Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11319 

FR 2895). The effective date of the rule 

was originally March 17, 2009, with a 

compliance date of July 15, 2009. 

In accordance with the January 20, 

2009 memorandum, 74 FR 4435, 

January 26, 2009, from the Assistant to 

the President and Chief of Staff, on 

March 2, 2009 (74 FR 9172), FMCSA 

sought comment on a proposal to extend 

the effective date of the final rule for 90 

days. FMCSA received five comments to 

the March 2 notice. All of the 

commenters supported extending the 

effective date of the final rule for 90 

days, providing for a new comment 

period, and, if appropriate, 

reconsidering the final rule based on 

any new information provided by the 

comments. Therefore, FMCSA extends 

the effective date of its January 16, 2009, 

final rule from March 17, 2009, to June 

15, 2009. This will provide us sufficient 

time to address issues that have been 

raised about whether the new rule will 

make it more difficult for us to enforce 

our requirements concerning safety and 

access for individuals with disabilities. 

Although we believe the final rule fully 

addressed these issues, in light of the 

Assistant to the President and Chief of 

Staff’s memorandum, we are delaying 

the effective date of the final rule to 

allow the Agency the opportunity for 

further review and consideration of 

these issues. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 356 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Routing, Motor carriers. 

49 CFR Part 365 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight 

forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of 

household goods, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 374 

Aged, Blind, Buses, Civil rights, 

Freight, Individuals with disabilities, 

Motor carriers, Smoking. 

Issued on: March 12, 2009. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–5778 Filed 3–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R1-ES-2008-0016; MO 9221050083-B2] 

RIN 1018-AV00 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing Phyllostegia 

hispida (No Common Name) as 

Endangered Throughout Its Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), for Phyllostegia hispida 

(no common name), a plant species from 

the island of Molokai in the Hawaiian 

Islands. This final rule implements the 

Federal protections provided by the Act 

for this species. We have also 

determined that critical habitat for P. 

hispida is prudent but not determinable 

at this time. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective April 

16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/pacificislands. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in the 

preparation of this rule, will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, 

Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; 

telephone, 808-792-9400; facsimile, 808- 

792-9581. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Phyllostegia hispida is known only 

from the island of Molokai, Hawaii, 

where 24 wild and 214 outplanted 

individuals currently exist. Molokai is 

approximately 38 miles (mi) (61 

kilometers (km)) long and up to 10 mi 

(16 km) wide, and encompasses an area 

of about 260 square (sq) mi (674 sq km) 

(Foote et al. 1972, p. 11; Department of 

Geography 1998, p. 13). Three shield 

volcanoes make up most of the land 

mass, dividing the island into roughly 

three geographic segments: West 

Molokai Mountain, East Molokai 

Mountain, and a volcano that formed 

Kalaupapa Peninsula (Department of 

Geography 1998, pp. 11, 13). 

The taller and larger East Molokai 

Mountain, which makes up eastern 

Molokai, rises 4,970 feet (ft) (1,514 

meters (m)) above sea level on the 

island’s summit at Kamakou and 

comprises roughly 50 percent of the 

island’s land area (Department of 

Geography 1998, p. 11; Foote et al. 

1972, p. 11). Phyllostegia hispida is 

known only from the wet forests of 

eastern Molokai, at elevations from 

2,300 to 4,200 ft (700 to 1,280 m) 

(Wagner et al. 1999, p. 819). The wet 

forests where P. hispida has been 

recorded are found only on the 

windward side of East Molokai, which 

differs topographically from the leeward 

side. Precipitous cliffs line the northern 

windward coast, with deep inaccessible 

valleys dissecting the coastline. The 

annual rainfall on the windward side 

ranges from 75 to over 150 inches (in) 

(200 to over 375 centimeters (cm)), 

distributed throughout the year. The 

soils are poorly drained and high in 

organic matter. The gulches and valleys 

are usually very steep, but sometimes 

gently sloping (Foote et al. 1972, p. 14). 

The native habitats and vegetation of 

the Hawaiian Islands have undergone 

extreme alterations because of past and 

present land use, as well as the 

intentional or inadvertent introduction 

of nonnative animal and plant species. 

Introduced mammals, particularly feral 

pigs (Sus scrofa), have greatly affected 

native Hawaiian plant communities. 

Feral pigs have been described as the 

most pervasive and disruptive 

nonnative influence on the unique 

native forests of the Hawaiian Islands, 

and are widely recognized as one of the 

greatest threats to forest ecosystems in 

Hawaii today (Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; 

Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195; Loope 

1998, p. 752). Introduced (nonnative) 

plant species, which now comprise 

approximately half of the plant taxa in 

the islands, have come to dominate 

many Hawaiian ecosystems, and 

frequently outcompete native plants for 

space, light, water, and nutrients, as 

well as alter ecosystem function, 

rendering habitats unsuitable for native 

species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 

73-91; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6). 

The plant Phyllostegia hispida has 

only a few recorded occurrences and 

until recently was thought to be extinct 

in the wild. Alterations of the plant’s 

native habitat by feral pigs and 

nonnative plants have been the primary 

threats to P. hispida, in conjunction 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
11320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

with the threat of predation by feral 

pigs, competition with nonnative plants, 

and more recently the negative 

demographic and genetic consequences 

of extremely small population size, as 

well as the consequent vulnerability to 

extinction through deterministic or 

stochastic (chance) events. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We first identified Phyllostegia 

hispida as a candidate for listing in the 

September 19, 1997, Notice of Review of 

Plant and Animal Taxa that are 

Candidates or Proposed for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened Species 

(Notice of Review) (62 FR 49397). 

Candidates are those taxa for which we 

have on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threats to 

support preparation of a listing 

proposal, but for which development of 

a listing regulation is precluded by other 

higher priority listing activities. 

