may include 
mosquito control, ungulate control, invasive plant control, and fire 
management planning and wildfire response (see Special Management 
Considerations or Protection, above). There are seven land parcels 
defined by landownership within East Haleakal[amacr] Unit: 
Haleakal[amacr] Ranch Company is 1,113 ac (451 ha); East Maui 
Irrigation, Inc. is 2,327 ac (942 ha); DLNR, Ko`olau Forest Reserve is 
4,780 ac (1,934 ha); DLNR, Hanaw[imacr] Natural Area Reserve is 3,145 
ac (1,273 ha); DLNR, H[amacr]na Forest Reserve is 2,006 ac (812 ha); 
DLNR, K[imacr]pahulu Forest Reserve is 352 ac (142 ha); and 
Haleakal[amacr] National Park is 5,670 ac (2,294 ha).

Windward Hawai`i Unit

    The Windward Hawai`i Unit consists of 141,085 ac (57,095 ha) on the 
east slopes of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa Volcanos, Hawai`i County. This 
unit consists of Federal lands within Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 
and Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hakalau Forest Unit; State 
lands within Kap[amacr]pala Forest Reserve, Upper Wai[amacr]kea Forest 
Reserve, Hilo Forest Reserve, Manowaiale`e Forest Reserve, Mauna Kea 
Forest Reserve, Pu`u Maka`ala Natural Area Reserve, and 
Laup[amacr]hoehoe Natural Area Reserve; and lands administered by the 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL); and some private lands. 
Federal lands comprise approximately 25 percent, State lands 
approximately 67 percent, and private land approximately 8 percent of 
the Windward Hawai`i Unit. Approximately 43 percent, or 60,777 ac 
(24,595 ha) of the Windward Hawai`i Unit is within already designated 
critical habitat for species other than the `i`iwi. The Windward 
Hawai`i Unit is comprised predominantly of native wet montane forest 
and some higher elevations native mesic montane forest. The Windward 
Hawai`i Unit contains more than half of the `i`iwi population Statewide 
and has the highest `i`iwi densities within the State (Scott et al. 
1986, p. 160). Approximately 348,579 `i`iwi, or 57.8 percent of the 
entire Statewide `i`iwi population occupy the Windward Hawai`i Unit 
(Paxton et al. 2013, p. 10). This unit is essential for maintaining the 
species' geographical range, contributing to the redundancy and 
representation necessary for its recovery. Threats identified within 
Windward Hawai`i Unit include avian disease, habitat degradation due to 
rooting by feral ungulates; intrusion of ecosystem-altering, invasive 
plants; fire; and rapid `[omacr]hi`a death. Special management 
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate threats 
may include mosquito control, ungulate control, invasive plant control, 
fire management planning and wildfire response; and measures to reduce 
the spread of rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (see Special Management 
Considerations or Protection, above). There are eighteen land parcels 
defined by landownership within Windward Hawai'i Unit: Hawai`i 
Volcanoes National Park total 9,463 ac (3,830 ha) over two parcels; 
Kamehameha Schools total 13,308 ac (5,386 ha) over two parcels; DLNR, 
Kap[amacr]pala Forest Reserve is 588 ac (238 ha); DLNR, Upper 
Wai[amacr]kea Forest Reserve and Pu`u Maka`ala Natural Area Reserve is 
71,836 ac (29,071 ha); Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hakalau 
Forest Unit is 25,231 ac (10,211 ha) over two parcels; DLNR, Hilo 
Forest Reserve, Kaiwiki Section is 71 ac (29 ha); DLNR, Hilo Forest 
Reserve, Piha Section is 2,420 ac (979 ha); DLNR, Hilo Forest Reserve, 
Laup[amacr]hoehoe Section and Laup[amacr]hoehoe Natural Area Reserve is 
7,680 ac (3,108 ha); Department of Hawaiian Homelands is 4,035 ac 
(1,633 ha) over two parcels; DLNR, Hilo Forest Reserve, Humu`ula 
Section is 2,768 ac (1,120 ha); DLNR, Manowaiale`e Forest Reserve is 
672 ac (272 ha); DLNR, Mauna Kea Forest Reserve is 1,477 ac (598 ha); 
K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch is 87 ac (35 ha); and Parker Ranch is 1,449 ac 
(586 ha).

Ka`[umacr] Unit

    The Ka`[umacr] Unit consists of 32,458 ac (13,136 ha) on the 
southeast slope of Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawai`i County. This unit 
consists of State lands within Ka`[umacr] Forest Reserve and 
Kap[amacr]pala Forest Reserve, and some private lands. State lands 
comprise approximately 99 percent, and private land approximately 1 
percent of the Ka`[umacr] Unit. Approximately 17 percent, or 5,498 ac 
(2,225 ha), of the Ka`u Unit is within already designated critical 
habitat for species other than the `i`iwi. The Ka`[umacr] Unit is 
comprised of native wet montane forest in the southern portion, 
transitioning to native mesic montane forest in the northern portion of 
the unit. Native forest in the Ka`[umacr] Unit provides habitat 
connectivity between `i`iwi that inhabit the Windward Hawai`i Unit and 
`i`iwi that inhabit the South Kona Unit. The Ka`[umacr] Unit is 
essential for maintaining the geographical range of the species and 
redundancy and representation necessary for species' recovery. Threats 
identified within Ka`[umacr] Unit include avian disease, habitat 
degradation due to rooting by feral ungulates; intrusion of ecosystem-
altering, invasive plants; fire; and rapid `[omacr]hi`a death. Special 
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate 
threats may include mosquito control, ungulate control, invasive plant 
control, fire management planning and wildfire response; and measures 
to reduce the spread of rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (see Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, above). There are five land 
parcels defined by landownership within Ka`[umacr] Unit: DLNR, 
Ka`[umacr] Forest Reserve is 31,414 ac (12,713 ha); DLNR, 
Kap[amacr]pala Forest Reserve is 546 ac (221 ha); DLNR, Ka`[umacr] 
Forest Reserve is 99 ac (40 ha); and The Nature Conservancy total 399 
ac (162 ha) over two parcels.

South Kona Unit

    The South Kona Unit consists of 51,376 ac (20,791 ha) on the west 
slope of Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii County. This unit consists of 
Federal lands within Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Kona 
Forest Unit; State lands within South Kona Forest Reserve, Waiea 
Natural Area Reserve, and Kip[amacr]hoehoe Natural Area Reserve; and 
private lands. Federal lands comprise approximately 16 percent, State 
lands comprise approximately 16 percent, and private land approximately 
68 percent of the South Kona Unit. Approximately 13 percent, or 6,456 
ac (2,613 ha), of the South Kona Unit is within already designated 
critical habitat for species other than the `i`iwi. The South Kona Unit 
is comprised of native wet lowland forest at lower elevations and 
native wet and mesic montane forest at middle and upper elevations. 
Unlike other units, the South Kona Unit contains large areas of native 
wet lowland forest at elevations as low as 2,500 ft (762 m), 
representing the species' behavioral and ecological diversity. This 
unit is essential for maintaining the geographical range, as well as 
the diversity, of the species, therefore contributing to the redundancy 
and representation necessary for species' recovery. Threats identified 
within South Kona Unit include avian disease, habitat degradation due 
to rooting by feral ungulates; intrusion of ecosystem-altering, 
invasive plants; fire; and rapid `[omacr]hi`a death. Special management 
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate threats 
may include mosquito control, ungulate control,

[[Page 79952]]

invasive plant control, fire management planning and wildfire response; 
and measures to reduce the spread of rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). There are 
eighteen land parcels defined by landownership within South Kona Unit: 
Kealakekua Mountain Reserve LLC total 5,801 ac (2,348 ha) over two 
parcels; Kamehameha Schools total 16,209 ac (6,560 ha) over three 
parcels; Kealia Ranch is 1,758 ac (712 ha); Hakalau Forest National 
Wildlife Refuge, Kona Forest Unit is 8,234 ac (3,332 ha) over two 
parcels; DLNR, Waiea Natural Area Reserve is 939 ac (380 ha); DLNR, 
South Kona Forest Reserve, Ka`ohe Section is 1,052 ac (426 ha); DLNR, 
South Kona Forest Reserve, Kukuiopa`e Section is 2,416 ac (978 ha); 
DLNR, South Kona Forest Reserve, `Olelomoana Ophihihali Section is 
1,392 ac (563 ha); Yee Hop Ltd., Yee Hop Ranch is 5,317 ac (2,152 ha) 
over two parcels; DLNR, Kip[amacr]hoehoe Natural Area Reserve is 225 ac 
(91 ha); The Nature Conservancy is 5,700 ac (2,307 ha); DLNR, South 
Kona Forest Reserve, Kapua-Manuk[amacr] Section is 1,010 ac (409 ha); 
and DLNR, Manuk[amacr] Natural Area Reserve is 1,323 ac (535 ha).

North Kona Unit

    The North Kona Unit consists of 13,599 ac (5,503 ha) on the north, 
west, and south slopes of Hual[amacr]lai Volcano, Hawaii County. This 
unit consists of State lands within the Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird 
Sanctuary, Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Reserve, and Honua`ula Forest Reserve, 
and some private lands. State lands comprise approximately 70 percent, 
and private land approximately 30 percent of the North Kona Unit. 
Approximately 22 percent, or 3,029 ac (1,226 ha), of the North Kona 
Unit is within already designated critical habitat for species other 
than the `i`iwi. The North Kona Unit is comprised of mesic montane 
forest on the north slope and native wet and mesic montane forest on 
the west and south slopes of Hual[amacr]lai Volcano. Collectively, the 
North Kona Unit is essential for maintaining the geographical range, as 
well as the ecological and behavioral diversity, of the species, 
therefore contributing to the redundancy and representation necessary 
for species' recovery. Threats identified within North Kona Unit 
include habitat degradation due to rooting by feral ungulates; 
intrusion of ecosystem-altering, invasive plants; fire; and rapid 
`[omacr]hi`a death. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate threats may include ungulate control, 
invasive plant control, fire management planning and wildfire response; 
and measures to reduce the spread of rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (see 
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). There are four 
land parcels defined by landownership within North Kona Unit: DLNR, 
Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary and Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Reserve 
total 4,214 ac (1,705 ha); DLNR, Honua`ula Forest Reserve is 5,243 ac 
(2,122 ha); and Kamehameha Schools total 4,142 ac (1,676 ha) over two 
parcels.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new 
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected 
by the identified action.

[[Page 79953]]

    In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us, but Congress also enacted some 
exceptions in 2018 to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on 
certain land management plans on the basis of a new species listing or 
new designation of critical habitat that may be affected by the subject 
federal action. See 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 
115-141, Div, O, 132 Stat. 1059 (2018).