On May 4, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity petitioned the 

Service to list 225 species of plants and 

animals as endangered under the 

provisions of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), including Phyllostegia hispida. In 

our Notice of Review, dated September 

12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), we retained a 

listing priority number of 2 for this 

species, in accordance with our priority 

guidance published on September 21, 

1983 (48 FR 43098). A listing priority of 

2 reflects threats that are both imminent 

and high in magnitude, as well as the 

taxonomic classification of P. hispida as 

a full species. We determined that 

publication of a proposed rule to list the 

species was precluded by our work on 

higher priority listing actions during the 

period from May 2, 2005, through 

August 23, 2006 (71 FR 53756). 

However, we have since completed 

those actions. As such, we had available 

resources to propose to list this species. 

On February 19, 2008, we published 

a proposed rule to list Phyllostegia 

hispida as endangered throughout its 

range (73 FR 9078). We solicited data 

and comments from the public on the 

proposed rule. The comment period 

opened on February 19, 2008, and 

closed on April 21, 2008. 

Species Information 

Phyllostegia hispida was first 

described by William Hillebrand in 

1870 from a specimen collected from an 

area that he described as the ‘‘heights of 

Mopulehu’’ on the island of Molokai 

(see ‘‘Type Description,’’ Smithsonian 

Institution and National Tropical 

Botanical Garden 2008), and is 

recognized as a distinct taxon in Wagner 

et al. (1999, pp. 817-819). A nonaromatic member of the mint family 

(Lamiaceae), P. hispida is a loosely 

spreading, many-branched vine that 

often forms large, tangled masses. 

Leaves are thin and flaccid with hispid 

hairs (rough with firm, stiff hairs) and 

glands. The leaf margins are irregularly 

and shallowly lobed. Six to eight white 

flowers make up each verticillaster (a 

false whorl, composed of a pair of 

nearly sessile cymes (a flat-topped or 

round-topped flower cluster) in the axils 

of opposite leaves or bracts), and nutlets 

are approximately 0.1 inches (in) (2.5 

millimeters (mm)) long (Wagner et al. 

1999, pp. 817-819). No life history 

information is currently available on 

this species. 

The few documented specimens of 

Phyllostegia hispida have typically been 

found in wet Metrosideros polymorpha 

(ohia)–dominated forest, with most at an 

elevation between 3,650 and 4,200 ft 

(1,112 and 1,280 m). Associated native 

species include Cheirodendron 

trigynum (olapa), Ilex anomala (aiae), 

Cibotium glaucum (hapuu), Broussaisia 

argutus (kanawao), Rubus hawaiensis 

(akala), Sadleria cyatheoides (amau), 

Pipturus albidus (mamaki), Nertera 

granadensis (makole), Athyrium 

microphyllum (no common name), 

Elaphoglossum fauriei (no common 

name), and bryophytes (Hawaii 

Biodiversity and Mapping Program 

(HBMP) 2007). 

From 1910 through 1979, a total of 8 

occurrences of Phyllostegia hispida 

were recorded from the wet forests of 

eastern Molokai (HBMP 2007). None of 

these historical occurrences have been 

relocated during surveys conducted in 

the wet forests of east Molokai over the 

past several years (The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH) 1997b, 

pp. 1-19; Perlman 2006a). In 1996, two 

adult plants were found in eastern 

Molokai within TNCH’s Kamakou 

Preserve, one next to the Pepeopae 

Boardwalk and the other east of 

Hanalilolilo growing along the fence 

within the State of Hawaii’s Puu Alii 

Natural Area Reserve (NAR). In 1997, a 

single Phyllostegia individual was 

discovered on the rim of Pelekunu 

Valley in the Puu Alii NAR (HBMP 

2005; TNCH 1997b, p. 6). There is some 

uncertainty, however, as to whether this 

individual was P. hispida, as it was 

identified as P. manni by Hawaii 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

(DOFAW) staff, based upon the size and 

lobing of its leaves (Hobdy 2006; Lau 

2006; Nohara 2006). This individual 

plant was protected from feral ungulates 

inside a fenced exclosure. Seeds were 

collected, and seedlings were produced 

by DOFAW and outplanted into the 

exclosure with the wild plant (Nohara 

2006). 

In November 1996, TNCH erected an 

exclosure around the Pepeopae 

Boardwalk individual and began 

frequent, recurrent weeding and 

monitoring within the fenced area 

(TNCH 1997a, p. 2). They also built an 

exclosure approximately 656 ft (200 m) 

away for future outplantings of 

propagated individuals. Plants grown 

from leaf buds collected from the 

Pepeopae Boardwalk plant were 

outplanted into the exclosure in 

December 1997 (TNCH 1998a, p. 7). 

They survived through 1998 (TNCH 

1998b, Appendix 1, dot 28), but have 

since been confirmed dead (Aruch 2006; 

Misaki 2006). 

The Pepeopae Boardwalk individual 

died in 1998 or 1999 (HBMP 2005), and 

the wild plant and outplantings in Puu 

Alii NAR, which may possibly have 

been Phyllostegia manni and not P. 

hispida (see above; the question of 

taxonomic identity was never resolved), 

died several years ago (Perlman 2005; 

Wood 2005; Hughes 2006b). The 

University of Hawaii’s Lyon Arboretum 

has material from the individual that 

was growing along the Puu Alii fence 

and from the Pepeopae Boardwalk 

individual in micropropagation (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

Surveys have been conducted in the 

wet forests of east Molokai, but no 

additional Phyllostegia hispida plants 

were found. The species was thought to 

have been extirpated from the wild until 

2005, when two seedlings were found in 

a Hanalilolilo stream bank in Kamakou 

Preserve, indicating the possible 

presence of a mature plant, or plants, 

somewhere in the vicinity (TNCH 

1997b, pp. 1-19; Perlman 2005; Perlman 

2006a; Wood 2006). One of the 

seedlings was collected by a botanist 

with HBMP and provided to Lyon 

Arboretum in Honolulu, which in turn 

provided it to Kalaupapa National 

Historic Park (KNHP) on Molokai for 

attempted propagation. That plant has 

since died (Hughes 2006a; Garnett 

2006). The other seedling was collected 

by a botanist with the National tropical 

Botanic Gardens. Cuttings were 

propagated from this seedling and 

providedto KNHP (Perlman 2006b). 

Plants grown from these cuttings have 

since been outplanted into TNCH’s 

Kamakou Preserve (see below). 

Phyllostegia hispida was again 

thought to be extirpated from the wild 

until a single juvenile plant was 

discovered in May 2006 within the Puu 

Alii NAR along the Puu Alii fenceline 

at 4,100 ft (1,250 m) elevation (Perlman 

2006b). Although protected within a 10- 

ft (3-m) diameter fenced exclosure 

(Stevens 2006), that individual has died 

for unknown reasons (Oppenheimer 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11321 

2007). However, 10 new wild plants 

were discovered in April 2007: 9 within 

Kamakou Preserve and 1 within Puu 

Alii NAR. Four of the individuals found 

within Kamakou Preserve were 

seedlings that were closely clustered 

next to a fenceline. These were 

protected with temporary fencing; 

however, two of these individuals are 

now dead. Two of the remaining eight 

wild individuals discovered in April 

2007 are mature and have fruited and 

produced seeds. Seeds and cuttings 

have been removed from these 

individuals for attempted cultivation 

(Oppenheimer 2008b). Other than the 

two remaining seedlings that were 

protected with temporary fencing, the 

remainder of the wild individuals are 

not currently protected within 

exclosures. 

Since April 2007, 15 additional 

Phyllostegia hispida individuals have 

been found within Kamakou Preserve 

while conducting Rubus argutus 

(Florida prickly blackberry) control trips 

(Oppenheimer 2008a,b; Oppenheimer 

2008d). Most of the remaining wild 

individuals, which now number 24, are 

located on landslides or in windthrow 

areas (areas in which trees have been 

uprooted or overthrown by wind) 

(Oppenheimer 2008b,c). 

In addition, several outplantings of 

cultivated individuals have been 

completed within TNCH’s Kamakou 

Preserve as of April 2007. Twelve 

individuals were outplanted into 

exclosures in April 2007, and 11 of 

these were still doing well as of April 

2008. Another 12 were outplanted in 

June 2007, all of which remained as of 

April 2008 (Oppenheimer 2008b). A 

third outplanting of 6 plants was done 

in August 2007 (Oppenheimer 2008b), 

another 124 individuals were 

outplanted in August 2008 

(Oppenheimer 2008d), and 61 more 

were outplanted in September 2008 

(Oppenheimer 2008c), bringing the total 

number of Phyllostegia hispida plants in 

the wild to 24 naturally occurring and 

214 outplanted individuals. One of the 

wild individuals is located within Puu 

Alii NAR; all of the remaining 

individuals are located within Kamakou 

Preserve. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

February 19, 2008 (73 FR 9078), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by April 21, 2008. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Honolulu Advertiser 

and Molokai Advertiser News. We did 

not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

During the comment period for the 

proposed rule, we received one written 

public comment in support of listing 

Phyllostegia hispida with endangered 

status. In addition, the commenter 

concurred with our assessment that feral 

pigs and invasive, nonnative plants are 

both important and immediate threats to 

Hawaii’s native plants and to P. hispida 

in particular. No further additional 

information was offered beyond these 

statements of support; therefore we will 

not address this comment further here. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from seven individuals with scientific 

expertise that included familiarity with 

Phyllostegia hispida and its habitat, 

biological needs, and threats. We 

received written comments from two 

experts, both of whom agreed with the 

assessment that P. hispida meets the 

definition of an endangered species. In 

addition, both experts pointed out that 

while the continuing invasion of alien 

plants and feral ungulates undoubtedly 

poses threats to the species and its 

habitat, the limited area currently 

occupied by P. hispida has not yet 

become highly modified by nonnative 

plants and feral pigs, due to ongoing 

management by TNCH. The remaining 

plants are found in a native-dominated 

plant community within TNCH’s 

Kamakou Preserve where control efforts 

for both alien plants and feral ungulates 

are ongoing. Both experts also point out 

that they believe P. hispida may be 

dependent upon tree-fall openings in 

the canopy or similar disturbances that 

provide increased sunlight for 

germination. Information provided by 

the peer reviewers has been 

incorporated into this final rule. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

Each of these factors is discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

As with virtually every other native 

plant community in the islands, the wet 

forests of Molokai where Phyllostegia 

hispida occurs have been affected by 

introduced (nonnative) feral pigs and 

introduced (nonnative) plants (DOFAW 

1991, pp. 3, 14-23; TNCH 1994, pp. 6, 

9-12; HBMP 2007). The poor 

reproduction and survivorship of P. 

hispida clearly indicate that the current 

conditions are less than optimal for this 

species, although we do not yet fully 

understand the specific mechanisms 

that are undermining its viability. 