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include, but are not limited to, actions that would 
significantly diminish foraging and nesting opportunities for the 
`i`iwi. While we are currently unaware of any planned activities 
involving Federal actions that are of sufficient magnitude to impact 
the essential physical or biological features, known activities that 
have the potential to impact components of these features include, but 
are not limited to, road construction, development, crop production, 
cattle grazing, and forest extraction. In addition to the direct 
effects of tree removal on `i`iwi habitat, these activities also 
contribute to habitat degradation through the introduction and spread 
of nonnative species and compounding factors including diseases. 
Invasive plants outcompete and displace native `[omacr]hi`a and koa 
trees used by native forest birds for foraging and nesting. Feral 
ungulates degrade native forest by spreading nonnative plant seeds and 
grazing on and trampling native vegetation, contributing to soil 
erosion (Mountainspring 1986, p. 95; Camp et al. 2010, p. 198). In 
addition, `[omacr]hi`a trees are impacted by several diseases and 
natural processes, including `[omacr]hi`a dieback, `[omacr]hi`a rust, 
and rapid `[omacr]hi`a death (ROD), the effects of which are likely 
compounded by each other and with nonnative species and climate change 
(Mueller-Dombois 1986, pp. 238-239; Anderson 2012, pp. 1-2; Friday et 
al. 2015, pp. 1-3; Keith et al. 2015, p. 1).

Exemptions

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

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service. We also refer to a 2008 Department 
of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The Secretary's 
Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain 
each decision to potentially exclude these areas, as well as decisions 
not to potentially exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is 
reasonable. We will make a final determination in the final rule on 
whether or not we will exclude these areas.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would 
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the 
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as 
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor. We describe below the process that we undertook for 
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of 
the relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., 
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the incremental

[[Page 79954]]

impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical 
habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and 
associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, 
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when 
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas 
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to 
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. 
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation 
is considered a ``significant'' rulemaking, and requires additional 
analysis, review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is 
whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect 
of greater than $100 million in any given year (section 3(f)(1)). 
Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a screening 
analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat for the 
`i`iwi is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the `i`iwi (Industrial Economics, Incorporated 
2021). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the 
key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. 
The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular 
geographic areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such 
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic 
impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs 
(i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable 
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be 
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management 
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of 
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening 
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific 
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts 
as a result of the designation. The presence of the listed species in 
occupied areas of critical habitat means that any destruction or 
adverse modification of those areas is also likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Therefore, designating occupied 
areas as critical habitat typically causes little if any incremental 
economic impact above and beyond the impacts of listing the species. 
Therefore, the screening analysis focuses on areas of unoccupied 
critical habitat. If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed 
critical habitat designation, the screening analysis assesses whether 
any additional management or conservation efforts may incur incremental 
economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our draft 
economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation 
for the `i`iwi; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of 
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely 
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the `i`iwi, first we identified, in 
the IEM dated July 29, 2022, probable incremental economic impacts 
associated with the following categories of activities: (1) landscape-
level avian malaria control; (2) emergency response during volcanic 
activity; and (3) activities on forest reserve lands, including 
vegetation management along roadways, water lines, and utility lines; 
tree removal for building maintenance and removal of hazard trees; 
harvest of forest products; operation of recreational vehicles; and 
native plant collection for cultural purposes.
    We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, 
we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. 
Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that 
do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of 
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, 
or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the `i`iwi is 
present, Federal agencies would be required to consult with the Service 
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or 
implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed 
critical habitat designation, our consultations would include an 
evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
`i`iwi's critical habitat. The following specific circumstances help to 
inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological 
features identified for critical habitat are the same features 
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions 
that would likely adversely affect the essential physical or biological 
features of occupied critical habitat are also likely to adversely 
affect the species itself. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning 
this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this 
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
proposed designation of critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi includes 7 
units, subdivided into 60 subunits, totaling approximately 275,647 ac 
(111,554 ha). Lands within the designation are under Federal (18 
percent), State (60 percent), and private (22 percent) ownership. All 
units and subunits were occupied at the time of listing and are 
currently occupied. The incremental costs of designating critical 
habitat for the `i`iwi are likely to include additional administrative 
effort associated with section 7 consultations, as well as project 
modifications. There may also be incremental costs outside of the 
section 7 consultation process.
    The additional administrative effort associated with considering 
adverse modification during the section 7 consultation process was 
estimated using historical consultation data. We estimate up to 11 
technical assistances, 5 informal consultations, and 3 formal annually 
over the next 10 years. The maximum annual cost associated with these 
consultations is estimated not to

[[Page 79955]]

exceed $34,000 annually (2022 dollars). Therefore, the annual 
administrative burden is very unlikely to exceed $100 million or be 
considered economically significant.
    In many instances, critical habitat designation is not likely to 
change our recommendation for project modification during future 
consultations. However, in some instances, we may recommend 
modifications associated specifically with avoiding adverse 
modification to critical habitat.
     For activities with a Federal nexus that would involve 
entry into critical habitat susceptible to rapid `[omacr]hi`a death, we 
anticipate recommending disinfecting gear to limit the transmission of 
fungal pathogens associated with rapid `[omacr]hi`a death and limiting 
access into pristine areas. While we would not make these 
recommendations during a consultation that only considered jeopardy, 
they are part of best practices promoted by the Service and widely 
adopted by other agencies and conservation organizations. Therefore, 
the recommendations are unlikely to result in incremental costs because 
they are likely already part of standard protocols absent critical 
habitat.
     For activities with a Federal nexus involving koa thinning 
and `[omacr]hi`a harvest, we may recommend limiting forest extraction 
year-round to avoid adverse modification. Absent critical habitat, we 
would likely only recommend limiting forest extraction during the 
`i`iwi breeding season. Data are not available to develop a potential 
range of costs per year associated with this limitation. However, given 
that the Statewide value of forest extraction is estimated to be only 
$47.6 million (2022 dollars), and that baseline forest extraction in 
proposed critical habitat is likely to constitute a small fraction of 
the total forest extraction across the State, it is very unlikely that 
the costs attributable to critical habitat for the `i`iwi will exceed 
$100 million annually.
     In unpredictable cases, a Federal agency may need to act 
in response to volcanic activity to save human lives and would 
subsequently consult with the Service under emergency consultation 
provisions. Data are not available to forecast costs associated with 
modifications to or restoration activities following emergency response 
efforts during volcanic activity. Even if historical costs were 
available, the incremental costs associated with any given emergency 
response activity are likely to be highly context-specific.
    Incremental costs may occur outside of the section 7 consultation 
process if the designation of critical habitat triggers additional 
requirements or project modifications under State or local laws, 
regulations, or management strategies. These types of costs typically 
occur if the designation increases awareness of the presence of the 
species or the need for protection of its habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat for the `i`iwi has the potential to result in (1) a 
decrease in recreational access allowed in State-managed forest 
reserves, and (2) an increase in permitting requirements for 
development in proposed critical habitat. Although we acknowledge the 
potential for these types of costs, the likelihood of these potential 
future effects is uncertain, and data with which to estimate 
incremental costs is unavailable. Similarly, there may be economic 
impacts associated with the perceived effects of critical habitat on 
land values. However, the likelihood and magnitude of such effects for 
this purpose are uncertain.
    In summary, while the specific costs of critical habitat 
designation for the `i`iwi are subject to uncertainty, it is unlikely 
that, if adopted as proposed, the rulemaking would generate costs 
exceeding $100 million in a single year. Therefore, this proposed rule 
is unlikely to meet the threshold for an economically significant rule, 
with regard to costs, under E.O. 12866.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this proposed rule and 
our required determinations. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and 
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the 
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. We 
may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the 
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the 
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this 
species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security 
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security, 
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to 
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat. 
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another 
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of 
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise 
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have 
reason to consider excluding those areas.
    However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, 
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat 
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must 
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides 
information, including a reasonably specific justification of an 
incremental impact on national security that would result from the 
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That 
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as 
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities, 
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of 
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting 
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific 
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide 
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to 
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation. 
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a 
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the 
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the 
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security

[[Page 79956]]

concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for `i`iwi are not 
owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on national security or homeland security.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may 
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs)--or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular 
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts 
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine 
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a 
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional 
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection 
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a 
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat 
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result 
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to 
critical habitat. In the case of `i`iwi, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of `i`iwi and the 
importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, 
increased habitat protection for `i`iwi due to protection from 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued 
implementation of an ongoing management plan, which provides 
conservation equal to or more than the protections that result from a 
critical habitat designation, would reduce those benefits of including 
that specific area in the critical habitat designation.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
    Watershed Partnerships--An important factor for our decision to 
consider an area for proposed exclusion is whether the landowner 
participates in a watershed partnership. In 2003, the State of Hawaii 
formally established the Hawai`i Association of Watershed Partnerships 
consisting of over 60 public and private landowners throughout the 
State, committed to long-term protection and conservation of watershed 
areas. These watershed partnerships each have a conservation management 
plan, which is updated every several years to include measurable 
objectives and a budget. Financial support for the watershed 
partnerships include various long-term State funds, and other Federal 
and private sources. Of the 10 watershed partnerships in operation, 3 
have lands within the proposed critical habitat designation: Kaua`i 
Watershed Alliance, Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, and Three Mountain 
Alliance. These watershed partnerships fund and conduct conservation 
efforts that support the `i`iwi, including ungulate control and 
removal, and invasive weed management.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act
    HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and 
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitats. In some cases, 
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and 
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat 
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are 
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
    CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve 
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on 
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an 
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may 
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses, 
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition 
under the agreements. We also provide enrollees assurances that we will 
not impose further land--, water--, or resource-use restrictions, or 
require additional commitments of land, water, or finances, beyond 
those agreed to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis based on permitted conservation plans (such as HCPs, SHAs, and 
CCAAs), we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if incidental 
take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by the permit 
under section 10 of the Act and the HCP/SHA/CCAA meets all of the 
following three factors (see the 2016 Policy for additional details):
    a. The permittee is properly implementing the HCP/SHA/CCAA and is 
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. An HCP/
SHA/CCAA is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully 
implementing the commitments and provisions in the HCP/SHA/CCAA, 
implementing agreement, and permit.
    b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the HCP/SHA/CCAA, or is very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services 
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the 
conservation measures undertaken in the HCP/SHA/CCAA would also protect 
the habitat features of the similar species.
    c. The HCP/SHA/CCAA specifically addresses that species' habitat 
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
    This proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation 
of `i`iwi:
    Safe Harbor Agreement Trustees of the Estate of Bernice P. Bishop, 
DBA Kamehameha Schools Keauhou and K[imacr]lauea Forest Lands Hawai`i 
Island, Hawaii (Kamehameha Schools Keauhou and K[imacr]lauea Forest 
Lands Safe Harbor Agreement)--The permit holder for this SHA is 
Kamehameha Schools. Kamehameha Schools was established in 1887, through 
the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop. Kamehameha Schools 
owns over

[[Page 79957]]