Feral Pigs 

European pigs, introduced to Hawaii 

by Captain James Cook in 1778, 

hybridized with domesticated 

Polynesian pigs, became feral, and 

invaded forested areas, especially wet 

and mesic forests and dry areas at high 

elevations. They are currently present 

on Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, 

and Hawaii. These introduced feral pigs 

are extremely destructive and have both 

direct and indirect impacts on native 

plant communities. While rooting in the 

earth in search of invertebrates and 

plant material, feral pigs directly affect 

native plants by disturbing and 

destroying vegetative cover, trampling 

plants and seedlings, and possibly 

reducing or eliminating plant 

regeneration by damaging or eating 

seeds and seedlings (further discussion 

of predation is under Factor C, below). 

Feral pigs are a major vector for the 

establishment and spread of competing 

invasive, nonnative plant species, by 

dispersing these plant seeds on their 

hooves and coats as well as through 

their digestive tracts, and by fertilizing 

the disturbed soil through their feces. 

Feral pigs feed preferentially on the 

fruits of many nonnative plants, such as 

Passiflora tarminiana (banana poka) and 

Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava), 

thereby facilitating the spread of these 

invasive species, and also contribute to 

erosion by clearing vegetation and 

creating large areas of disturbed soil, 

especially on slopes (Aplet et al. 1991, 

p. 56; Smith 1985, pp. 190, 192, 196, 

200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254- 

255, 262-264; Medeiros et al. 1986, pp. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
11322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

27-28; Scott et al. 1986, pp. 360-361; 

Tomich 1986, pp. 120-126; Cuddihy and 

Stone 1990, pp. 64-65; Loope et al. 

1991, pp. 1-21; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 

52). 

Feral pigs are present in the wet forest 

habitat formerly and currently inhabited 

by Phyllostegia hispida within Puu Alii 

NAR and Kamakou Preserve, and 

although control efforts are underway, 

they continue to degrade the condition 

of the forest there (DOFAW 1991, pp. 3, 

14-23; TNCH 1994, pp. 6, 9-12; HBMP 

2007). They are considered a major 

threat to native species and to the 

overall health of the watershed in which 

P. hispida occurs (DOFAW 1991, pp. 3, 

14-23; TNCH 1994, pp. 6, 9-12). 

Significant management actions are 

directed at feral ungulate control in the 

area where P. hispida has been found 

within Puu Alii NAR and Kamakou 

Preserve on Molokai, such as large-scale 

watershed fencing, construction of 

ungulate exclosures around rare plants, 

and hunting of feral pigs by both staff 

and the public (TNCH 1997a, pp. 2-3; 

TNCH 1998a, pp. 1-2, 7; DOFAW 2000, 

pp. 3, 12; HBMP 2007). When the 

individual P. hispida was discovered in 

1996 next to the boardwalk at Pepeopae, 

TNCH noted signs of feral pig presence 

(e.g., droppings, evidence of rooting, 

wallows) in the vicinity (HPMP 2007) 

and immediately erected a fenced 

exclosure around the plant to protect it 

(TNCH 1997a, pp. 2-3). Similarly, a 

fenced exclosure was erected around the 

individual that was discovered within 

the Puu Alii NAR in 1997 to protect it 

from feral pigs (Nohara 2006). The 

juvenile plant discovered within the 

Puu Alii NAR in 2005 was immediately 

fenced to protect it from feral pigs 

(Stevens 2006), as were four of the most 

recently discovered plants along the 

fenceline within Kamakou Preserve 

(Oppenheimer 2007). Most of the wild 

individuals, however, are not currently 

protected within exclosures, and despite 

ongoing control efforts, feral pigs persist 

in the range of P. hispida. 

Feral pigs have been described as the 

most pervasive and disruptive 

nonnative influence on the unique 

native forests of the Hawaiian Islands, 

and are widely recognized as one of the 

greatest current threats to forest 

ecosystems in Hawaii (Aplet et al. 1991, 

p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195; 

Loope 1998, pp. 752, 769-770). Feral 

pigs continue to persist despite control 

efforts, and fencing protects individual 

plants only temporarily. Furthermore, 

the remote and rugged terrain of the 

islands makes the long-term 

maintenance of fencing difficult. 

Because of their high rate of 

reproduction, more than 40 percent of 

the feral pig population must be 

removed annually before any decline in 

numbers is observed (Hess et al. 2006, 

p. 39). The most intensive feral pig 

eradication programs in the Hawaiian 

Islands have taken years of continuous 

effort to achieve effective control, even 

within fenced areas (Hess et al. 2006). 

Even though two peer reviewers have 

suggested that the habitat currently 

occupied by Phyllostegia hispida on 

TNCH land has not yet been highly 

modified by feral pigs, due to the welldocumented negative impacts of feral 

pigs on native Hawaiian plant 

communities, the known habitat 

degradation caused by feral pigs in the 

habitat occupied by P. hispida, and the 

continuing presence of feral pigs in the 

limited area where P. hispida is found, 

we consider habitat modification and 

degradation by feral pigs to be an 

immediate and ongoing threat to this 

species throughout its range, and we 

have no indication that this threat is 

likely to be significantly ameliorated in 

the near future. 

Nonnative Plants 

Introduced, nonnative plant species 

are a pervasive threat to the native flora 

throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Of the 

current total of nearly 2,000 native and 

naturalized plant taxa, approximately 

half are introduced, nonnative species 

from other parts of the world, and 

nearly 100 of these are considered 

invasive pest species (Smith 1985, p. 

180). On the Hawaiian Islands and other 

tropical islands, studies have shown 

that many of these introduced plant taxa 

outcompete and displace native plants, 

and often alter the habitat to the point 

that it is no longer suitable for the native 

plant species; these studies include 

nonnative pest plants found in habitat 

similar to that of Phyllostegia hispida 

(Smathers and Gardner 1978, pp. 274- 

275; Smith 1985, pp. 196, 206, 230; 

Loope and Medeiros 1992, pp. 7-8; 

Medeiros et al. 1992, pp. 30-32; Ellshoff 

et al. 1995, pp. 1-5; Meyer and Florence 

1996, pp. 777-780; Medeiros et al. 1997, 

pp. 30-32; Loope et al. 2004, pp. 1472- 

1473). In particular, nonnative pest 

plants may make habitat less suitable for 

native plants by modifying availability 

of light, altering soil-water regimes, 

modifying nutrient cycling, or altering 

fire characteristics of native plant 

communities (Smith 1985, pp. 206, 217, 

225, 227-233; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 

p. 74). 

Although there is no empirical 

evidence specific to Phyllostegia 

hispida due to the lack of research on 

the species, scientists familiar with P. 

hispida believe it does not handle either 

shade or competition well 

(Oppenheimer 2007), and nonnative 

plants are likely to contribute to both of 

these conditions. Examples of some of 

the nonnative plants documented in the 

areas formerly occupied by P. hispida 

include Axonopus fissifolius (narrowleaved carpetgrass), Clidemia hirta 

(Koster’s curse), Erechtites valerianifolia 

(fireweed), Juncus effuses (Japanese mat 

rush), Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry), 

and Sacciolepis indica (Glenwood 

grass). Rubus rosifolius and R. argutus 

are scattered throughout the area in 

which P. hispida currently exists, and 

are targets of control by TNCH staff in 

the area (Oppenheimer 2008a). Because 

of demonstrated habitat modification 

and resource competition by nonnative 

plant species in habitat similar to the 

wet forest habitat of P. hispida, and the 

ongoing need for control of invasive 

nonnative plant species in the area 

currently occupied by P. hispida, we 

consider habitat modification and 

degradation by nonnative plants to be 

an immediate and ongoing threat to this 

species throughout its range. 

To date, successful eradication or 

control of invasive alien plants has only 

been achieved on a very small scale, and 

then usually when control efforts have 

been initiated in the early stages of 

establishment (Mack and Lonsdale 

2002, p. 166). Many of the invasive, 

nonnative plants in Hawaii are so 

widespread and easily dispersed that 

some researchers question whether 

eradication is a realistic goal (e.g., Mack 

and Lonsdale 2002, p. 165). On average, 

40 new plant species have been 

introduced to the Hawaiian Islands 

every year over the past two centuries 

(Loope 1998, p. 752). Although 

managers are attempting to control 

nonnative plants, resources to support 

such efforts are often limited (e.g., Holt 

1992, p. 527), and invasive nonnative 

plants persist in most areas in spite of 

such efforts. In addition, the control of 

introduced ungulates such as feral pigs, 

which contribute to the spread of alien 

plant species, is viewed as a 

prerequisite to the effective control of 

nonnative plants (e.g., Holt 1992, p. 

527). Therefore, due to the ubiquitous 

nature of the invasive plant problem in 

the Hawaiian Islands, the extreme 

difficulty of eradicating invasive, 

nonnative plant species that have 

become widespread and wellestablished, and the continuing 

presence of introduced ungulates that 

contribute to the spread and 

establishment of nonnative plants, we 

have no indication that this threat to 

Phyllostegia hispida is likely to be 

significantly reduced any time in the 

near future. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11323 

In summary, feral pigs contribute to 

the modification and degradation of 

Phyllostegia hispida’s habitat by 

disturbing and destroying vegetative 

cover, trampling plants and seedlings, 

reducing or eliminating plant 

regeneration by damaging or eating 

seeds and seedlings, and increasing 

erosion by creating large areas of bare 

soil. Feral pigs are also a major vector 

for the dispersal of invasive, nonnative 

plant species that pose a threat to 

P.hispida. The presence of nonnative 

plant species contributes to the 

modification and degradation of P. 

hispida’s habitat by modifying 

availability of light, altering soil-water 

regimes, modifying nutrient cycling, 

and changing the fire characteristics of 

the native plant community. Evidence 

suggests that P. hispida is negatively 

affected by shade and competition, both 

conditions exacerbated by invasive 

nonnative plants. We therefore find that 

habitat modification and degradation by 

feral pigs and nonnative plants poses an 

immediate and ongoing threat to 

Phyllostegia hispida, despite the 

occurrence of the species on protected 

lands, and we have no indication that 

this threat is likely to be significantly 

ameliorated in the near future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not known to be a threat to 

Phyllostegia hispida in any portion of 

its range, and as such is not addressed 

in this rule. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Because the native vegetation of 

Hawaii evolved without any browsing 

or grazing mammals present, many 

plant species do not have natural 

defenses against such impacts (Carlquist 

1980, pp. 173-175; Lamoureux 1994, pp. 

54-55). Native plants such as 

Phyllostegia hispida do not have 

physical or chemical adaptations, such 

as thorns or noxious compounds, to 

protect them, thereby rendering them 

particularly vulnerable to predation by 

feral pigs or other ungulates 

(Department of Geography 1998, pp. 

137-138; Carlquist 1980, p. 175). 

Browsing by ungulates has been 

observed on many other native plants, 

including common and rare or 

endangered species (Cuddihy and Stone 

1990, pp. 64-65). In a study of feral pig 

populations in the Kipahulu Valley on 

the island of Maui, feral pigs were 

observed feeding on at least 40 plant 

species in the rainforest ecosystem, 75 

percent of which were native plants 

occurring in the herbaceous understory 

and subcanopy layer (Diong 1982, p. 