362,000 ac (146,496 ha) of land throughout Hawaii and part of 
Kamehameha Schools' mission is to protect Hawaii's environment through 
recognition of the significant cultural value of this land and its 
unique flora and fauna. In 2017, the SHA was approved by the Service 
and Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources for the Kamehameha 
School's Keauhou and K[imacr]lauea Forest lands, which comprise 32,280 
ac (13,063 ha) on the east slope of Mauna Loa Volcano, on the island of 
Hawai`i. Under the SHA, koa (Acacia koa) tree silviculture will be 
conducted, including stand improvement through selective harvest and 
establishment of new or improvement of existing forest in formerly 
logged areas and degraded pasture lands. Koa forestry, as described in 
the SHA, increases soil-water retention capacity and provides nesting 
and foraging habitat for Hawaiian forest birds, including the `i`iwi 
(Kamehameha Schools 2017, pp. 22-23). Kamehameha Schools has agreed to 
conduct silviculture practices in a way to ensure minimal impact to 
covered forest birds (`i`iwi, akiap[omacr]l[amacr]`[amacr]u 
(Hemignathus wilsoni), Hawaii creeper (Loxops mana), Hawaii 
`[amacr]kepa (Loxops coccineus), and Hawaiian hawk or `io (Buteo 
solitarius)) if those species become established in koa stands, through 
avoidance of harvest when birds are nesting.
    We have identified the following areas that we have reason to 
consider excluding because of the SHA:
    Windward Hawai`i Unit--(Kamehameha Schools)--The Kamehameha Schools 
are responsible for 13,308 ac (5,386 ha) of land included in the 
proposed designation for `i`iwi within the Windward Hawai`i Unit. 
Conservation management actions on these lands occur under the 
Kamehameha Schools Keauhou and K[imacr]lauea Forest Lands SHA. This SHA 
is implemented effectively and specifically addresses `i`iwi habitat 
and meets the conservation needs of `i`iwi in the planning area. In 
addition to this SHA, these lands in the Windward Hawai`i Unit are also 
covered under two non-permitted conservation plans, the Kamehameha 
Schools `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural Resources Management Program and the 
Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan. Both of these non-permitted 
conservation plans are summarized below in Non-Permitted Conservation 
Plans, Agreements, or Partnerships. We are considering 13,308 ac (5,386 
ha) in the Windward Hawai`i Unit for exclusion from the final critical 
habitat designation for the `i`iwi because conservation actions 
occurring on the ground, including forest restoration, invasive 
predator control, ungulate fence installation and maintenance, and 
control of invasive introduced plants, are providing a conservation 
benefit to `i`iwi.
    We will work with Kamehameha Schools and the Three Mountain 
Alliance Watershed Partnership throughout the public comment period and 
during development of the final designation of critical habitat for 
`i`iwi. We seek comments on whether the existing management and 
conservation efforts of Kamehameha Schools and the Three Mountain 
Alliance partners meet our criteria for exclusion from the final 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Non-Permitted Conservation Plans, Agreements, or Partnerships
    We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat 
designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-
Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant 
partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that 
are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its 
habitat and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects 
on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered 
by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by 
private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with 
the Service.
    Shown below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that we consider in 
evaluating how non-permitted plans or agreements affect the benefits of 
inclusion or exclusion. These are not required elements of plans or 
agreements. Rather, they are some of the factors we may consider, and 
not all of these factors apply to every plan or agreement.
    (i) The degree to which the record of the plan, or information 
provided by proponents of an exclusion, supports a conclusion that a 
critical habitat designation would impair the realization of the 
benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or partnership.
    (ii) The extent of public participation in the development of the 
conservation plan.
    (iii) The degree to which agency review and required determinations 
(e.g., State regulatory requirements) have been completed, as necessary 
and appropriate.
    (iv) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) compliance was required.
    (v) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen 
mechanism.
    (vi) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the 
conservation of the essential physical or biological features for the 
species.
    (vii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan or agreement will be implemented.
    (viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring program 
and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following non-permitted management plans providing for 
the conservation of `i`iwi:
    Kaua`i Watershed Alliance Management Plan, Overall Management 
Strategy (2012)--The Kaua`i Watershed Alliance was formed in 2003, 
including major landowners within the conservation district boundary on 
Kaua`i and encompassing most land with native forest on the island of 
Kaua`i (Kaua`i Watershed Alliance 2012, entire). The Kaua`i Watershed 
Alliance Management Plan is designed to protect over 25,000 ac (10,117 
ha) of forest land through construction of ungulate fences; ungulate 
removal; fence line surveys; and control of invasive, introduced plants 
(Kaua`i Watershed Alliance 2012, entire). These conservation actions 
are beneficial in conserving native and introduced forests used for 
nesting and foraging by `i`iwi.
    Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery Project--The Kaua`i Forest Bird 
Recovery Project is a joint collaborative program between the State of 
Hawaii's Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the Pacific Studies 
Cooperative Unit of the University of Hawai`i. It is funded and 
supported by numerous partners including the Service, Division of 
Forestry and Wildlife, and several other organizations and individuals 
(Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery Project 2022, entire). The Kaua`i Forest 
Bird Recovery Project is committed to monitoring Kaua`i forest bird 
reproductive success, conducting invasive predator control, and 
promoting knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of Kaua`i's native 
forest birds and the potential of different management strategies for 
recovering their populations. These conservation actions are beneficial 
in educating the public and conserving native forest that is used for 
nesting and foraging by `i`iwi.
    Kula Forest Reserve and the Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui Forest 
Reserve Management Plan--The State of Hawaii's Division of Forestry and 
Wildlife manages the Kula Conservation Game Management Area on the 
south

[[Page 79958]]

slope of Haleakal[amacr] Volcano, east Maui, under the Kula Forest 
Reserve and the Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui Forest Reserve Management 
Plan (DOFAW 2017, entire). Management of feral ungulates by public 
hunting on the conservation game management area benefits mixed 
introduced and native forest and native shrublands by reducing ungulate 
grazing and rooting and trampling of trees, shrubs, and other 
vegetation. Ungulate control within the conservation game management 
area benefits habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improving 
forest regeneration and reducing breeding sites for introduced southern 
house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria.
    Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration Partnership--Formed 
in 2003, the Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership is a 
coalition of 11 private and public landowners and supporting agencies 
that are working to protect and restore watershed areas on leeward 
Haleakal[amacr] Volcano, east Maui (Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed 
Restoration Partnership 2022, entire). The partnership's land 
management goals for the leeward Haleakal[amacr] watershed include: (1) 
restore native koa forests to provide increased water quantity and 
quality, (2) conserve unique endemic plants and animals, (3) protect 
important Hawaiian cultural resources, and (4) allow diversification of 
Maui's rural economy. Large areas of mesic koa forest and mixed koa/
`ohi`i a forest of leeward east Maui was degraded by cattle grazing 
over the last century, reducing the amount of available habitat for 
`i`iwi. The Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration Partnership's 
efforts to restore koa forests and conserve endemic plants and animals 
that comprise native ecosystems benefit `i`iwi by improving 
regeneration of forest and shrubland habitats used by the species for 
nesting and foraging.
    The Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve, Long-Range Management 
Plan, Fiscal Years 2019-2024--The Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve 
was established on east Maui in 1983 when Haleakal[amacr] Ranch granted 
a perpetual conservation easement on 5,140 ac (2,080 ha) of ranch lands 
to The Nature Conservancy, and the preserve was expanded in 2013, when 
The Nature Conservancy obtained a conservation easement on 3,721 ac 
(1,506 ha) of East Maui Irrigation Co. Ltd. (EMI) lands adjacent to the 
existing preserve. The management program for the Waikamoi Preserve is 
documented in The Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve, Long-Range 
Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2019-2024 (The Nature Conservancy 2018, 
entire). This plan details management measures that protect, restore, 
and enhance rare plants and animals and their habitats within the 
Waikamoi Preserve and in adjacent areas. Primary management goals for 
the Waikamoi Preserve are to: (1) Prevent degradation of native forest 
and shrubland by reducing feral ungulate damage; (2) improve or 
maintain the integrity of native ecosystems in selected areas of the 
preserve by reducing the effects of nonnative plants; (3) conduct small 
mammal control and reduce the negative impacts of small mammals where 
possible; (4) monitor and track the biological and physical resources 
in the preserve, evaluate changes in these resources over time, and 
encourage biological and environmental research; (5) prevent extinction 
of rare species in the preserve; (6) build public understanding and 
support for the preservation of natural areas and enlist volunteer 
assistance for preserve management; and (7) protect the resources from 
fires in and around the preserve. Ungulate control benefits habitat 
`i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improving forest regeneration 
and reducing breeding sites for introduced southern house mosquitoes 
that carry avian malaria. Fire suppression benefits forest and 
shrubland habitats `i`iwi use by minimizing damage to these habitats by 
fire. Nonnative plant control improves recruitment of native trees, and 
control of small mammals, particularly rats (Rattus spp.), reduces 
potential for predation of nesting `i`iwi. Collectively, these actions 
are effective in conserving native forest and shrubland `i`iwi use for 
nesting and foraging.
    East Maui Watershed Partnership--The East Maui Watershed 
Partnership, formed in 1991, is a coalition of private and public 
landowners and supporting agencies that are working to protect and 
restore watershed areas on windward Haleakal[amacr] Volcano, east Maui 
(East Maui Watershed Partnership 2022, entire). The partnership's 
management goals for the East Maui Watershed Partnership include: (1) 
watershed resource monitoring; (2) feral animal control; (3) control of 
invasive, introduced plants; (4) development and maintenance of 
management infrastructure; and (5) development and implementation of 
public education and awareness programs. Since 1991, the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership has constructed over 7 mi (11 km) of ungulate 
fences protecting remote watershed areas and has removed feral 
ungulates from fenced areas. Ungulate control benefits habitat `i`iwi 
use for nesting and foraging by improving forest regeneration and 
reducing mosquito breeding sites. Nonnative plant control improves 
recruitment of native trees.
    Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project--The Maui Forest Bird Recovery 
Project (MFBRP) is a joint collaborative program between the State of 
Hawaii's Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the Pacific Studies 
Cooperative Unit of the University of Hawai`i. MFBRP is funded and 
supported by numerous partners including the Service, Division of 
Forestry and Wildlife, and several other organizations and individuals 
(Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project 2022, entire). The mission of the 
Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project is to develop and implement 
techniques that recover Maui's endangered forest birds and to restore 
their habitats through research, development, and application of 
conservation techniques. These conservation actions are beneficial in 
conserving native forest that is used for nesting and foraging by 
`i`iwi.
    Kamehameha Schools `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural Resources Management 
Program--Kamehameha Schools owns over 362,000 ac (146,496 ha) of land 
throughout Hawaii. Part of Kamehameha Schools' mission is to protect 
Hawaii's environment through recognition of the significant cultural 
value of this land and its unique flora and fauna. Accordingly, 
Kamehameha Schools established a sustainable stewardship policy to 
guide the use of its lands through their `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural 
Resources Management Program that includes the protection and 
conservation of natural resources, water resources, and ancestral 
places (Kamehameha Schools 2022, entire). Between 2000 and 2015, 
Kamehameha Schools increased active stewardship of native ecosystems by 
over 35-fold, from 3,000 ac (1,124 ha) to 136,000 ac (55,037 ha), 
engaged in community collaborations to leverage external resources in 
support of culturally appropriate land stewardship, and developed and 
implemented its 2012 natural resource and cultural resource management 
plans representing Kamehameha Schools' responsibility to conduct 
prudent stewardship of the `[amacr]ina (land). Kamehameha Schools 
manages some of its forested lands for income generation through 
sustainable koa and `iliahi or sandalwood (Santalum album) forestry and 
collaborates with county and other landowners in fire response planning 
to protect natural resources from fires. These actions promote 
regeneration of native forests `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging and 
improve soil-water retention capacity and ecosystem