160). Therefore, even though we have 

no evidence of direct browsing for P. 

hispida, given the presence of feral pigs 

in the area where P. hispida occurs, we 

consider it likely that feral pigs may 

affect the species directly through 

predation. As described above under 

Factor A, due to the persistence of feral 

pigs in the limited range of P. hispida 

in spite of control efforts, and the 

likelihood that their presence will 

continue, we believe feral pigs pose an 

immediate and ongoing threat to the 

species throughout its range, and that 

this threat is unlikely to be significantly 

reduced in the near future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Of the 238 known individuals of 

Phyllostegia hispida, 24 wild and 214 

recently outplanted, 237 occur on 

TNCH’s Kamakou Preserve. TNCH 

manages this private land for the benefit 

of threatened and endangered species 

and ecosystems. The management 

efforts at TNCH’s Kamakou Preserve 

include control of nonnative plants and 

feral pigs, as well as fencing, all of 

which benefit P. hispida. However, as 

noted in the discussion of Factor A 

above, the eradication of nonnative 

plants and feral pigs, even within 

fenced areas under active management, 

is a difficult and extremely lengthy task. 

The continuing presence of nonnative 

plants and feral pigs within the fenced 

area of the preserve, in concert with the 

threat of very small population size and 

limited number of reproductive 

individuals, which will be discussed in 

Factor E, renders P. hispida vulnerable 

to extinction due to these threats despite 

beneficial management on the Kamakou 

Preserve. The threat of extinction is not 

posed, however, by an inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms on TNCH lands. 

Only one known individual of 

Phyllostegia hispida is found on State 

lands, in the Puu Alii NAR. Hawaii 

Administrative Rules 13-209 provide 

protections for this single individual, 

including a prohibition against removal, 

injury, or killing, and a prohibition 

against the introduction of plants or 

animals. The State has been working to 

fence greater areas of the NAR and to 

eradicate feral pigs and nonnative plants 

within the fenced areas, but this work 

is not yet complete. As noted in the 

discussion of Factor A above, the 

eradication of nonnative plants and feral 

pigs, even within fenced areas under 

active management, is a difficult and 

extremely lengthy task. Although some 

regulatory protections are in place on 

the NAR that benefit P. hispida, only 

one single plant occurs under these 

protections. This fact, in conjunction 

with the persistence of nonnative plants 

and feral pigs, small population size, 

and limited number of reproductive 

individuals of the species remaining, 

renders P. hispida vulnerable to 

extinction due to these threats despite 

the protections on the Puu Alii NAR. 

The threat of extinction is not posed, 

however, by an inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms on the NAR. The regulatory 

mechanisms that provide for the control 

of threats to P. hispida on the Puu Alii 

NAR appear to be adequate, but as the 

success of these control efforts has yet 

to be realized, the threats continue at 

present. 

We find that where individuals of 

Phyllostegia hispida are currently 

found, the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms does not pose a threat to 

the species. However, should the 

recovery of the species eventually 

require reintroductions in other areas, 

this factor may pose a potential 

impediment to recovery. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

One of the most significant threats to 

Phyllostegia hispida is its extremely low 

numbers and highly restricted 

distribution. A total of 238 plants are 

currently known to exist, 24 naturally 

occurring and 214 outplanted. Only two 

wild individuals are mature and have 

fruited and produced seeds. All of the 

remaining individuals are young or only 

recently established. Survivorship of 

known wild individuals has been poor, 

and although outplantings have been 

attempted, none of these outplantings 

has yet proven successful for more than 

the short term. Although propagules of 

P. hispida have been collected on an 

opportunistic basis and some controlled 

propagation of the species has taken 

place, there is no dedicated funding for 

propagation of the species and no 

formal plan exists for outplanting and 

reintroduction. 

Deterministic factors, such as habitat 

alteration or loss of a key pollinator, 

may have reduced this population to 

such a small size that it is now 

susceptible to a stochastic extinction 

event (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 24- 

25). Species that are known from few 

wild individuals and are endemic to a 

single, small island are inherently more 

vulnerable to extinction than 

widespread species because of the 

higher risks posed to a few populations 

and individuals by genetic bottlenecks, 

random demographic fluctuations, and 

localized catastrophes, such as 

hurricanes and disease outbreaks 

(Mangel and Tier 1994, pp. 607-614; 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
11324 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 757-785). In the 

case of Phyllostegia hispida, the entire 

population of the species is small and 

restricted to a highly localized 

geographic area, rendering it highly 

vulnerable to the risk of extinction in 

the wild due to the lack of redundancy 

in populations. In addition, the lack of 

reproductive individuals and skewing of 

the population toward young plants 

poses a significant threat to the species, 

as recruitment may not be sufficient to 

offset mortality in the population. These 

consequences of small population size 

(e.g., insufficient natural reproduction, 

loss of genetic diversity), in conjunction 

with the risk of losing the entire 

population in the wild due to factors 

such as localized events (e.g., 

hurricanes) and threats posed by 

ungulates, render the species highly 

vulnerable to extinction at any time. 

Although some species are naturally 

rare, the poor survivorship of P. hispida 

suggests that the requisite biological or 

ecological needs of the species are not 

being met under current conditions. The 

reasons for the poor survivorship and 

lack of reproduction observed in this 

species are not known. 

All of these negative demographic 

factors, as well as the vulnerability of 

extinction of the population from a 

catastrophic natural event, pose 

immediate and significant threats to the 

species despite the fact that it currently 

occurs on protected lands, including 

State and TNCH reserves. Small 

population size has therefore become a 

primary and immediate threat to this 

species, and given the current size and 

composition of the population, we do 

not foresee the likelihood of this threat 

lessening to any significant degree any 

time in the near future. 

Conclusion and Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Phyllostegia 

hispida. The species’ extremely low 

numbers and highly restricted 

geographic range make it particularly 

susceptible to extinction at any time 

from random events such as hurricanes 

(Factor E). In addition, the lack of 

mature reproductive individuals poses 

an immediate threat to the species 

(Factor E). Although the species is 

found on protected lands with ongoing 

management efforts, as described above, 

we find that it nonetheless faces 

continuing threats from habitat 

destruction and degradation due to feral 

pig activity and invasive nonnative 

plants (Factor A), competition with 

nonnative plant species (Factor A), and 

predation by nonnative mammals 

(Factor C). The pervasive nature of feral 

pigs and invasive plants on the island 

of Molokai makes it unlikely that 

control efforts will significantly reduce 

the degree of threat to the species 

anytime in the near future; therefore we 

find that these factors, in combination 

with the extremely low number of 

reproductive individuals and limited 

distribution of the population, pose a 

significant and immediate threat to P. 

hispida and place the species at current 

risk of extinction throughout its range. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as ‘‘any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

Phyllostegia hispida is highly restricted 

in its range, currently occurring only 

within Puu Alii NAR and the 

immediately adjacent Kamakou Preserve 

on the island of Molokai. Based on the 

immediate and ongoing significant 

threats to P. hispida throughout its 

entire limited range, as described above, 

we consider the species P. hispida to be 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

its range. Therefore, we are listing P. 

hispida as an endangered species under 

the Act. Because we determine that P. 

hispida is endangered throughout all of 

its range, there is no reason to consider 

its status in any significant portion of its 

range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, and local agencies, 

private organizations, and individuals. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be carried out for all listed 

species. The protection measures 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

involving listed plants are discussed, in 

part, below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is proposed or listed as endangered 

or threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may adversely affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with the 

Service. 

For Phyllostegia hispida, Federal 

agency actions that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include feral 

ungulate removal or other management 

actions undertaken by the National Park 

Service within Puu Alii NAR; the 

provision of Federal funds to State and 

private entities through Federal 

programs, such as the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program, State 

Wildlife Grant Program, and Federal 

Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program; 

and the various grants administered by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Other types of actions that may require 

consultation include U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers activities, such as the 

construction or maintenance of 

boardwalks and bridges subject to 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1344 et seq.). 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered plants. All prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. 

These prohibitions, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

import or export, transport in interstate 

or foreign commerce in the course of a 

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale 

in interstate or foreign commerce, or 

remove and reduce to possession the 

species from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction. In addition, for plants 

listed as endangered, the Act prohibits 

the malicious damage or destruction on 

areas under Federal jurisdiction and the 

removal, cutting, digging up, or 

damaging or destroying of such plants 

in knowing violation of any State law or 

regulation, including State criminal 

trespass law. Certain exceptions to the 

prohibitions apply to agents of the 

Service and State conservation agencies. 

Although Hawaii has a strong 

Endangered Species law (HRS, Sect. 

195-D), Phyllostegia hispida is not 

currently protected under that law. 

Federal listing of P. hispida will 

automatically invoke State listing under 

Hawaii’s Endangered Species law and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11325 

supplement the protection available 

under other State laws. The Federal 

Endangered Species Act will, therefore, 

offer additional protection to this 

species. 

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 also 

provide for the issuance of permits to 

carry out otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered plants under 

certain circumstances. Such permits are 

available for scientific purposes and to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species. We anticipate that the only 

permits that would be sought or issued 

for Phyllostegia hispida would be in 

association with recovery efforts, as this 

species is not common in cultivation or 

the wild. Requests for copies of the 

regulations regarding listed species and 

inquiries about prohibitions and permits 

may be addressed to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Eastside Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th 

Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 

(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503- 

231-6243). 

Critical Habitat 

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 provisions of 

section 4 of 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 

protections; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the provisions of section 4 of the 

Act, upon a determination by the 

Secretary of the Interior that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under 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 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect 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 does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 

are found the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed 

only when we determine that those 

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 and commercial 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 issued by the 

Service, 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 developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include 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, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

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 designate 

critical habitat at the time a species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

There is no documentation that 

Phyllostegia hispida is threatened by 

taking or other human activity. In the 

absence of finding that the designation 

of critical habitat would increase threats 

to a species, if there are any benefits to 

a critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. The 

potential benefits include: (1) Triggering 

consultation under section 7 of the Act, 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, 

the area is or has become unoccupied or 

the occupancy is in question; (2) 

focusing conservation activities on the 

most essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

The primary regulatory effect of a 

critical habitat designation is the section 

7(a)(2) requirement that Federal 

agencies refrain from taking any action 

that destroys or adversely affects critical 

habitat. At present, the only known 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
11326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

extant individuals of Phyllostegia 

hispida occur on State and private land, 

and all previously known occurrences 

have been on State and private lands. 

However, the State-owned Puu Alii 

NAR falls within the boundaries of the 

Kalaupapa National Historic Park, and 

the National Park Service may need to 

consult with the Service in the future 

should they determine that actions they 

intend to fund, carry out, or authorize 

within the NAR may affect P. hispida or 

destroy or adversely affect critical 

habitat. In addition, lands that may be 

designated as critical habitat in the 

future for this species may be subject to 

Federal actions that trigger the section 7 

consultation requirement, such as the 

granting of Federal monies for 

conservation projects or the need for 

Federal permits for projects, such as the 

construction and maintenance of 

boardwalks and bridges subject to 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1344 et seq.). There may also be 

some educational or informational 

benefits to the designation of critical 

habitat. Educational benefits include the 

notification of land owners, land 

managers, and the general public of the 

importance of protecting the habitat of 

this species. In the case of P. hispida, 

these aspects of critical habitat 

designation would potentially benefit 

the conservation of the species. 

Therefore, since we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

will not likely increase the degree of 

threat to the species and may provide 

some measure of benefit, we find that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for P. hispida. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act requires the designation of critical 

habitat concurrently with the species’ 

listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent 

and 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) Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

permit identification of an area as 

critical habitat. 