[[Page 79959]]

resilience to drying climate conditions. Fire suppression benefits 
forest and shrubland habitats `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by 
minimizing damage to these habitats by wildfire.
    Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, December 31, 2007--The 
Three Mountain Alliance Watershed Partnership is a coalition of private 
and public landowners and supporting agencies that are working to 
protect and restore watershed areas on Hawai`i Island (Three Mountain 
Alliance 2007, entire). Lands that are managed by the Three Mountain 
Alliance are 1,116,300 ac (451,751 ha) on Mauna Loa, K[imacr]lauea, and 
Hual[amacr]lai Volcanoes or roughly 45 percent of the island of 
Hawai`i. Project funding for the Three Mountain Alliance currently 
comes from Three Mountain Alliance members (primarily the Service, 
Hawaii's Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and Kamehameha Schools) and 
outside grants. Other Three Mountain Alliance members provide in-kind 
services to accomplish priority projects (e.g., inmate labor, sharing 
personnel and equipment) (Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, 
December 31, 2007, p. 56). Management under the Three Mountain Alliance 
Management Plan includes the following conservation actions: (1) 
strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for 
ungulates after fencing; (3) monitoring of habitat recovery; (4) 
surveys for rare taxa prior to new fence installations; (5) invasive, 
nonnative plant control; (6) reestablishment of native plant species; 
and (7) activities to reduce the threat of wildfire. Ungulate control 
reduces damage to [omacr]hi`a forests, maintains the health of tall 
stature trees used for `i`iwi nesting, and prevents ungulates from 
creating breeding sites for introduced southern house mosquitoes that 
carry avian malaria. Control of nonnative, invasive plants and out-
planting of native plants improves recruitment of native trees. Fire 
suppression activities reduce the damage from wildfires and protect 
forest and shrubland habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging.
    Department of Hawaiian Homelands `Aina Mauna Legacy Program--The 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands is governed by the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act of 1920, enacted by the U.S. Congress to protect and 
improve the lives of native Hawaiians. The act created an Hawaiian 
Homes Commission to administer certain public lands, called Hawaiian 
homelands, for homesteads. The primary responsibilities of Department 
of Hawaiian Homelands are to serve its beneficiaries and to manage its 
extensive land trust, which consists of over 200,000 ac (80,937 ha) on 
the islands of Hawai`i, Maui, Moloka`i, L[amacr]na`i, O`ahu, and 
Kaua`i. The goal of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands' `Aina Mauna 
Legacy Program is to restore and protect approximately 56,000 ac 
(22,662 ha) of native Hawaiian forest on Mauna Kea Volcano on the 
island of Hawai`i that is ecologically, culturally, and economically 
self[hyphen]sustaining for the Hawaiian Homelands Trust, its 
beneficiaries, and the community (Department of Hawaiian Homelands 
2022, pp. 1-2). The Department of Hawaiian Homelands `Aina Mauna Legacy 
Program describes activities to be conducted on Department of Hawaiian 
Homelands lands over the next 100 years, including native forest 
restoration and sustainable koa forestry; invasive plant control and 
remnant invasive species eradication; nonnative wildlife control and 
management (i.e., feral ungulate control); road system, fencing, and 
water systems infrastructure development and maintenance; and research 
and community outreach. Some forest areas in lands managed under the 
`Aina Mauna Legacy Program are degraded by history of cattle grazing. 
Koa tree silviculture is in initial stages and will be conducted (at 
least during the next 100 years) on lands under this management 
designation, including stand improvement through selective harvest and 
establishment of new or improved forest in formerly logged areas and 
degraded pasture lands. Koa silviculture benefits habitat `i`iwi use 
for nesting and foraging by establishing new or improved forest, 
increasing soil-water retention capacity, and improving ecosystem 
resilience to drying climate conditions. Ungulate control reduces 
damage to `[omacr]hi` a forests, maintains the health of tall stature 
trees used for `i`iwi nesting, and prevents ungulates from creating 
breeding sites for introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry 
avian malaria. Control of nonnative, invasive plants and out-planting 
of native plants improves recruitment of native trees.
    Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance--The Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance 
Watershed Partnership is a coalition of private and public landowners 
and supporting agencies working to protect and restore watershed areas 
on Mauna Kea Volcano, Hawai`i (Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance 2022, 
entire). Lands that are managed by the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance 
include over 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) on Mauna Kea Volcano on the island 
of Hawai`i. The Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance shared vision is to 
protect and enhance watershed ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural 
resources through responsible management while promoting economic 
sustainability and providing recreational, subsistence, educational, 
and research opportunities. Staff of the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance 
work cooperatively with members of the alliance to achieve this shared 
vision. Accordingly, fencing and ungulate control, control of 
introduced plants that are invasive, and reforestation efforts are 
conducted on lands within the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance. Ungulate 
control benefits habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by 
improved forest regeneration and reduction of breeding sites for 
introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria. 
Nonnative plant control improves recruitment of native trees, and 
reforestation provides `i`iwi nesting and foraging habitat and 
increases soil-water retention capacity improving ecosystem resilience 
to drying climate conditions.
    K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch Conservation Easement with The Nature 
Conservancy and Hawai`i Island Land Trust--K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch is a 
10,200-ac (4,128-ha) ranch on the east slope of Mauna Kea. In 2009, 
ranch owners donated a conservation easement on 4,500 ac (1,821 ha) of 
the ranch's property to The Nature Conservancy and Hawai`i Island Land 
Trust (College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources 2009, 
entire). The easement covers the highest elevation areas of the ranch 
that comprise mostly intact native forest. The land under easement has 
two dominant tree species, m[amacr]mane and koa. Since the conservation 
easement was signed in 2009, K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch has worked with The 
Nature Conservancy, Hawai`i Island Land Trust, and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to build 
ungulate fencing, remove pigs and goats, and restore native plant 
species. In addition, K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch collaborates with the county 
and other landowners in fire response planning to protect its adjacent 
landowners' natural resources from fires. Ungulate control benefits 
habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improved forest 
regeneration and reduction of breeding sites for introduced southern 
house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria. Control of invasive, 
introduced plants improves recruitment of native trees. Fire 
suppression benefits forest and shrubland habitats `i`iwi use for 
nesting and foraging by minimizing damage to these habitats by 
wildfire.

[[Page 79960]]

    Parker Ranch Sustainable Forestry Initiative--Parker Ranch was 
founded in 1847, and currently encompasses over 100,000 ac (40,469 ha) 
of land in the Hamakua, North Kohala, and South Kohala Districts on 
Mauna Kea and the Kohala Mountains on the island of Hawai`i. Parker 
Ranch recognizes forest health as a key indicator of overall ecosystem 
health and, as result, announced in 2021 that it is seeking to 
collaborate with public and private partners to develop sustainable 
forestry programs on its lands (Parker Ranch 2021, entire). For its 
Waipunalei lands on the east slope of Mauna Kea, Parker Ranch is 
developing a sustainable koa forestry program and is seeking to 
rehabilitate forest areas damaged by history of cattle grazing (Parker 
Ranch 2022, entire). Koa forestry benefits forest habitat `i`iwi use 
for nesting and foraging by establishing new or improved forest in 
formerly logged areas and degraded pasture lands, increasing soil-water 
retention capacity, and improving ecosystem resilience to drying 
climate conditions.
    The Nature Conservancy Ka`[umacr] Preserve Hawai`i Island, Long-
Range Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2013-2018--The Nature Conservancy 
Ka`[umacr] Preserve was established in 2002, in the Ka`[umacr] District 
of the island of Hawai`i. Ka`[umacr] Preserve is comprised of 3,511 ac 
(1,421 ha) in four management units within Ka`[umacr] Forest Preserve 
on the southern slope of Mauna Loa Volcano. The management program for 
Ka`[umacr] Preserve is documented in the The Nature Conservancy 
Ka`[umacr] Preserve, Long-Range Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2013-2018 
(The Nature Conservancy 2012, entire). Primary management goals for the 
preserve are to: (1) prevent degradation of native forest by reducing 
feral ungulate damage; (2) improve or maintain the integrity of native 
ecosystems by reducing the effects of nonnative plants; (3) conduct 
small mammal, including rodent, control and reduce the negative impacts 
of small mammals; (4) monitor and track the biological and physical 
resources in the preserve, evaluate changes in these resources over 
time, and encourage biological and environmental research; (5) prevent 
extinction of rare species in the preserve; and (6) build public 
understanding and support for the preservation of natural areas, and 
enlist volunteer assistance for preserve management. Ungulate control 
reduces damage to `[omacr]hi`a forests, maintains the health of tall 
stature trees used for `i'iwi nesting, and prevents ungulates from 
creating breeding sites for introduced southern house mosquitoes that 
carry avian malaria. Fire suppression reduces the damage from wildfires 
and provides protection for forest and shrubland habitat that `i`iwi 
use for nesting and foraging. Invasive plant control improves 
recruitment of native trees, and small mammal control, particularly for 
rats (Rattus spp.), reduces the potential for predation on nesting 
`i`iwi.
    Kealakekua Mountain Reserve Forest Legacy Program Conservation 
Easement with the State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural 
Resources--Once a former ranch, the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve, LLC, 
established the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve Forest Legacy Program 
Conservation Easement (conservation easement) with the State of 
Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources in 2011 (DLNR 2022, 
p. 4). The conservation easement protects mesic and dryland native 
forest and native species on Kealakekua Mountain Reserve lands on 
leeward Mauna Loa Volcano on the island of Hawai`i and covers 9,000 ac 
(3,642 ha) of Kealakekua Mountain Reserve lands under the State's 
Forest Legacy Program, a Federal grant program that aids States in 
identification and conservation of important private forest lands that 
are threatened by development or fragmentation (DLNR 2022, entire). The 
Kealakekua Mountain Reserve management plan under the conservation 
easement requires harvesting limitations to ensure regeneration of 
native forest on its properties (d[omacr]Terra 2018, entire). In order 
to protect the growth and regeneration of `iliahi or sandalwood trees, 
the management plan allows collection only of dead or severely damaged 
trees; no living sandalwood trees will be harvested at this time, which 
will allow existing healthy trees to grow to full maturity before they 
are harvested under sustainable tree management practices. The 
Kealakekua Mountain Reserve operates a large nursery, and various 
native Hawaiian trees from the nursery, including `[omacr]hi`a, as well 
as trees and shrubs that serve as hosts for sandalwood including koa, 
a'ali'i (Dodonaea viscosa), and hoawa (Pittosporum spp.), are being 
out-planted at the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve. These management 
actions conserve and enhance forest habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and 
foraging, increase soil-water retention capacity, and improve ecosystem 
resilience to drying climate conditions.
    H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina Forest Restoration Agreement--H[amacr]loa 
`[Amacr]ina is a Native Hawaiian family-owned business dedicated to 
restoring native dryland forest. In 2019, Kamehameha Schools entered 
into an agreement with H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina aimed at developing a 
financial and ecological model to restore remnant `iliahi or sandalwood 
and m[amacr]mane (Sophora chrysophylla) forest on Kamehameha Schools 
lands in South Kona on the leeward side of Mauna Loa on the island of 
Hawai`i (Big Island Video News 2019, entire). Under a 5-year license, 
the project will improve the native ecosystems consisting of `iliahi 
and m[amacr]mane on formerly degraded agricultural lands. Revenues 
generated from the harvest of dead and senescent sandalwood trees are 
directly reinvested in the property with a focus on conservation 
management. H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina markets products made from 
sandalwood material (oil, dust, etc.) and allocate a percentage of 
gross sales to Kamehameha Schools. H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina is actively 
propagating `iliahi, m[amacr]mane, and koa trees in its greenhouses for 
out-planting on Kamehameha Schools lands in South Kona. These 
management actions conserve and enhance forest habitat `i`iwi use for 
nesting and foraging, increase soil-water retention capacity, and 
improve ecosystem resilience to drying climate conditions.
    The Nature Conservancy Forest Stewardship Management Plan for the 
Kona Hema Preserve--The Nature Conservancy Kona Hema Preserve was 
established in 1999 in the South Kona District of the island of Hawai`i 
and is comprised of 8,076 ac (3,268 ha) in four management units. The 
management program for Kona Hema Preserve is documented in The Nature 
Conservancy's Forest Stewardship Management Plan for the Kona Hema 
Preserve, which details management measures to protect, restore, and 
enhance rare plants and animals and their habitats within the preserve 
and in adjacent areas (The Nature Conservancy 2017, entire). Primary 
management goals for the Kona Hema Preserve are to: (1) prevent 
degradation of native forest and shrubland by reducing feral ungulate 
damage; (2) improve or maintain the integrity of native ecosystems in 
selected areas of the preserve by reducing the effects of nonnative 
plants; (3) conduct small mammal control and reduce the negative 
impacts of small mammals where possible; (4) monitor and track the 
biological and physical resources in the preserve, evaluate changes in 
these resources over time, and encourage biological and environmental 
research; (5) prevent extinction of rare species in the preserve; (6) 
build public understanding and support for the preservation of natural 
areas, and enlist volunteer assistance for preserve

[[Page 79961]]

management; and (7) protect the resources from fires in and around the 
preserve. Ungulate control reduces damage to `[omacr]hi`a forests, 
maintains the health of tall stature trees used for `i`iwi nesting, and 
prevents ungulates from creating breeding sites for introduced southern 
house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria. Fire suppression reduces the 
damage from wildfires and provides protection for forest and shrubland 
habitat that `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging. Invasive plant 
control improves recruitment of native trees, and small mammal control, 
particularly rat (Rattus spp.) control, reduces the potential for 
predation on nesting `i`iwi.
    Paniolo Tonewoods, LLC, Forest Restoration Agreement with 
Kamehameha Schools--In 2019, Kamehameha Schools entered into an 
agreement with Paniolo Tonewoods, LLC, to manage 1,300 ac (526 ha) of 
Kamehameha Schools forest lands upslope of H[omacr]naunau Forest 
Reserve on the leeward slopes of Hual[amacr]lai Volcano in North Kona 
on the island of Hawai`i (Big Island Video News 2019, entire). The 
pilot project, based on the exchange of goods for services known as 
``stewardship contracting,'' is designed to demonstrate the concept of 
conservation offsetting costs of stewardship. Under the license terms, 
Paniolo Tonewoods' partner, Forest Solutions, Inc., is providing 
restoration services including koa tree propagation and koa out-
planting in exchange for a fixed number of selected koa trees to be 
harvested under Kamehameha Schools-determined standards. The value of 
the harvested timber removed by Paniolo Tonewoods as part of the 
restoration/stewardship project will offset the costs of the 
conservation services and the final product of the processed koa wood 
is high-quality guitars. These management actions conserve and enhance 
forest and shrubland habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging, 
increase soil-water retention capacity, and improve ecosystem 
resilience to drying climate conditions.
    After considering the factors described above, we have identified 
the following areas that we have reason to consider excluding because 
of non-permitted plans, agreements, or partnerships. Our consideration 
of an area for exclusion is based on all non-permitted plans, 
agreements, and/or partnerships for the area and the overall benefit 
these planning documents and associated conservation actions provide 
for the protection, maintenance, enhancement, and/or restoration of 
habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging. In all cases, we are 
considering excluding areas where private landowners are actively 
participating in the restoration or management of habitats essential to 
conservation of iiwi, allowing surveys or monitoring of iiwi and its 
habitat, or taking steps to protect and increase numbers of iiwi that 
occur on their properties.
    Specific benefits of conservation management and rationale for 
considering exclusion are described below. We welcome any information 
regarding planning documents or other information we may have 
overlooked pertaining to the areas we are considering for exclusion and 
areas we are not considering for exclusion. We will work with 
landowners throughout the public comment period and during development 
of the final designation of critical habitat for `i`iwi and seek 
comments on whether the existing management and conservation efforts of 
landowners meet our criteria for exclusion from the final designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Alaka`i Plateau Unit--Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.--The Nature 
Conservancy manages two parcels of land (142 ac (58 ha) and 61 ac (25 
ha)) owned by Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., included in the proposed 
critical habitat designation for `i`iwi, Alaka`i Plateau Unit. 
Conservation management activities on these lands include those 
associated with the Kaua`i Watershed Alliance Management Plan Update, 
Overall Management Strategy (2012) and Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery 
Project.
    The Nature Conservancy Wainiha Preserve was established by a 
conservation easement with Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and is comprised 
of 7,050 ac (2,853 ha) in Wainiha Valley and is part of the Alaka`i 
Plateau. The management program of the Wainiha Preserve under the above 
described management plans includes preventing degradation of watershed 
and forest ecosystems by reducing feral ungulate damage, controlling 
invasive plants, monitoring and tracking the biological and physical 
resources in the preserve, preventing extinction of rare species in the 
preserve, and building public understanding and support for the 
preservation of natural areas. In addition, The Nature Conservancy is a 
member of the Kaua`i Watershed Alliance, whose goals include to 
conserve forest watershed and unique endemic plants and animals by 
construction of ungulate fences, ungulate removal, fence line surveys, 
and weed control. The Nature Conservancy also collaborates with the 
Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery Project, which conducts research to 
understand the ecology of native forest birds, the threats they face, 
and the application of management strategies for recovering their 
populations. The conservation actions occurring within Alaka`i Plateau 
Unit under management by The Nature Conservancy, including Wainiha 
Preserve, the Kaua`i Watershed Alliance, and the Kaua`i Forest Bird 
Recovery Project, conserve and protect habitat important for `i`iwi 
nesting and foraging. These conservation actions reduce breeding sites 
of introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, 
encourage native forest regeneration, and reduce small mammal predator 
populations through control activities. Based on The Nature 
Conservancy's management under the Kaua`i Watershed Alliance Management 
Plan Update, Overall Management Strategy (2012), and collaboration with 
Kaua`i Watershed Alliance and the Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery Project, 
we are considering excluding Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., lands from the 
final critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi because forest 
habitat used by `i`iwi within lands owned by Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. 
is protected from degradation by ungulate fencing and ungulate removal, 
and control of nonnative plants.
    Kula Unit--Ka`ono`ulu Ranch--The Ka`ono`ulu Ranch manages 830 ac 
(336 ha) of land included in the proposed critical habitat designation 
for the `i`iwi within the Kula Unit. Conservation management activities 
on these lands include those associated with the Kula Forest Reserve 
and the Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui Forest Reserve Management Plan and 
Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration Partnership.
    Ka`ono`ulu Ranch is a member of the Leeward Haleakal[amacr] 
Watershed Restoration Partnership, a watershed partnership that manages 
lands on leeward east Maui to conserve endemic plants and animals and 
conducts watershed protection (including native forest reforestation 
and wildfire response planning and fire suppression) to improve forest 
and shrubland habitats that `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging. 
Ka`ono`ulu Ranch has been and continues to be an active partner with 
the State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources to 
reduce the numbers of feral ungulates and promote native plant 
regeneration across Leeward Haleakal[amacr]. The conservation actions 
of Ka`ono`ulu Ranch benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging 
by promoting forest regeneration and reducing breeding sites for 
introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria.
    Based on Ka`ono`ulu Ranch's management under the Kula Forest

[[Page 79962]]

Reserve and the Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui Forest Reserve Management 
Plan and participation in the Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed 
Restoration Partnership, we are considering excluding Ka`ono`ulu Ranch 
lands from the final critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi.
    East Haleakal[amacr] Unit--Haleakal[amacr] Ranch--The Nature 
Conservancy manages 1,113 ac (451 ha) of land owned by Haleakal[amacr] 
Ranch included in the proposed critical habitat designation for `i`iwi 
within the East Haleakal[amacr] Unit. Conservation management 
activities on these lands include those associated with: The Nature 
Conservancy's Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management Plan, Fiscal 
Years 2019-2024; the Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration 
Partnership; and Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project.
    Conservation actions being conducted in Waikamoi Preserve include 
control of feral ungulate populations; control of nonnative mammals, 
including rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), mongoose (Herpestes 
auropunctatus), and dogs (Canis familiaris), that have been known to 
prey on `i`iwi; control of habitat-modifying, nonnative plants in 
intact native communities and prevention of the introduction of 
additional nonnative plants; and natural resource monitoring and 
research to address the need to track the biological and physical 
resources of the preserve and evaluate changes in these resources to 
guide management programs. In addition, as fire is a threat in 
shrubland areas, management includes wildfire preparedness, including 
annually updating wildfire management plans and ensuring that staff is 
provided with fire suppression training, roads are maintained for fire 
break access, and equipment is supplied as needed to allow immediate 
response to fire threats. In addition, Haleakal[amacr] Ranch and The 
Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve are members of the Leeward 
Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration Partnership that conducts 
conservation management to conserve unique endemic plants and animals, 
monitor watershed resources, and control feral animals and invasive 
plants. The Nature Conservancy also collaborates with the Maui Forest 
Bird Recovery Project that conducts research to understand the ecology 
of native forest birds, the threats they face, and the application of 
management strategies for recovering their populations. The 
conservation actions of The Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve 
benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improving forest 
regeneration, reducing breeding sites of introduced southern house 
mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, controlling feral ungulates, 
conducting fire suppression activities that benefit forest and 
shrubland `i`iwi habitat, controlling nonnative plants to improve 
recruitment of native trees, controlling small mammals to reduce 
predation on nesting `i`iwi, and conducting research to understand 
threats to native forest birds and ways to address those threats.
    Based on The Nature Conservancy's management of the Waikamoi 
Preserve under the Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management Plan, Fiscal 
Years 2019-2024; collaboration with the Maui Forest Bird Recovery 
Project and Haleakal[amacr] Ranch; and The Nature Conservancy's 
participation in the Leeward Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration 
Partnership, we are considering excluding lands owed by Haleakal[amacr] 
Ranch from the final critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi.
    East Haleakal[amacr] Unit--East Maui Irrigation, Inc.--The Nature 
Conservancy manages 2,327 ac (942 ha) of land owned by East Maui 
Irrigation, Inc., in the proposed critical habitat designation for 
`i`iwi within the East Haleakal[amacr] Unit. Conservation management 
activities on these lands include those associated with The Nature 
Conservancy's Waikamoi Preserve Long-Range Management Plan, Fiscal 
Years 2019-2024; the East Maui Watershed Partnership; and Maui Forest 
Bird Recovery Project.
    Conservation actions being conducted in Waikamoi Preserve include 
bringing feral ungulate populations to zero within the preserve as 
rapidly as possible and preventing domestic livestock from entering the 
preserve; controlling or preventing entry of nonnative mammals, such as 
rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), mongoose (Herpestes 
auropunctatus), and dogs (Canis familiaris), on the preserve as these 
mammals have negative impacts on reproduction and persistence of native 
plants and animals; controlling habitat-modifying, nonnative plants in 
intact native communities and preventing the introduction of additional 
nonnative plants; and conducting natural resource monitoring and 
research to address the need to track the biological and physical 
resources of the preserve and evaluate changes in these resources to 
guide management programs. In addition, as fire is a threat in 
shrubland areas, management includes wildfire preparedness, including 
annually updating wildfire management plans and ensuring that staff is 
provided with fire suppression training, roads are maintained for fire 
break access, and equipment is supplied as needed to allow immediate 
response to fire threats. In addition, Haleakal[amacr] Ranch and The 
Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve are members of the Leeward 
Haleakal[amacr] Watershed Restoration Partnership that conducts 
conservation management to conserve unique endemic plants and animals, 
watershed resource monitoring, and feral animal and invasive plant 
control. The Nature Conservancy also collaborates with the Maui Forest 
Bird Recovery Project that conducts research to understand the ecology 
of native forest birds, the threats they face, and the application of 
management strategies for recovering their populations. The 
conservation actions of The Nature Conservancy Waikamoi Preserve 
benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improving forest 
regeneration, reducing breeding sites of introduced southern house 
mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, controlling feral ungulates, 
conducting fire suppression activities to benefit forest and shrubland 
`i`iwi habitat, conducting weed control to improve recruitment of 
native trees, conducting small mammal control to reduce predation on 
nesting `i`iwi, and conducting research to understand threats to native 
forest birds and ways to address those threats.
    Based on The Nature Conservancy's management of the Waikamoi 
Preserve under the Waikamoi Preserve, Long-Range Management Plan, 
Fiscal Years 2019-2024; collaboration with the Maui Forest Bird 
Recovery Project; and participation with East Maui Irrigation, Inc., in 
the East Maui Watershed Partnership, we are considering excluding lands 
owned by East Maui Irrigation, Inc. from the final critical habitat 
designation for the `i`iwi.
    Windward Hawai`i Unit--Department of Hawaiian Homelands--The 
Department of Hawaiian Homeland manages two parcels (1,631 ac (660 ha) 
and 2,404 ac (973 ha)) of land included in the proposed designation for 
`i`iwi the Windward Hawai`i Unit. Conservation management activities on 
these lands include those under Department of Hawaiian Homelands' 
`[Amacr]ina Mauna Legacy Program, and Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance.
    The Department of Hawaiian Homelands' `[Amacr]ina Mauna Legacy 
Program is a conservation initiative to restore and protect 
approximately 56,000 ac (22,662 ha) of native forest on Mauna Kea that 
is ecologically, culturally, and economically self[hyphen]sustaining 
for the Hawaiian Homelands Trust, its beneficiaries, and the community 
(Department of Hawaiian Homelands 2022, pp. 1-2).

[[Page 79963]]

Program actions and planning include native forest restoration and 
sustainable koa forestry, invasive plant control, and feral ungulate 
control. Department of Hawaiian Homelands is also a member of the Mauna 
Kea Watershed Alliance, which conducts conservation actions to protect 
and enhance watershed ecosystems, including fencing and ungulate 
removal; nonnative, invasive plants control; and native forest 
restoration. In addition, the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance is 
partnering with the NRCS on forest recovery and abatement of threats to 
native forest (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022, entire). 
The conservation actions of Department of Hawaiian Homelands provide 
benefits to habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by promoting 
forest regeneration and reducing breeding sites of introduced southern 
house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, controlling feral ungulates, 
conducting weed control to improve recruitment of native trees, and 
establishing new or improving existing koa forests that provide habitat 
for `i`iwi nesting and foraging.
    Based on Department of Hawaiian Homelands's management under 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands' `[Amacr]ina Mauna Legacy Program, and 
participation in the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, we are considering 
excluding these areas from the final critical habitat designation for 
the `i`iwi. These areas are held in trust for Hawaiian beneficiaries 
for the protection of native forest surrounding Mauna Kea.
    Windward Hawai`i Unit--K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch--The K[umacr]ka`iau 
Ranch manages 87 ac (35 ha) of land included in the proposed 
designation for `i`iwi within the Windward Hawai`i Unit. Conservation 
management activities on these lands include those associated with the 
K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch conservation easement with The Nature Conservancy 
and Hawai`i Island Land Trust, and the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance.
    The K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch conservation easement with The Nature 
Conservancy and Hawai`i Island Land Trust provides for conservation 
work including fencing, removal of pigs and goats, and restoration of 
native plant species. In addition, K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch is a member of 
the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, which conducts conservation 
activities to protect and enhance watershed ecosystems, including 
fencing and ungulate removal, nonnative plant control, and native 
forest restoration. In addition, K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch collaborates with 
county and other landowners in fire response planning to protect its 
and adjacent landowners' natural resources from fires. Since 2009, when 
the conservation easement with The Nature Conservancy and Hawai`i 
Island Land Trust was signed (College of Tropical Agriculture and Human 
Resources 2009, entire), K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch has built ungulate 
fencing, removed pigs and goats, and restored native plant species on 
its conservation lands. The conservation actions of K[umacr]ka`iau 
Ranch benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by promoting 
forest regeneration and reduction of breeding sites for introduced 
southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, nonnative plant 
control that improves recruitment of native trees, and fire suppression 
that benefits forest and shrubland habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and 
foraging by minimizing damage to these habitats from wildfire.
    Based on K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch's management under the K[umacr]ka`iau 
Ranch conservation easement with The Nature Conservancy and Hawai`i 
Island Land Trust, participation in the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, 
and collaboration with the State of Hawaii's Department of Forestry and 
Wildlife and adjacent landowners in wildfire response, we are 
considering excluding this area from the final critical habitat 
designation for the `i`iwi.
    Windward Hawai`i Unit--Parker Ranch Waipunalei, LLC--Parker Ranch 
manages 1,449 ac (586 ha) of land included in the proposed designation 
for `i`iwi within the Windward Hawai`i Unit. Conservation management 
activities on these lands include those associated with Parker Ranch's 
sustainable koa forestry initiative and the Mauna Kea Watershed 
Alliance.
    Parker Ranch manages over 100,000 ac (40,469 ha) of land in the 
H[amacr]m[amacr]kua, North Kohala, and South Kohala Districts on Mauna 
Kea and the Kohala Mountains on the island of Hawai`i, and in 2021, the 
ranch announced it is seeking to collaborate with public and private 
partners to develop sustainable forestry programs on some of these 
lands (Parker Ranch 2021, entire). For its Waipunalei lands, Parker 
Ranch is developing a sustainable koa forestry program to rehabilitate 
forest areas damaged by cattle grazing (Parker Ranch 2022, entire). 
Parker Ranch is a member of the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, whose 
shared vision is to protect and enhance watershed ecosystems, 
biodiversity, and natural resources through responsible management 
while promoting economic sustainability and providing recreational, 
subsistence, educational, and research opportunities. The conservation 
measures of Parker Ranch through its sustainable koa forestry 
initiative provide benefits to habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and 
foraging by promoting koa forest regeneration, increasing soil-water 
retention capacity and improving ecosystem resilience to drying climate 
conditions, and controlling nonnative plants to improve recruitment of 
native trees.
    Based on Parker Ranch's management under Parker Ranch's sustainable 
koa forestry initiative and participation in the Mauna Kea Watershed 
Alliance, we are considering excluding this area from the final 
critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi.
    Ka`[umacr] Unit--The Nature Conservancy Ka`[umacr] Preserve--The 
Nature Conservancy owns two parcels (274 ac (111 ha) and 125 ac (51 
ha)) of land included in the proposed designation for `i`iwi within the 
Ka`[umacr] Unit. Conservation management activities on these lands 
include those associated with the Ka`[umacr] Preserve Hawai`i Island, 
Long-Range Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2013-2018; and the Three 
Mountain Alliance Watershed Management Plan, December 31, 2007.
    Conservation actions being conducted in the Ka`[umacr] Preserve 
include preventing degradation of native forest by reducing feral 
ungulate damage, improving or maintaining the integrity of native 
ecosystems by reducing the effects of nonnative plants, conducting 
small mammal (including rodent) control and reducing the negative 
impacts of small mammals where possible, monitoring and tracking the 
biological and physical resources in the preserve and evaluating 
changes in these resources over time, encouraging biological and 
environmental research, preventing extinction of rare species in the 
preserve, building public understanding and support for the 
preservation of natural areas, and enlisting volunteer assistance for 
preserve management. The Nature Conservancy is also a member of the 
Three Mountain Alliance, whose conservation actions include conserving 
unique endemic plants and animals; conducting watershed resource 
monitoring; controlling feral ungulates and invasive, nonnative plants; 
reestablishing native plant species; and conducting activities to 
reduce the threat of wildfire. Since its founding, The Nature 
Conservancy Ka`[umacr] Preserve has built ungulate fencing around the 
Kaiholena Unit, which reduced the number of pigs to zero in that unit, 
and is conducting nonnative plant control. The conservation actions of 
The Nature Conservancy Ka`[umacr] Preserve provide benefits to habitat 
`i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by improving forest regeneration 
and reducing breeding sites of introduced

[[Page 79964]]

southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria, controlling feral 
ungulates, conducting nonnative plant control to improve recruitment of 
native trees, and controlling small mammals to reduce predation on 
nesting `i`iwi. Wildfire management and response activities minimize 
damage to forest and shrubland habitats `i`iwi use for nesting and 
foraging.
    Based on The Nature Conservancy's management of Ka`[umacr] Preserve 
under the Ka`[umacr] Preserve Hawai`i Island, Long-Range Management 
Plan, Fiscal Years 2013-2018, and participation in the Three Mountain 
Alliance Management Plan, December 31, 2007, we are considering 
excluding The Nature Conservancy's Ka`[umacr] Preserve lands from the 
final critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi.
    South Kona Unit--Kealakekua Mountain Reserve, LLC--The Kealakekua 
Mountain Reserve, LLC, manages two parcels (94 ac (38 ha) and 5,707 ac 
(2,310 ha)) of land included in the proposed designation for `i`iwi 
within the South Kona Unit. Conservation management activities on these 
lands include those associated with the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve 
Forest Legacy Program conservation easement with the State of Hawaii's 
Department of Land and Natural Resources (Kealakekua Mountain Reserve 
Forest Legacy Program conservation easement).
    Once a former ranch, Kealakekua Mountain Reserve completed the 
Kealakekua Mountain Reserve Forest Legacy Program conservation easement 
with the State of Hawaii in 2011, to protect mesic and dryland native 
forest on Kealakekua Mountain Reserve lands. The Kealakekua Mountain 
Reserve management plan under the conservation easement outlines 
harvesting limitations that must be followed to insure regeneration of 
mesic and dryland native forest (d[omacr]Terra 2018, entire). In order 
to protect the immediate growth and regeneration of `iliahi or 
sandalwood trees, the management plan specifies only dead or severely 
damaged trees will be collected and that no living sandalwood trees 
should be harvested, which will allow existing healthy trees to grow to 
full maturity before they are harvested under sustainable tree 
management practices. The Kealakekua Mountain Reserve operates a large 
nursery, and various native Hawaiian trees and shrub species from the 
nursery are being out-planted at the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve. In 
addition, Kealakekua Mountain Reserve has availed itself of funding and 
technical assistance from the NRCS for projects on Kealakekua Mountain 
Reserve lands to conserve ground and surface water, increase soil 
health, and reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. The conservation 
actions of Kealakekua Mountain Reserve benefit habitat `i`iwi use for 
nesting and foraging by improved forest regeneration, water and soil 
conservation, increased soil-water retention capacity, and improved 
ecosystem resilience to drying climate conditions.
    Based on Kealakekua Mountain Reserve's management of its lands 
under the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve Forest Legacy Program 
conservation easement and NRCS projects, we are considering excluding 
Kealakekua Mountain Reserve from the final critical habitat designation 
for the `i`iwi.
    South Kona Unit--Kamehameha Schools--The Kamehameha Schools owns 
three parcels (2,744 ac (1,111 ha); 11,080 ac (4,484 ha); and 2,385 ac 
(965 ha)) of land included in the proposed designation for `i`iwi 
within the South Kona Unit. Conservation management activities on these 
lands include those associated with the Kamehameha Schools `[Amacr]ina 
Pauahi Natural Resources Management Program, H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina 
Forest Restoration Agreement, and the Three Mountain Alliance Watershed 
Management Plan, December 31, 2007.
    Between 2000 and 2015, Kamehameha Schools increased its active 
stewardship of native ecosystems under its `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural 
Resources Management Program from 3,000 ac (1,124 ha) to 136,000 ac 
(55,037 ha), 35 times the number of acres under Kamehameha Schools' 
care in 2000, including lands within the South Kona Unit in this 
proposed critical habitat designation. In 2019, Kamehameha Schools 
entered into an agreement with H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina, a Native 
Hawaiian family-owned business dedicated to restoring native mesic and 
dryland forest (Big Island Video News 2019, entire). Under a 5-year 
license, the project will improve the native ecosystems consisting of 
remnant `iliahi and m[amacr]mane forest on formerly degraded Kamehameha 
Schools agricultural lands in South Kona. Revenues generated from the 
harvest of dead and senescent sandalwood trees are directly reinvested 
in the subject property with the focus of conservation management. 
H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina is actively propagating `iliahi, m[amacr]mane, 
and koa trees in its greenhouses for planting on Kamehameha Schools 
lands. Kamehameha Schools is also a member of the Three Mountain 
Alliance, whose conservation actions include conserving unique endemic 
plants and animals; conducting watershed resource monitoring; 
controlling feral ungulates and invasive, nonnative plants; 
reestablishing native plant species; and conducting activities to 
reduce the threat of wildfire. The conservation actions of Kamehameha 
Schools benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by 
promoting forest regeneration and reduction of breeding sites for 
introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry avian malaria through 
control of feral ungulates; nonnative plant control that improves 
recruitment of native trees; fire suppression that benefits forest and 
shrubland `i`iwi use for nesting and foraging by minimizing damage to 
these habitats by wildfire; and `iliahi and m[amacr]mane forest 
restoration that conserves and enhances forest and shrubland habitat 
`i`iwi use for nesting and foraging, increases soil-water retention 
capacity, and improves ecosystem resilience to drying climate 
conditions.
    Based on Kamehameha Schools' management of its lands under 
Kamehameha Schools' `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural Resources Management 
Program, H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina Forest Restoration Agreement, and the 
Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, we are considering excluding 
Kamehameha Schools lands from the final critical habitat designation 
for the `i`iwi.
    South Kona Unit--Kealia Ranch--The Kealia Ranch manages 1,758 ac 
(712 ha) of land included in the proposed designation for `i`iwi within 
the South Kona Unit. Conservation management activities on Kealia Ranch 
lands include those associated with NRCS' Environmental Quality 
Incentive Program land stewardship projects, as well as cooperation 
with government partners for wildlife conservation on Kealia Ranch and 
adjacent lands.
    Kealia Ranch is a 12,000-ac (4,856-ha) working cattle ranch founded 
in 1915, located in the South Kona District on leeward Mauna Loa 
Volcano on the island of Hawai`i. Kealia Ranch has availed itself of 
funding and technical assistance from the NRCS for projects on Kealia 
Ranch to conserve ground and surface water, increase soil health, and 
reduce soil erosion and sedimentation (Natural Resources Conservation 
Service 2022, entire). The Kealia Ranch is an immediate neighbor to the 
Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, Kona Forest Unit, and cooperates with 
the refuge in areas such as weed control, wildfire suppression, 
emergency situations, and security (Kealia Ranch 2022, entire). From 
1993-1998, Kealia Ranch participated in conservation efforts with the 
Service to save from extinction the last remaining population of 
`alal[amacr] or Hawaiian crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) in

[[Page 79965]]

the wild. Kealia Ranch has worked with the University of Hawai`i 
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources on research 
projects and trials on Kealia Ranch lands and cooperates annually with 
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on research for volcanic activity and 
ground swell of Mauna Loa (Kealia Ranch 2022, entire). The conservation 
actions of Kealia Ranch benefit forest and shrubland habitat `i`iwi use 
for nesting and foraging by promoting soil and water conservation, weed 
control, and wildfire suppression.
    Based on Kealia Ranch's implementation of water and soil 
conservation projects through NRCS' Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program and cooperation with neighbors in areas including nonnative 
plant control and wildfire suppression, we are considering excluding 
Kealia Ranch lands from the final critical habitat designation for the 
`i`iwi.
    South Kona Unit--The Nature Conservancy, Kona Hema Preserve--The 
Nature Conservancy owns 5,700 ac (2,307 ha) of land included in the 
proposed designation for `i`iwi within the South Kona Unit. 
Conservation management activities on these lands include those 
associated with the Forest Stewardship Management Plan for The Kona 
Hema Preserve and the Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, December 
31, 2007.
    The Kona Hema Preserve is comprised of 8,076 ac (3,268 ha) in four 
management units. Management activities on the Kona Hema Preserve are 
to prevent degradation of native forest and shrubland by reducing feral 
ungulate damage; to improve or maintain the integrity of native 
ecosystems in selected areas of the preserve by reducing the effects of 
nonnative plants; to conduct small mammal control and reduce the 
negative impacts of small mammals where possible; to monitor and track 
the biological and physical resources in the preserve and evaluate 
changes in these resources over time, and encourage biological and 
environmental research; to prevent extinction of rare species in the 
preserve; to build public understanding and support for the 
preservation of natural areas; and to enlist volunteer assistance for 
preserve management and the protection of the resources from fires in 
and around the preserve. The Nature Conservancy is also a member of the 
Three Mountain Alliance, whose conservation actions include conserving 
unique endemic plants and animals; conducting watershed resource 
monitoring; controlling feral ungulates and invasive, nonnative plants; 
reestablishing native plant species; and conducting activities to 
reduce the threat of wildfire. The conservation actions of The Nature 
Conservancy Kona Hema Preserve benefit habitat `i`iwi use for nesting 
and foraging by improved forest regeneration and reduction of breeding 
sites for introduced southern house mosquitoes that carry avian 
malaria, by control of feral ungulates, by nonnative plant control that 
improves recruitment of native trees, and by small mammal control to 
reduce predation on nesting `i`iwi. Wildfire management and response 
benefit forest and shrubland habitat `i`iwi use for nesting and 
foraging by minimizing damage to these habitats by wildfire.
    Based on The Nature Conservancy's management of the Kona Hema 
Preserve under the Forest Stewardship Management Plan for The Kona Hema 
Preserve and the Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, December 31, 
2007, we are considering excluding The Nature Conservancy's Kona Hema 
Preserve lands from the final critical habitat designation for the 
`i`iwi.
    North Kona Unit--Kamehameha Schools--The Kamehameha Schools owns 
two parcels (2,585 (1,046 ha) and 1,557 (630 ha)) of land included in 
the proposed designation for `i`iwi within the North Kona Unit. 
Conservation management activities on these lands include those 
associated with the Kamehameha Schools' `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural 
Resources Management Program; the Paniolo Tonewoods, LLC, Forest 
Restoration Agreement with Kamehameha Schools; and the Three Mountain 
Alliance Management Plan, December 31, 2007.
    Kamehameha Schools' `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural Resources Management 
Program implements Kamehameha Schools' conservation land stewardship 
policy through the protection and conservation of natural resources, 
water resources, and ancestral places (Kamehameha Schools 2022, 
entire). Between 2000 and 2015, Kamehameha Schools increased its active 
stewardship of native ecosystems under the program from 3,000 ac (1,124 
ha) to 136,000 ac (55,037 ha), which is 45 times the number of acres 
under Kamehameha Schools' care in 2000, and includes lands within the 
North Kona Unit in this proposed critical habitat designation. 
Kamehameha Schools entered into an agreement in 2019, with Paniolo 
Tonewoods, LLC, to manage 1,300 ac (526 ha) of Kamehameha Schools lands 
upslope of H[omacr]naunau Forest Reserve that are mixed `[omacr]hi`a/
koa forest (Big Island Video News 2019, entire). Kamehameha Schools is 
also a member of the Three Mountain Alliance, whose conservation 
actions include conserving unique endemic plants and animals; 
conducting watershed resource monitoring; controlling feral ungulates 
and invasive, nonnative plants; reestablishing native plant species; 
and conducting activities to reduce the threat of wildfire. The 
conservation actions of Kamehameha Schools benefit habitat `i`iwi use 
for nesting and foraging by promoting forest regeneration and reduction 
of mosquito breeding sites; weed control that improves recruitment of 
native trees; fire suppression that benefits forest and shrubland 
habitats by minimizing damage to these habitats by wildfire; and koa 
silviculture that conserves and enhances forest and shrubland habitat 
`i`iwi use for nesting and foraging, increases soil-water retention 
capacity, and improves ecosystem resilience to drying climate 
conditions.
    Based on Kamehameha Schools' management of its lands under 
Kamehameha Schools' `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural Resources Management 
Program; Paniolo Tonewoods, LLC, Forest Restoration Agreement with 
Kamehameha Schools; and the Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan, 
December 31, 2007, we are considering excluding Kamehameha Schools 
lands from the final critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act

    We have reason to consider excluding the following areas under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation 
for the `i`iwi. Table 2 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of 
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but for which we are 
considering possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from 
the final critical habitat rule.

[[Page 79966]]



                        Table 2--Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Areas
                                                                     considered
                 Unit                             Owner            for exclusion,       Associated plans and
                                                                       in acres              agreements
                                                                     (Hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaka`i Plateau.......................  Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.        203 (82)  Kaua`i Watershed Alliance
                                                                                    Management Plan Update,
                                                                                    Overall Management Strategy;
                                                                                    Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery
                                                                                    Project.
Kula..................................  Ka`ono`ulu Ranch.........       830 (336)  Kula Forest Reserve and the
                                                                                    Papa`anui Tract of Kahikinui
                                                                                    Forest Reserve Management
                                                                                    Plan; Leeward
                                                                                    Haleakal[amacr] Watershed
                                                                                    Restoration Partnership.
East Haleakal[amacr]..................  Haleakal[amacr] Ranch....     1,113 (451)  The Nature Conservancy's
                                                                                    Waikamoi Preserve, Long-
                                                                                    Range Management Plan,
                                                                                    Fiscal Years 2019-2024;
                                                                                    Leeward Haleakal[amacr]
                                                                                    Watershed Restoration
                                                                                    Partnership; Maui Forest
                                                                                    Bird Recovery Project.
East Haleakal[amacr]..................  East Maui Irrigation, Inc     2,327 (942)  The Nature Conservancy's
                                                                                    Waikamoi Preserve, Long-
                                                                                    Range Management Plan,
                                                                                    Fiscal Years 2019-2024; East
                                                                                    Maui Watershed Partnership;
                                                                                    Maui Forest Bird Recovery
                                                                                    Project.
Windward Hawai`i......................  Kamehameha Schools.......  13,308 (5,386)  Kamehameha Schools
                                                                                    `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural
                                                                                    Resources Management
                                                                                    Program; Three Mountain
                                                                                    Alliance Management Plan,
                                                                                    December 31, 2007;
                                                                                    Kamehameha Schools Keauhou
                                                                                    and K[imacr]lauea Forest
                                                                                    Lands Safe Harbor Agreement.
Windward Hawai`i......................  Department of Hawaiian      4,035 (1,633)  Department of Hawaiian
                                         Homelands.                                 Homelands' `[Amacr]ina Mauna
                                                                                    Legacy Program; Mauna Kea
                                                                                    Watershed Alliance.
Windward Hawai`i......................  K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch.....         87 (35)  K[umacr]ka`iau Ranch
                                                                                    Conservation Easement with
                                                                                    The Nature Conservancy and
                                                                                    Hawaiian Island Land Trust;
                                                                                    Mauna Kea Watershed
                                                                                    Alliance.
Windward Hawai`i......................  Parker Ranch Waipunalei,      1,449 (586)  Parker Ranch Sustainable
                                         LLC.                                       Forestry Initiative; Mauna
                                                                                    Kea Watershed Alliance.
Ka`[umacr]............................  The Nature Conservancy...       399 (162)  Ka`[umacr] Preserve Hawai`i
                                                                                    Island, Long-Range
                                                                                    Management Plan, Fiscal
                                                                                    Years 2013-2018; Three
                                                                                    Mountain Alliance Management
                                                                                    Plan, December 31, 2007.
South Kona............................  Kealakekua Mountain         5,801 (2,348)  Kealakekua Mountain Reserve
                                         Reserve, LLC.                              Forest Legacy Program
                                                                                    Conservation Easement with
                                                                                    the Hawaii's Department of
                                                                                    Land and Natural Resources.
South Kona............................  Kamehameha Schools.......  16,209 (6,560)  Kamehameha Schools
                                                                                    `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural
                                                                                    Resources Management
                                                                                    Program; Kamehameha Schools
                                                                                    H[amacr]loa `[Amacr]ina
                                                                                    Forest Restoration
                                                                                    Agreement; Three Mountain
                                                                                    Alliance Management Plan,
                                                                                    December 31, 2007.
South Kona............................  Kealia Ranch.............     1,758 (712)  NRCS Environmental Quality
                                                                                    Incentive Program Projects.
South Kona............................  The Nature Conservancy...   5,700 (2,307)  Forest Stewardship Management
                                                                                    Plan for The Kona Hema
                                                                                    Preserve; Three Mountain
                                                                                    Alliance Management Plan,
                                                                                    December 31, 2007.
North Kona Unit.......................  Kamehameha Schools.......   4,142 (1,676)  Kamehameha Schools
                                                                                    `[Amacr]ina Pauahi Natural
                                                                                    Resources Management
                                                                                    Program; Paniolo Tonewoods,
                                                                                    LLC, Forest Restoration
                                                                                    Agreement with Kamehameha
                                                                                    Schools; Three Mountain
                                                                                    Alliance Management Plan,
                                                                                    December 31, 2007.
                                                                  ----------------
    Total Area Considered for           .........................          57,361
     Exclusion.                                                          (22,316)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, for this proposed designation, we have reason to 
consider excluding the areas identified above based on other relevant 
impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion 
of such areas. However, if through the public comment period we receive 
information that we determine indicates that there are potential 
economic, national security, or other relevant impacts from designating 
particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the 
final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate that 
information and may conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to 
determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section 
4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we 
receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after 
evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully 
describe our decision in the final rule for this action.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 12988 and by 
the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in 
plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too

[[Page 79967]]

long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). 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 whether potential 
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 
this designation as well as 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.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities 
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small 
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our draft economic analysis, we did not find that 
this proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect 
energy supplies, distribution, or use. The proposed critical habitat 
units are in remote wilderness areas that are not used for energy 
generation. 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.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare

[[Page 79968]]

Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance 
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that 
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments would be 
affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, 
permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their actions 
will not adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for `i`iwi in a takings implications assessment. The Act does 
not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands 
or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for `i`iwi, and it concludes 
that, if adopted as proposed, this designation of critical habitat does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does 
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local 
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait 
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly 
burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of 
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides 
several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed 
location information, if desired.

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

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.

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), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's 
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate

[[Page 79969]]

meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation for the `i`iwi, 
so no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the table ``List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' by revising the entry for ``Iiwi 
(honeycreeper)'' under Birds to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Iiwi (honeycreeper).............  Drepanis coccinea.  Wherever found....  T              82 FR 43873, 9/20/2017;
                                                                                         50 CFR 17.95(b).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (b) by adding an entry for ``Iiwi 
(honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea)'' following the entry for ``Crested 
Honeycreeper (Akohekohe) (Palmeria dolei)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (b) Birds.
* * * * *
Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii 
Counties, Hawaii, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of iiwi consist of the following 
components:
    (i) Multiple patches of seasonally flowering trees, including ohia 
(Metrosideros polymorpha) and mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), and/or 
shrubs that collectively provide the iiwi a year-round nectar source. 
The number of patches of flowering trees and shrubs needed may be few 
if patch size is large. For example, a few large contiguous areas of 
forest containing seasonally asynchronously flowering trees and shrubs 
that are several square miles (several kilometers) in size, or many 
small patches with concentrated, seasonally asynchronously flowering 
trees and shrubs would meet the iiwi's year-round nectar source needs. 
Patches can be close together, such as individual flowering trees a few 
hundred feet (hundred meters) apart in an open landscape, or far apart, 
such as large forest patches of seasonally asynchronous flowering trees 
or shrubs as much as several miles (several kilometers) apart.
    (ii) Tall stature trees (height taller than 26 feet (8 meters)) 
characteristic of a mesic and wet forest ecosystem, including ohia and 
koa (Acacia koa) trees for nesting.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using summaries of 
abundance, distribution, and trends compiled by the U.S. Geological 
Survey. Where this summary was incomplete, specifically within the Kula 
region of Maui, we used information provided by the National Park 
Service and the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project. The maps in this 
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public 
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0144, and 
at the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain 
field office location information by contacting one of the Service 
regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:


[[Page 79970]]


Figure 1 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.000

    (6) Alakai Plateau Unit: Kauai County, Hawaii.
    (i) The Alakai Plateau Unit comprises 12,510 acres (ac) (5,063 
hectares (ha)) of occupied habitat in Kauai County. This unit consists 
of State and privately owned lands.
    (ii) Map of Alakai Plateau Unit follows:


[[Page 79971]]


Figure 2 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.001

    (7) Kula Unit: Maui County, Hawaii.
    (i) The Kula Unit comprises 5,226 ac (2,115 ha) of occupied habitat 
in Maui County on the west slope of Haleakala Volcano. This unit 
consists of State and privately owned lands.
    (ii) Map of Kula and East Haleakala Units follows:


[[Page 79972]]


Figure 3 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (7)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.002

    (8) East Haleakala Unit: Maui County, Hawaii.
    (i) The East Haleakala Unit comprises 19,393 ac (7,848 ha) of 
occupied habitat in Maui County on the northeast slope of Haleakala 
Volcano. This unit consists of lands owned by the National Park 
Service, the State of Hawaii, and private landowners.
    (ii) Map of East Haleakala Unit is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of 
this entry.
    (9) Windward Hawaii: Hawaii County, Hawaii.
    (i) The Windward Hawaii Unit comprises 141,085 ac (57,095 ha) of 
occupied habitat in Hawaii County on the east slopes of Mauna Kea and

[[Page 79973]]

Mauna Loa Volcanoes. The unit is comprised of one large area and three 
small disjunct areas that are near the northwest and south end of the 
larger area. This unit consists of lands owned by the National Park 
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Hawaii, and 
private landowners.
    (ii) Map of Windward Hawaii Unit follows:

Figure 4 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (9)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.003

    (10) Kau Unit: Hawaii County, Hawaii.
    (i) The Kau Unit comprises 32,458 ac (13,136 ha) of occupied 
habitat in Hawaii County on the southeast slope of Mauna Loa Volcano. 
The unit consists of State and privately owned lands.
    (ii) Map of Kau and South Kona Units follows:


[[Page 79974]]


Figure 5 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (10)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.004

    (11) South Kona Unit: Hawaii County, Hawaii.
    (i) The South Kona Unit comprises 51,376 ac (20,791 ha) of occupied 
habitat in Hawaii County on the west slope of Mauna Loa Volcano. The 
unit is comprised of four roughly similar sized areas separated from 
each by distances of less than 1 mi (1.6 km). This unit consists of 
lands owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Hawaii, 
and private landowners.
    (ii) Map of South Kona Unit is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of 
this entry.
    (12) North Kona Unit: Hawaii County, Hawaii.

[[Page 79975]]

    (i) The North Kona Unit comprises 13,599 ac (5,503 ha) of occupied 
habitat in Hawaii County on the north, west, and south slopes of 
Hualalai Volcano. This unit is comprised of one large area to the north 
and one smaller disjunct area to the south. This unit consists of State 
and privately owned lands.
    (ii) Map of North Kona Unit follows:

Figure 6 to Iiwi (honeycreeper) (Drepanis coccinea) paragraph (12)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE22.005


Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27544 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P