When critical habitat is not 

determinable, the Act provides for an 

additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider those physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. We 

consider the physical or biological 

features to be the PCEs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species. The PCEs include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We are currently unable to identify 

the primary constituent elements for 

Phyllostegia hispida, because those 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of this 

species are not known at this time. As 

discussed in the ‘‘Species Information’’ 

section of this rule, between the years 

1910 and 1996 only 10 occurrences of 

P. hispida were documented, and the 

location information for these 

occurrences was recorded at a relatively 

coarse scale. Elevations are known only 

for the few individuals discovered 

within the last 10 years. From 1996 

through 2005, a total of only 6 plants (3 

adults, 2 seedlings, and 1 juvenile) were 

located, all existing only as single 

individuals in disparate locations. All of 

the previously known adults died 

without reproducing naturally in the 

wild. Currently, there are 24 individuals 

known to naturally exist in the wild, 

only 2 of which are mature. Seeds and 

cuttings have been removed from these 

two individuals for attempted 

cultivation (Oppenheimer 2008b). As of 

April 2008, an additional 214 

individuals produced from cuttings and 

outplanted into exclosures in Kamakou 

Preserve are also extant. 

The reasons for the deaths of the 

Phyllostegia hispida individuals 

summarized in the ‘‘Species 

Information’’ section of this rule are 

unknown, as are the reasons for poor 

natural reproduction in the wild. Key 

features of the plant’s life history, such 

as longevity, dispersal mechanisms, or 

vectors for pollination, are unknown. 

With so few recorded occurrences of 

the species, little is known of 

Phyllostegia hispida in terms of what 

this plant needs to survive and 

reproduce successfully in the wild. The 

poor viability of the P. hispida 

occurrences observed in recent years 

indicates that current conditions are not 

sufficient to meet the basic biological 

requirements of this species. Although 

two mature plants that are producing 

fruits were recently discovered, there 

has yet to be an observation of an 

individual or population of P. hispida 

that has successfully produced 

surviving young in the wild. As the 

successful survival and reproduction of 

the species in the wild has not yet been 

documented, the optimal conditions 

that would provide the biological or 

ecological requisites of the species are 

not known. Although, as described 

above, we can surmise that habitat 

degradation from a variety of factors has 

contributed to the decline of the species, 

we do not know specifically what 

essential physical or biological features 

of that habitat are currently lacking for 

P. hispida. As we are unable to identify 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of P. 

hispida, we are unable to identify areas 

that contain these features and that 

might qualify for designation as critical 

habitat. 

Although we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat is 

prudent for Phyllostegia hispida, the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of the physical and 

biological features that may be essential 

for the conservation of the species, or 

those areas essential to the conservation 

of the species. Therefore, we find that 

critical habitat for P. hispida is not 

determinable at this time. The recent 

outplanting of more than 200 new 

seedlings into the Kamakou Preserve 

presents us with an opportunity to 

study the growth of these plants and 

better determine the physical and 

biological features that may be essential 

for the conservation of the species. We 

intend to use the iterative information 

gained from this continuing research 

into the essential life history 

requirements of P. hispida to facilitate 

identification of essential features and 

areas. In addition, we will evaluate the 

needs of P. hispida within the ecological 

context of the broader ecosystem in 

which it occurs, similar to the approach 

that was recently proposed for 47 

species endemic to the island of Kauai 

(October 21, 2008; 73 FR 62592), and 

will consider the utility of using this 

approach for this species as well. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11327 

Required Determinations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Pacific 

Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend §17.12(h) by adding the 

following entry to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

alphabetical order under ‘‘Flowering 

Plants’’: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

* * * * * * * 

Phyllostegia 

hispida 

None U.S.A. (HI) Lamiaceae E 762 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5348 Filed 3–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 0809251266–81485–02] 

RIN 0648–XN60 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Scup Fishery; Reduction of 

Winter I Commercial Possession Limit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

reduction of the scup coastwide 

commercial possession limit from 

Maine through North Carolina for the 

Winter I period. Regulations governing 

the scup fishery require publication of 

this notification to advise the coastal 

states from Maine through North 

Carolina that 80 percent of the 

commercial quota allocated to the 

Winter I period is projected to be 

harvested and to announce that the 

possession limit for a Federal vessel 

permit holder is reduced. 

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, March 19, 

2009, through April 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Bryant, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9244. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the scup fishery 

are found at 50 CFR part 648. The 

regulations at § 648.120(c) require the 

Northeast Regional Administrator to 

publish annual scup quota allocations 

and the percentage of landings attained 

during the Winter I period at which the 

possession limits would be reduced. On 

January 2, 2009, NMFS published the 

final rule for the summer flounder, 

scup, and black sea bass specifications 

in the Federal Register (74 FR 29). This 

final rule requires NMFS to publish a 

notification in the Federal Register 

advising and notifying commercial 

vessels and dealer permit holders that 

the commercial scup possession limit 

will be reduced once 80 percent of the 

Winter I Period quota is projected to be 

harvested. Based upon recent 

projections, the Regional Administrator 

anticipates that 80 percent of the 

Federal commercial quota of 3,777,443 

lb (1,713 mt) for the 2009 Winter I 

period will be harvested by March 19, 

2009. Therefore, to maintain the 

integrity of the 2010 Winter I period 

quota by avoiding quota overages, the 

commercial scup possession limit will 

be reduced from 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) to 

1,000 lb (454 kg) of scup per trip. This 

possession limit will remain in effect 

until the end of the Winter I period 

(through April 30, 2009) or until the 

Winter I quota allocation has been fully 

harvested, which ever occurs first. 

Classification 

This action is required by 50 CFR part 

648 and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES