30372 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

lineare is warranted, an immediate

proposal to list is precluded by other

higher priority listing actions. During

fiscal year 2001, we must spend nearly

all of our Listing Program funding to

comply with court orders and judicially

approved settlement agreements, which

are now our highest priority actions.

Botrychium lineare will be added to the

list of candidate species upon

publication of this notice of 12-month

finding. We will continue to monitor the

status of the slender moonwort and

other candidate species. Should an

emergency situation develop with one

or more of these species, we will act to

provide immediate protection, if

warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein, as well as others, is available

upon request from the Snake River

Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

The primary authors of this document

are Edna Rey-Vizgirdas, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin

Office (see ADDRESSES section), and

Barbara Behan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: March 9, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14170 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG99

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for the O‘ahu ‘Elepaio

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose

designation of critical habitat for the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio, a bird, pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The proposed critical

habitat consists of five units whose

boundaries encompass a total area of

approximately 26,853 hectares (ha)

(66,354 acres (ac)) on the island of

O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

Critical habitat identifies specific

areas, both occupied and unoccupied,

that are essential to the conservation of

a listed species and that may require

special management considerations or

protection. The primary constituent

elements for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio are

those habitat components that are

essential for the primary biological

needs of foraging, nesting, rearing of

young, intra-specific communication,

roosting, dispersal, genetic exchange, or

sheltering. All areas proposed as critical

habitat for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio contain

one or more of the primary constituent

elements.

We solicit data and comments from

the public on all aspects of this

proposal, including data on economic

and other impacts. We may revise this

proposal to incorporate or address new

information received during the

comment period.

DATES:

Comments

We will consider comments from all

interested parties received by August 6,

2001.

Public Hearings

Requests for public hearing must be

received by July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES:

Comments

Send written comments on this

proposed rule to Paul Henson, Field

Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard,

Room 3–122, Box 50088, Honolulu,

Hawai‘i 96850.

Availability of Documents

Supporting documentation and

references used in the preparation of

this proposed rule and all comments

and materials received will be available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours in the

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

in Honolulu at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Henson, Field Supervisor, or Eric

VanderWerf, Biologist, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service at the above address

(telephone: 808/541–3441; facsimile:

808/541–3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Hawaiian archipelago consists of

eight main islands and the numerous

shoals and atolls of the northwestern

Hawaiian Islands. The islands were

formed sequentially by basaltic lava that

emerged from a hot spot in the earth’s

crust located near the current

southeastern coast of the island of

Hawai‘i (Stearns 1985). O‘ahu, the third

oldest main island, is 2.5 million to 3.5

million years old and is heavily

weathered. O‘ahu has two principal

mountain ranges, the Ko‘olau and the

Wai‘anae Mountains, separated by a

gently sloping plateau. The Ko‘olau

Mountains extend 60 kilometers (km)

(37 miles (mi)) from northwest to

southeast along the eastern half of the

island. The windward (northeastern)

slope of these mountains is

characterized by steep cliffs and short

ridges less than 6 km (4 mi) long. The

leeward (southwestern) slope is

characterized by parallel ridges as long

as 18 km (11 mi), alternating with steepsided stream valleys. The peak elevation

in the Ko‘olau Mountains occurs at Pu‘u

Ko ̃na ̄hua-nui (955 meters (m); 3,105 feet

(ft)). The drier Wai‘anae Mountains run

from northwest to southeast in a 32-km

(20-mi) arc along the western half of

O‘ahu, in the rainshadow of the Ko‘olau

Range. Both the windward and leeward

slopes of the Wai‘anae Mountains are

characterized by steep cliffs and ridges

less than 5 km (3 mi) in length. The

peak elevation occurs at Mt. Ka‘ala

(1,230 m; 4,025 ft). Approximately 36

percent (134,300 acres) of O‘ahu is

forested (Buck et al. 1988). Of these

forested lands, approximately 49

percent is primarily native forest

dominated by koa (Acacia koa) and

‘o ̃hi‘a ́ (Metrosideros polymorpha), with

the remainder, 51 percent, dominated

by introduced species, e.g., common

guava (Psidium guajava), strawberry

guava (P. cattleianum), christmasberry

(Schinus terebinthifolius), mango

(Mangifera indica), and several species

of eucalypts (Buck et al. 1988).

The O‘ahu ‘elepaio (Chasiempis

sandwichensis ibidis) is a small forestdwelling bird (12.5 grams (0.43 ounces))

average weight; 15 centimeters (6

inches) total body length), and is a

member of the monarch flycatcher

family Monarchidae (VanderWerf 1998).

It is dark brown above and white below,

with light brown streaks on the breast.

The tail is long (6.5 cm, 2.6 in.) and

often held up at an angle. Adults have

conspicuous white wing bars, a white

rump, and white tips on the tail

feathers. The throat is white with black

markings in both sexes, but males tend

to have more black than females,

especially on the chin. Juveniles and

subadults are rufous above and on the

breast, with a white belly and rusty

wing-bars. The bill is medium-length,

straight, and black, with the base of the

lower mandible bluish-gray in adults

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30373

and yellow in juveniles. The legs and

feet are dark gray and the iris is dark

brown. Males average approximately 10

percent larger than females in wing

length, tarsus length, and weight, but

bill length does not differ between the

sexes (VanderWerf 1998).

Three subspecies of ‘elepaio are

recognized, each endemic to a single

island: The O‘ahu ‘elepaio; the Hawai‘i

‘elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis

sandwichensis); and the Kaua‘i ‘elepaio

(C. s. sclateri). The forms on different

islands are similar in ecology and

behavior, but differ somewhat in

coloration and vocalizations (Conant

1977, van Riper 1995, VanderWerf

1998). The taxonomy used in this rule

follows Pratt et al. (1987) and Pyle

(1997), in which all forms are regarded

as subspecies, but the form on each

island was originally described as a

separate species. The O‘ahu form was

known as C. s. gayi (Wilson 1891) until

Olson (1989) pointed out that the

epithet ibidis (Stejneger 1887) has

priority. The ‘elepaio comprises a

monotypic genus that is endemic to the

Hawaiian archipelago (VanderWerf

1998). Its closest relatives are other

monarch flycatchers from the Pacific

region (Pratt et al. 1987, Sibley and

Ahlquist 1985).

O‘ahu ‘elepaio occur in a variety of

forest types, but are most common in

riparian vegetation along streambeds

and in mesic forest with a tall canopy

and a well-developed understory

(Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978,

VanderWerf et al. 1997). Population

density is roughly 50 percent lower in

shorter dry forest on ridges (VanderWerf

et al. 1997). They are not currently

found in very wet, stunted forest on

windswept summits or in very dry

shrub land, but these areas may be used

by individuals dispersing among

populations. Forest structure appears to

be more important to ‘elepaio than plant

species composition (VanderWerf et al.

1997), and unlike many Hawaiian forest

birds, ‘elepaio have adapted well to

disturbed forest composed of introduced

plants (Conant 1977, VanderWerf et al.

1997, VanderWerf 1998). Fifty-five

percent of the current range is

dominated by introduced plants and 45

percent is dominated by native plants

(Hawai‘i Heritage Program 1991). This

observation does not imply that ‘elepaio

prefer introduced plant species, but

simply reflects a preference by ‘elepaio

for riparian vegetation in valleys and the

high degree of habitat disturbance and

abundance of introduced plants in

riparian areas (VanderWerf et al. 1997).

Of the 45 percent dominated by native

plants, 23 percent is categorized as wet

forest, 17 percent as mesic forest, and 5

percent as dry forest, shrub land, and

cliffs (Hawai‘i Heritage Program 1991).

Plant species composition in ‘elepaio

habitat varies considerably depending

on location and elevation, but some of

the most common native plants in areas

where ‘elepaio occur are ‘o ̃hi‘a, pa ̄pala

ke ̄pau (Pisonia umbellifera), lama

(Diospyros sandwicensis), ma ̄maki

(Pipturus albidus), kaulu (Sapindus

Oahuensis), hame (Antidesma

platyphyllum), and ‘a ̄la Pouteria

sandwicensis), and some of the most

common introduced plants are guava,

strawberry guava, kukui (Aleurites

moluccana), mango, Christmasberry,

and ti (Cordyline terminalis)

(VanderWerf et al. 1997, VanderWerf

1998).

The current population of O‘ahu

‘elepaio is approximately 1,982 birds

distributed in six core subpopulations

and several smaller subpopulations

(Table 1, Figure 1; VanderWerf et al. in

press). The only previous population

estimate (200–500 birds; Ellis et al.

1992) was not accurate because little

information was available when the

estimate was made. The number of birds

is divided about evenly between the

Wai‘anae Mountains in the west and the

Ko‘olau Mountains in the east, with

three core subpopulations in each

mountain range. At least 10 tiny

remnant subpopulations consisting

mostly or entirely of males remain in

both the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau

mountains (Table 1). These

subpopulations were much larger or

continuous with other subpopulations

in the past, but because of their very

small size, skewed sex ratio, and

geographic isolation, these relicts likely

will disappear in a few years as the last

adults die.

The breeding population, about 1,774

birds, is less than the total population

because of a male-biased sex ratio; only

84 percent of territorial males have

mates in large populations (n = 147, E.

VanderWerf unpubl. data), and many

small, declining populations contain

mostly males (Table 1). The effective

population size is probably even smaller

than the breeding population because of

the geographically fragmented

distribution (Grant and Grant 1992).

Natal dispersal distances in e`lepaio are

usually less than one km (0.62 mi) and

adults have high site fidelity

(VanderWerf 1998), but most e`lepaio

populations on O‘ahu are separated by

many kilometers of unsuitable urban or

agricultural habitat. There may be some

exchange among subpopulations within

each mountain range, but dispersal

across the extensive pineapple fields

that separate the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau

mountains is unlikely. While the

current distribution superficially

appears to constitute a metapopulation,

it is uncertain if dispersal occurs among

subpopulations.

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED SIZE AND AREA OF O‘AHU ‘ELEPAIO SUBPOPULATIONS

[Data from VanderWerf et al. (in press). Letters before each subpopulation correspond to those on Figure 1.]

Subpopulation

Total

population

size

Breeding

population

size

Area

(ha)

Wai‘anae Mountains:

A. southern Wai‘anae (Honouliuli Preserve, Lualualei Naval Magazine) ........................................ 458 418 1,170

B. Schofield Barracks West Range .................................................................................................. 340 310 532

C. Ma ̄kaha, Wai‘anae Kai Valleys .................................................................................................... 123 112 459

D. Pahole, Kahanaha ̄iki .................................................................................................................... 18 4 256

E. Schofield Barracks South Range ................................................................................................. 6 0 20

F. Ma ̄kua Valley ................................................................................................................................ 7 2 49

G. Ka‘ala Natural Area Reserve ....................................................................................................... 3 0 21

H. Makaleha Gulch ........................................................................................................................... 2 0 7

I. Kuaokala ̄ ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2 14

J. Kaluakauila Gulch ......................................................................................................................... 1 0 6

Ko‘olau Mountains:

K. southern Ko‘olau (Pia, Wailupe, Kapakahi, Kuli‘ou‘ou, Wai‘alae Nui) ........................................ 475 432 1,063

L. Waika ̄ne, Kahana Valleys ............................................................................................................ 265 242 523

M. central Ko‘olau (Moanalua, north and south Ha ̄lawa, ‘Aiea, Kalauao) ....................................... 226 206 1,396

30374 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED SIZE AND AREA OF O‘AHU ‘ELEPAIO SUBPOPULATIONS—Continued

[Data from VanderWerf et al. (in press). Letters before each subpopulation correspond to those on Figure 1.]

Subpopulation

Total

population

size

Breeding

population

size

Area

(ha)

N. Pa ̄lolo Valley ................................................................................................................................ 46 42 78

O. Waihee Valley .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 32

P. Ma ̄noa .......................................................................................................................................... 2 0 19

Q. Hau‘ula ......................................................................................................................................... 1 0 4

R. Waianu Valley .............................................................................................................................. 1 0 8

Total .............................................................................................................................................. 1,982 1,774 5,657

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30375

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

30376 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Before humans arrived, forest covered

about 127,000 ha (313,690 ac) on O‘ahu

(Figure 2; Hawai‘i Heritage Program

1991), and it is likely that ‘elepaio once

inhabited much of that area

(VanderWerf et al. in press). Reports by

early naturalists indicate that ‘elepaio

were once widespread and abundant on

O‘ahu. Bryan (1905) called the O‘ahu

‘elepaio ‘‘the most abundant Hawaiian

species on the mountainside all the way

from the sea to well up into the higher

elevations.’’ Perkins (1903) remarked on

its ‘‘universal distribution * * *, from

the lowest bounds to the uppermost

edge of continuous forest.’’ Seale (1900)

stated the ‘elepaio was ‘‘the commonest

native land bird to be found on the

island,’’ while MacCaughey (1919)

described it as ‘‘the most abundant

representative of the native woodland

avifauna’’ and ‘‘abundant in all parts of

its range.’’ The historical range of the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio thus apparently included

most forested parts of the island, and it

was formerly abundant.

Despite its adaptability, the O‘ahu

‘elepaio has seriously declined since the

arrival of humans, and it has

disappeared from many areas where it

was formerly common (Shallenberger

1977, Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978,

Williams 1987, VanderWerf et al. 1997).

The aggregate geographic area of all

current subpopulations is

approximately 5,657 ha (13,972 ac;

Table 1). The O‘ahu ‘elepaio thus

currently occupies only about 4 percent

of its original prehistoric range, and its

range has declined by roughly 96

percent since humans arrived in Hawai‘i

1,600 years ago (Kirch 1982). In 1975,

‘elepaio inhabited approximately 20,900

ha (51,623 ac) on O‘ahu, almost four

times the area of the current range

(Figure 2; VanderWerf et al. in press).

The range of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio has thus

declined by roughly 75 percent in the

last 25 years.

Much of the historical decline of the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio can be attributed to

habitat loss, especially at low

elevations. Fifty-six percent of the

original prehistoric range has been

developed for urban or agricultural use,

and practically no ‘elepaio remain in

developed areas (VanderWerf et al. in

press).

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30377

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

30378 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

However, many areas of O‘ahu that

recently supported ‘elepaio and still

contain apparently suitable forest

habitat are currently unoccupied,

demonstrating that habitat loss is not

the only threat. Recent declines in

O‘ahu ‘elepaio populations are due to a

combination of low adult survival and

low reproductive success. Both annual

adult survival and reproductive success

are lower on O‘ahu (0.76, 0.33,

respectively) than in a large, stable

population of another subspecies of

‘elepaio at Hakalau Forest National

Wildlife Refuge on Hawai‘i Island (0.85,

0.62; VanderWerf 1998). The main cause

of reduced adult survival on O‘ahu

appears to be diseases, particularly

avian pox (Poxvirus avium) and avian

malaria (Plasmodium relictum), which

are carried by the introduced southern

house mosquito (Culex

quinquefasciatus). Annual survival of

birds with active avian pox lesions (60

percent) was lower than annual survival

of healthy birds (80 percent; E.

VanderWerf unpubl. data). Malaria is a

serious threat to many Hawaiian forest

birds (Warner 1968, van Riper et al.

1986, Atkinson et al. 1995), but its effect

on ‘elepaio has not been investigated.

The primary reason for low

reproductive success is nest predation

by the introduced black rat (Rattus

rattus). An experiment in which

automatic cameras were wired to

artificial ‘elepaio nests containing quail

eggs showed that a black rat was the

predator in all 10 predation events

documented (VanderWerf in press).

Control of rats with snap traps and

diphacinone (an anticoagulent

rodenticide) bait stations was effective

at improving ‘elepaio reproductive

success, resulting in an 85 percent

increase in nest success and a 127

percent increase in fledglings per pair

compared to control areas (VanderWerf

1999). Reproductive success of ‘elepaio

is also affected by disease. Pairs in

which at least one bird had pox lesions

produced fewer fledglings than healthy

pairs or those in which at least one bird

had recovered from pox (E. VanderWerf,

unpubl. data). Many birds with active

pox did not even attempt to nest, and

infected birds were sometimes deserted

by their mate.

A comprehensive treatment of the life

history and ecology of the ‘elepaio is

provided by VanderWerf (1998), from

which much of the information below is

taken. ‘Elepaio are non-migratory and

defend all-purpose territories yearround. The average territory size on

O‘ahu was 2.0 ha (4.94 ac) in forest

composed of introduced plant species

(Conant 1977), but territory size likely

varies with vegetation structure.

Population density on O‘ahu was 50

percent lower in short forest on ridges

than in tall riparian forest along

streambeds (VanderWerf et al. 1997),

and for the related subspecies on

Hawai‘i, territory size was 50 percent

larger in more disturbed forest with an

open canopy and grass understory.

O‘ahu ‘elepaio are socially

monogamous, and approximately 63

percent of pairs remain together each

year (E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data). Site

fidelity is high, with 96 percent of males

and 67 percent of females remaining on

the same territory from year to year.

Annual survival of healthy adults is

high, approximately 85 percent in males

and 70 percent in females (E.

VanderWerf, unpubl. data). Young birds

wander (or float) while they attempt to

acquire a territory and a mate.

The nesting season usually extends

from mid February–May, but active

nests have been found from January–

July (VanderWerf 1998). Nest site

selection is not specialized, and nests

have been found in a variety of plants,

including 6 native species and 13

introduced species (E. VanderWerf,

unpubl. data). The nest is a finelywoven, free-standing cup made of

rootlets, bark strips, leaf skeletons,

lichen, and spider silk, and is placed in

a fork or on top of a branch (Conant

1977, VanderWerf 1998). Both sexes

participate in all aspects of nesting, but

the female plays a larger role in nest

building and the male provides more

food for the nestlings. Clutch size is 1

to 3 eggs, usually 2, and eggs hatch after

18 days. The nestling period is 16 days.

Fledglings are fed by their parents for

more than a month after leaving the

nest, and may remain in the natal

territory for up to 9 months, until the

start of the next breeding season.

Fecundity (reproductive rate) is low;

even if nest predators are removed the

mean number of fledglings per pair is

0.75 per year (VanderWerf 1999). O‘ahu

‘elepaio will re-nest once or twice after

failure, but they rarely attempt to re-nest

if the first nest is successful. Other than

introduced predators, storms with heavy

rain and strong winds are the most

common cause of nest failure.

The diet and foraging behavior of

‘elepaio are extremely varied. The diet

consists of a wide range of arthropods,

particularly insects and spiders, and

includes introduced species such as

fruit flies (Tephritidae; VanderWerf

1998). Large prey, such as moths and

caterpillars, are beaten against a branch

before being eaten. In a study on

Hawai‘i Island, VanderWerf (1993,

1994) found that ‘elepaio foraged at all

heights on all available plant species,

and that they caught insects from a

variety of substrates, including the

ground and fallen logs (2 percent),

trunks (5 percent), branches (24

percent), twigs (38 percent), foliage (20

percent), and in the air (11 percent).

‘Elepaio are versatile and agile in

pursuit of prey, using a diversity of

foraging behaviors that is among the

highest recorded for any bird, including

perch-gleaning (48 percent), several

forms of flight-gleaning (30 percent),

hanging (11 percent), aerial flycatching

(7 percent), and active pursuit (4

percent) (VanderWerf 1994).

Previous Federal Action

We were petitioned by Mr. Vaughn

Sherwood on March 22, 1994, to list the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio as an endangered or

threatened species with critical habitat.

The November 15, 1994, Animal Notice

of Review (59 FR 58991) classified the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio (then Chasiempis

sandwichensis gayi) as a category 1

candidate. Category 1 candidates were

those species for which we had

sufficient data in our possession to

support a listing proposal. On June 12,

1995 (60 FR 30827), we published a 90-

day petition finding stating that the

petition presented substantial

information that listing may be

warranted. On February 28, 1996 (61 FR

7596), and September 19, 1997 (62 FR

49398), we published notices

discontinuing candidate category

designations, and the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

was listed as a candidate species.

Candidate species are those for which

we have on file sufficient information

on biological vulnerability and threats

to support proposals to list as

threatened or endangered. On October 6,

1998 (63 FR 53623), we published the

proposed rule to list the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

as an endangered species. Because C. s.

gayi is a synonym of C. s. ibidis, the

proposed rule constituted the final 12-

month finding for the petitioned action.

On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20760), we

published the final rule to list the O‘ahu

‘elepaio as an endangered species.

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)) also state that designation

of critical habitat is not prudent when

one or both of the following situations

exist—(1) the species is threatened by

taking or other activity and the

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30379

to the species. In the proposed listing

rule we indicated that designation of

critical habitat for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

was not prudent because we believed a

critical habitat designation would not

provide any additional benefit beyond

that provided through listing as

endangered. Based partly on comments

we received on the proposed listing rule

and on recent court rulings which

address the prudency standard, in the

final listing rule we determined that a

critical habitat designation for the O‘ahu

‘elepaio was prudent because such a

designation could benefit the species

beyond listing as endangered by

extending protection under section 7 of

the Act to currently unoccupied habitat

and by providing informational and

educational benefits.

Although we determined in the final

listing rule that critical habitat

designation for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

would be prudent, we also indicated in

the final listing rule that we were not

able to develop a proposed critical

habitat designation for the O‘ahu

‘elepaio at that time due to budgetary

and workload constraints. However, on

June 28, 2000, the United States District

Court for the District of Hawai‘i

established, in the case of Conservation

Council for Hawai‘i v. Babbitt, CIV. NO.

00–00001 HG–BMK, a timetable to

designate critical habitat for the O‘ahu

‘elepaio, and ordered that the Service

publish the final critical habitat

designation by October 31, 2001. This

proposed rule responds to the court’s

order.

On November 9, 2000, we mailed

letters to 32 landowners on O‘ahu

informing them that the Service was in

the process of designating critical

habitat for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio and

requesting from them information on

management of lands that currently or

recently (within the past 25 years)

supported O‘ahu ‘elepaio. The letters

contained a fact sheet describing the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio and critical habitat, a

map showing the historic and current

range of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio, and a

questionnaire designed to gather

information about land management

practices, which we requested be

returned to us by November 27, 2000.

We received 11 responses to our

landowner mailing with varying types

and amounts of information on current

land management activities. Some

responses included detailed

management plans, provided new

information on locations where ‘elepaio

have been observed recently, and

described management activities such as

fencing, hunting, public access, fire

management, methods for controlling

invasive weeds and introduced

predators, and collaboration with

conservation researchers. In addition,

we met with several landowners and

managers, including the U.S. Army and

the Hawai‘i State Division of Forestry

and Wildlife, to obtain more specific

information on management activities

and suitability of certain habitat areas

for ‘elepaio. The information provided

in the responses and during meetings

was considered and incorporated into

this proposed rule.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3,

paragraph (5)(A) of the Act as—(i) the

specific areas within the geographic area

occupied by a species, at the time it is

listed in accordance with the Act, on

which are found those physical or

biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) that

may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographic

area occupied by a species at the time

it is listed, upon a determination that

such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species.

‘‘Conservation,’’ as defined by the Act,

means the use of all methods and

procedures that are necessary to bring

an endangered or a threatened species to

the point at which listing under the Act

is no longer necessary.

Critical habitat receives protection

under section 7 of the Act through the

prohibition against destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat

with regard to actions carried out,

funded, or authorized by a Federal

agency. Section 7 also requires

conferences on Federal actions that are

likely to result in the destruction or

adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat. In our regulations at 50

CFR 402.02, we define destruction or

adverse modification as ‘‘the direct or

indirect alteration that appreciably

diminishes the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of a

listed species. Such alterations include,

but are not limited to, alterations

adversely modifying any of those

physical or biological features that were

the basis for determining the habitat to

be critical.’’ Aside from the added

protection that may be provided under

section 7, the Act does not provide other

forms of regulatory protection to lands

designated as critical habitat. Because

consultation under section 7 of the Act

does not apply to activities on private or

other non-Federal lands that do not

involve a Federal nexus, critical habitat

designation would not afford any

additional protections under the Act

against such activities.

Critical habitat also provides nonregulatory benefits to the species by

informing the public and private sectors

of areas that are important for species

recovery and where conservation

actions would be most effective.

Designation of critical habitat can help

focus conservation activities for a listed

species by identifying areas that contain

the physical and biological features that

are essential for conservation of that

species, and can alert the public as well

as land-managing agencies to the

importance of those areas. Critical

habitat also identifies areas that may

require special management

considerations or protection, and may

help provide protection to areas where

significant threats to the species have

been identified or help to avoid

accidental damage to such areas.

In order to be included in a critical

habitat designation, the habitat must be

‘‘essential to the conservation of the

species.’’ Critical habitat designations

identify, to the extent known and using

the best scientific and commercial data

available, habitat areas that provide

essential life cycle needs of the species

(i.e., areas on which are found the

primary constituent elements, as

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section

3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas

that can be occupied by a species be

designated as critical habitat unless the

Secretary determines that all such areas

are essential to the conservation of the

species. Our regulations (50 CFR

424.12(e)) also state that, ‘‘The Secretary

shall designate as critical habitat areas

outside the geographic area presently

occupied by the species only when a

designation limited to its present range

would be inadequate to ensure the

conservation of the species.’’

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that

we take into consideration the economic

impact, and any other relevant impact,

of specifying any particular area as

critical habitat. We may exclude areas

from critical habitat designation when

the benefits of exclusion outweigh the

benefits of including the areas within

critical habitat, provided the exclusion

will not result in extinction of the

species.

Our Policy on Information Standards

Under the Endangered Species Act,

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34271), provides criteria, establishes

procedures, and provides guidance to

ensure that decisions made by the

Service represent the best scientific and

commercial data available. It requires

that our biologists, to the extent

consistent with the Act and with the use

of the best scientific and commercial

data available, use primary and original

sources of information as the basis for

30380 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

recommendations to designate critical

habitat. When determining which areas

are critical habitat, a primary source of

information should be the listing rule

for the species. Additional information

may be obtained from a recovery plan,

articles in peer-reviewed journals,

conservation plans developed by states

and counties, scientific status surveys

and studies, and biological assessments

or other unpublished materials (i.e.,

gray literature).

Section 4 requires that we designate

critical habitat based on what we know

at the time of the designation. Habitat is

often dynamic, however, and

populations may move from one area to

another over time. Furthermore, we

recognize that designation of critical

habitat may not include all of the

habitat areas that may eventually be

determined to be necessary for the

recovery of the species. For these

reasons, all should understand that

critical habitat designations do not

signal that habitat outside the

designation is unimportant or may not

be required for recovery. Habitat areas

outside the critical habitat designation

will continue to be subject to

conservation actions that may be

implemented under section 7(a)(1) and

to the regulatory protections afforded by

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard

and the section 9 take prohibition, as

determined on the basis of the best

available information at the time of the

action. It is possible that federally

funded or assisted projects affecting

listed species outside their designated

critical habitat areas could jeopardize

those 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, or other species conservation

planning and recovery efforts if new

information available to these planning

efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

As required by the Act and

regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR

§ 424.12), we used the best scientific

information available to determine areas

that contain the physical and biological

features that are essential for the

survival and recovery of the Oa`hu

e`lepaio. This information included:

peer-reviewed scientific publications

(Conant 1977; Banko 1981; VanderWerf

1993, 1994, 1998, in press; VanderWerf

et al. 1997, in press); the final listing

rule for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio (65 FR

20760); unpublished reports by the

Hawaiı` State Division of Forestry and

Wildlife (VanderWerf 1999); the Hawaiı`

Natural Heritage Program database; the

Sightings database from the Occurrence

and Status of Birds in Hawaiı` project

maintained at Bishop Museum in

Honolulu; the Oa`hu Forest Bird Survey

conducted in 1991 by the Hawaiı` State

Division of Forestry and Wildlife; field

trip reports in the E`lepaio (journal of the

Hawaiı` Audubon society); and

responses to the Oa`hu e`lepaio critical

habitat outreach package mailed to

Federal, State, and private land

managers and landowners.

The distribution and abundance of the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio have declined seriously

in the last few decades (Williams 1987;

O‘ahu ‘elepaio final listing rule, 65 FR

20760; VanderWerf et al. in press). The

area currently occupied by the O‘ahu

‘elepaio represents only about four

percent of the species’ original range,

and the distribution has contracted into

numerous small fragments (Figure 2).

Moreover, the remaining e`lepaio

subpopulations are small and isolated,

comprising six core subpopulations that

contain between 100 and 500 birds, and

numerous small remnant

subpopulations, most of which contain

fewer than 10 birds (Table 1). Even if

the threats responsible for the decline of

the e`lepaio were controlled, the existing

subpopulations would be unlikely to

persist because their small sizes make

them vulnerable to extinction due to a

variety of natural processes. Small

populations are particularly vulnerable

to reduced reproductive vigor caused by

inbreeding depression, and they may

suffer a loss of genetic variability over

time due to random genetic drift,

resulting in decreased evolutionary

potential and ability to cope with

environmental change (Lande 1988,

IUCN 2001). Small populations are also

demographically vulnerable to

extinction caused by random

fluctuations in population size and sex

ratio and to catastrophes such as

hurricanes (Lande 1988). Survival and

reproduction of ‘elepaio are known to

fluctuate among years in response to

variation in disease prevalence and

predator populations (VanderWerf 1998,

1999), possibly due to El Nin ̃ o episodes

and variation in rainfall, which may

exacerbate the threats associated with

small population size (Lande 1988).

E`lepaio are highly territorial; each

pair defends an area of a certain size,

depending on the forest type and

structure, resulting in a maximum

population density or carrying capacity

(VanderWerf 1998). Although e`lepaio

have declined island-wide and the range

has contracted, density in the remaining

core subpopulations is high, and much

of the currently occupied land is at or

near carrying capacity and cannot

support many more ‘elepaio than it

currently supports (VanderWerf et al.

1997, in press). Consequently, each of

the currently occupied areas is too small

to support an ‘elepaio population large

enough to be considered safe from

extinction. In order for the number of

birds in each subpopulation to increase,

additional land must be available for

young birds to establish new territories

and attract mates. The potential for

expansion is especially important for

the smallest subpopulations that

currently contain only a few

individuals. Because of their very small

size and often skewed sex ratio, these

tiny subpopulations are unlikely to

persist more than a few generations if

limited to the currently occupied area.

E`lepaio are also relatively sedentary;

adults have high fidelity to their

territory and juveniles rarely disperse

more than one km (0.62 mi) in search

of a territory (VanderWerf 1998).

Because the areas currently occupied by

e`lepaio are separated from each other by

many kilometers (Figure 1) and e`lepaio

are unlikely to disperse long distances,

the existing subpopulations probably

are isolated (VanderWerf et al. in press).

The O‘ahu ‘elepaio evolved in an

environment with large areas of

continuous forest habitat covering much

of the island (Figure 2), and their

dispersal behavior is not adapted to a

fragmented landscape. In the past,

subpopulations were less isolated and

dispersal and genetic exchange among

different parts of the island probably

was more frequent. Maintaining or

restoring links among subpopulations

by providing opportunities for dispersal

would increase the overall effective

population size through metapopulation

interactions, thereby helping to alleviate

the threats associated with small

population size, and would better reflect

the conditions under which the life

history characteristics of dispersal

evolved. In particular, enlargement of

small subpopulations by expansion onto

adjacent lands not only would increase

the chances of their long-term survival,

but also would improve connectivity

among subpopulations by enhancing

their value as ‘‘stepping stones’’ within

the distribution of the entire population.

Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides

that areas outside the geographical area

currently occupied by the species may

meet the definition of critical habitat

upon determination that they are

essential for the conservation of the

species. Because of the territorial nature

of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio, its small total

population size, limited range,

fragmented distribution, and resulting

vulnerability to genetic, demographic,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30381

and environmental threats, we find that

inclusion of currently unoccupied areas

identified as containing the primary

constituent elements is essential to the

conservation of the species. The final

rule listing the O‘ahu ‘elepaio as

endangered emphasized that the ‘‘small

total population size, limited

distribution, and population

fragmentation make this taxon

particularly vulnerable to reduced

reproductive vigor and the effects of

naturally occurring events’’ (65 FR

20760). Recovery will require

restoration of ‘elepaio in areas that were

formerly inhabited but that are not

currently occupied, through natural

dispersal, translocation, and/or release

of captive birds. Unoccupied areas

adjacent to currently occupied areas are

needed for recovery to allow expansion

of existing subpopulations and help

alleviate the threats associated with

small population size. Unoccupied

lands linking subpopulations are

needed for recovery to provide

opportunities for dispersal among

subpopulations and promote genetic

exchange and metapopulation function.

Specifically, each of the existing core

populations in Pahole-Kahanahaiki,

Makaha-Wai‘anae Kai, Schofield

Barracks West Range, the southern

Wai‘anae Mountains, the central

leeward Ko‘olau Mountains, WaikaneKahana, and the southern leeward

Ko‘olau Mountains are small and

isolated, and are unlikely to be viable on

their own. The long-term chances for

persistence of these subpopulations

would increase if each subpopulation

increased in size by expanding onto

adjacent lands and if the connectivity

among the subpopulations was

enhanced by occasional dispersal of

individuals across intervening lands.

We determined the amount and

spatial arrangement of critical habitat

needed to support a viable population of

O‘ahu ‘elepaio. Because a recovery plan

for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio has not been

completed yet, in making this

determination we looked to the

historical distribution of the O‘ahu

‘elepaio for a model of a viable

population. The best and most recent

information available on the

distribution of an apparently viable

O‘ahu ‘elepaio population is from 1975,

when extensive surveys were conducted

over much of the island (Shallenberger

1977, Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978,

Banko 1981). ‘Elepaio began declining

on O‘ahu before 1975 and had already

disappeared from some parts of the

island (Figure 2; Conant 1977, Williams

1987, VanderWerf et al. in press), but in

1975 the subpopulations were still

relatively large and birds were

distributed in two well-connected

metapopulations, one in the Wai‘anae

Mountains and one in the Ko‘olau

Mountains. The areas occupied since

1975 also are likely to be most suitable

for recovery because they supported

‘elepaio for a longer period. The number

and distribution of O‘ahu ‘elepaio in

1975 has allowed for the persistence of

a population, albeit in a declining state,

for more than 25 years. We believe that

active management of threats, including

nest predation and disease, in areas

reflecting the distribution in 1975

would allow for long-term recovery.

This approach is consistent with the

approved recovery outline for the O‘ahu

‘elepaio; if, after critical habitat for the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio is designated, a final

approved recovery plan for Hawaiian

forest birds calls for a different approach

to the conservation of the O‘ahu

‘elepaio, we will consider amending the

critical habitat designation, subject to

resource and workload priorities.

Primary Constituent Elements

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR

424.12, in determining which areas to

propose as critical habitat, we are

required to consider those physical and

biological features that are essential to

the conservation of the species and that

may require special management

considerations and protection. Such

features are termed Primary Constituent

Elements, and include but are not

limited to: space for individual and

population growth and for normal

behavior; food, water, air, light,

minerals and other nutritional or

physiological requirements; cover or

shelter; sites for nesting and rearing of

offspring; and habitats that are protected

from disturbance and are representative

of the historic geographical and

ecological distributions of the species.

‘Elepaio are adaptable and able to

forage and nest in a variety of forest

types composed of both native and

introduced plant species (Conant 1977,

VanderWerf 1993, 1994, 1998). Nest site

selection by ‘elepaio is non-specialized;

nests have been found in seven native

and 13 introduced plant species (E.

VanderWerf, unpubl. data).

Shallenberger and Vaughn (1978) found

the highest relative abundance of

‘elepaio in forest dominated by

introduced guava and kukui trees, but

they were also found in the following

forest types (in order of decreasing

abundance): mixed native-exotic; tall

exotic; koa dominant; mixed koa-‘

 ̄hi’a;

low exotic; ‘

 ̄hi’a dominant; and ‘ ̄hi’a

scrub. This distribution does not imply

that ‘elepaio prefer introduced plant

species, but probably reflects a

preference by ‘elepaio for riparian

vegetation in valleys and the high

degree of habitat disturbance and

abundance of introduced plants in

riparian areas. VanderWerf et al. (1997)

found that (1) forest structure was more

important to ‘elepaio than plant species

composition, (2) most birds occurred in

areas with a continuous forest canopy

and a dense understory, and (3)

population density was roughly twice as

high in tall riparian vegetation in

valleys as in shorter forest on ridges.

Fifty-five percent of the currently

occupied area consists of forest

dominated by introduced plant species,

23 percent is native wet forest, 17

percent is native mesic forest, and 5

percent is native dry forest and shrub

land (VanderWerf et al. in press).

The primary constituent elements

required by the O‘ahu ‘elepaio for

foraging, sheltering, roosting, nesting,

and rearing of young are found in

undeveloped areas that support wet,

mesic, and dry forest composed of both

native and introduced plant species.

Higher population density can be

expected in tall, closed canopy riparian

forest than in low scrubby forest on

ridges and summits. In addition, the

primary constituent elements associated

with the biological needs of dispersal

and genetic exchange among

populations are found in undeveloped

areas that support wet or dry shrub land

and wet or dry cliff habitat. ‘Elepaio

may not establish territories in shrub or

cliff habitats and may use them only

transiently, but areas containing these

habitats are important for linking

populations by facilitating dispersal and

promoting genetic exchange.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical

Habitat

We used several criteria to identify

and select lands proposed for

designation as critical habitat. We began

with all areas that are currently

occupied by ‘elepaio, excluding one

very small, isolated subpopulation at

Hau‘ula that contains only a single male

(Figure 1; subpopulation Q). We then

added unoccupied lands containing the

primary constituent elements that were

needed for conservation of the species.

As discussed in greater detail in the

Methods section, in deciding which

unoccupied areas were needed for

recovery we used the distribution of

‘elepaio in 1975 as a model of a viable

population. Within this area of

distribution in 1975 we gave preference

to lands that (a) provided more

preferred forest types, (b) were more

recently occupied (since 1975), and (c)

were contiguous and formed large

30382 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

blocks of preferred habitat or provided

links between areas of preferred habitat.

We determined the boundaries of

proposed critical habitat units by the

extent of suitable forest containing the

primary constituent elements, which in

many areas coincided with the

boundaries of State Forest Reserves,

Natural Area Reserves, or other

conservation lands. We did not include

urban and agricultural lands because

they generally do not contain the

primary constituent elements and do

not meet the definition of critical

habitat. We included lower Wailupe

Valley, however, which is zoned for

urban use but has not yet been

developed, because it contains the

primary constituent elements and is

currently occupied by ‘elepaio, and

therefore meets the definition of critical

habitat.

We were unable to map the proposed

critical habitat unit boundaries in

sufficient detail to exclude all existing

developed lands that do not contain the

primary constituent elements. However,

existing development features and

structures within the boundaries of the

mapped units, such as buildings, roads,

aqueducts, antennas, water tanks,

agricultural fields, paved areas, lawns,

and other urban landscaped areas that

do not contain the primary constituent

elements are not proposed as critical

habitat. Federal actions limited to those

areas, therefore, would not trigger a

section 7 consultation, unless they affect

the species and/or primary constituent

elements in adjacent critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

Lands proposed as critical habitat

occur in five separate units and provide

the full range of primary constituent

elements needed by the O‘ahu ‘elepaio,

including: a variety of currently

occupied undeveloped forested areas

that are used for foraging, roosting,

sheltering, nesting, and raising

offspring; a variety of currently

unoccupied undeveloped forested areas

that are adjacent to occupied areas and

provide for expansion of existing

subpopulations; and shrub land and

cliff habitats that link subpopulations

and are used for dispersal. If ‘elepaio

were restored throughout each of the

proposed critical habitat units, the

resulting distribution would closely

resemble the distribution in 1975, when

the subpopulations were larger and less

isolated, the overall population

appeared to be viable, and when the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio was not considered

endangered. The area proposed as

critical habitat (26,733 ha) is larger than

the area occupied in 1975 (20,900 ha)

because the proposed critical habitat

contains not only lands expected to

support breeding ‘elepaio populations,

but also intervening lands that provide

for periodic dispersal and not

permanent occupation.

The potential ‘elepaio population in

the area proposed as critical habitat is

10,104 birds, as estimated by

multiplying the current density of

‘elepaio in different parts of the island

by the area of each critical habitat unit

(Table 2). These estimates are

approximate, and the actual population

in each unit may be larger if density can

be increased beyond current levels, or

lower if it proves difficult to establish

dense populations in some currently

unoccupied areas.

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND POTENTIAL ‘ELEPAIO POPULATIONS

[Data on current density from VanderWerf et al. (in press). Unit 4 is not currently occupied by ‘elepaio; the density used to estimate the potential

‘elepaio population of this unit is an average of the densities in the two nearest units, central and southern Ko‘lau.]

Critical habitat unit Area

‘Elepaio

density in

currently occupied parts

of unit

Potential

‘elepaio

population

in unit

1. Northern Wai‘anae Mountains ............................................................................................................. 4,501 ha 0.45 per ha 2,025

11,122 ac 0.18 per ac

2. Southern Wai‘anae Mountains ............................................................................................................ 2,515 ha 0.39 per ha 981

6,215 ac 0.16 per ac

3. Central Ko‘olau Mountains .................................................................................................................. 14,840 0.33 per ha 4,897

36,669 ac 0.14 per ac

4. Kalihi-Kap ̄a ́lama ................................................................................................................................... 800 ha 0.39 per ha 312

1,977 ac 0.16 per ac

5. Southern Ko‘olau Mountains ............................................................................................................... 4,197 ha 0.45 per ha 1,889

10,371 ac 0.18 per ac

All Units .................................................................................................................................................... 26,853 0.38 per ha 10,104

66,354 ac 0.15 per ac

The approximate area and land ownership within each proposed critical habitat unit are shown in Table 3. Proposed

critical habitat includes land under Federal, State, and private ownership, with Federal lands being managed by the

Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior. Proposed lands include most (99 percent) of the species’

current range and encompass approximately 21 percent of the species’ original range. Approximately 21 percent of

proposed lands are currently occupied by ‘elepaio, and 79 percent are currently unoccupied but were recently occupied

(since 1975). A detailed description of each unit and reasons for proposing each portion of the unit as critical habitat

are presented below.

TABLE 3.—APPROXIMATE AREA (HECTARES, ACRES) OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY LAND OWNERSHIP

Unit Federal 1 State County Private Total

1. Northern Wai‘anae Mountains ............................................................. 822 ha 3,033 ha 646 ha .................... 4,501 ha

2,031 ac 7,495 ac 1,596 ac .................... 11,122 ac

2. Southern Wai‘anae Mountains ............................................................ 616 ha 377 ha 1,522 ha 2,515 ha

1,523 ac 932 ac 3,760 ac 6,215 ac

3. Central Ko‘olau Mountains .................................................................. 3,109 ha 3,789 ha 308 ha 7,634 ha 14,840 ha

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30383

TABLE 3.—APPROXIMATE AREA (HECTARES, ACRES) OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS BY LAND OWNERSHIP—

Continued

Unit Federal 1 State County Private Total

7,681 ac 9,363 ac 762 ac 18,863 ac 36,669 ac

4. Kalihi-Kap‘alama .................................................................................. 393 ha 179 ha 228 ha 800 ha

971 ac 442 ac 564 ac 1,977 ac

5. Southern Ko‘olau Mountains ............................................................... 3 ha 2,563 ha 480 ha 1,151 ha 4,197 ha

7 ac 6,334 ac 1,187 ac 2,843 ac 10,371 ac

Total ......................................................................................................... 4,550 ha 10,155 ha 1,613 ha 10,535 ha 26,853 ha

11,242 ac 25,095 ac 3,987 ac 26,030 ac 66,354 ac

1Federal lands include Department of Defense and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Unit 1: Northern Waia`nae Mountains

Unit 1 consists of approximately

4,501 ha (11,122 ac) encompassing the

higher elevations of the northern

Waia`nae Mountains. It is bounded on

the south by Kolekole pass, and on the

north, east, and west by forest edge

created by human actions. Natural

features within the unit include Mt.

Kaa`la, the highest peak on O‘ahu at

1,227 m (4,025 feet), several other high

peaks along the spine of the Waia`nae

Range, the upper portions of large,

broad valleys on the slopes of the

Waia`nae Range, including Waia`nae Kai,

Ma ̄kaha, Ma ̄kua, Kahanaha ̄iki, and

Kuaokala ̄ valleys on the west slope and

Halea`ua`u and Mohi‘akea gulches on the

east slope, and the higher portions of

several narrow valleys on the north

slope of the Waia`nae Range. Vegetation

consists primarily of mixed-species wet,

mesic, and dry forest communities

composed of native and introduced

plants, with smaller amounts of dry

shrub land and cliff plant communities

(Hawaiı` Heritage Program 1991).

Unit 1 contains two important e`lepaio

core subpopulations: one in upper

Halea`ua`u and Mohi‘akea gulches above

the firebreak road on U.S. Army

Schofield Barracks West Range; the

other in upper Ma ̄kaha and Waia`nae Kai

valleys on Waia`nae Kai State Forest

Reserve and City and County of

Honolulu land. The unit also includes

small scattered e`lepaio subpopulations

in Pahole and Kaa`la State Natural Area

Reserves, Mokula ̄ı`a, Ma ̄kua-Keaa`u, and

Kuaokala ̄ State Forest Reserves, and the

upper portion of the U.S. Army Ma ̄kua

Military Reservation. In addition to

protecting lands occupied by the two

core ‘elepaio subpopulations and six

smaller subpopulations, proposed lands

in Unit 1 provide for expansion of these

subpopulations by including currently

unoccupied lands that were occupied

within the past 30 years and contain the

most preferred types of forest.

Specifically, currently unoccupied

lands in Pahole and Kaa`la State Natural

Area Reserves, Mokula ̄ia, Ma ̄kua-Keaa`u,

and Kuaokala ̄ State Forest Reserves,

upper M‘akua Valley, and upper

Kahanah ̄iki Valley are needed for

recovery to allow the number of birds in

existing subpopulations to increase. In

addition, the current distribution of

e`lepaio in Unit 1 represents a remnant

of what was once a single large

continuous e`lepaio population in the

northern Waia`nae Mountains. Inclusion

of currently unoccupied forested lands

that provide for subpopulation

expansion and shrub land and cliff

habitats that provide for dispersal

among subpopulations will promote

needed linkage among subpopulations

and help to restore the original

metapopulation function that once

existed in this area.

Unit 2: Southern Waia`nae Mountains

Unit 2 consists of approximately

2,515 ha (6,215 ac) encompassing the

higher elevations of the southern

Waia`nae Mountains. It is bounded on

the north by Kolekole Pass, and on the

east, west, and south by forest edge

created by human actions. Natural

features of the unit include several high

peaks along the spine of the southern

Waia`nae Range, including Palikea,

Kaua, Ka ̄nehoa, and Ha ̄papa, the upper

portions of Lualualei and Na ̄na ̄kuli

valleys on the west side of the

mountains, and the upper portions of

numerous narrower valleys on the east

side of the mountains. Vegetation

consists primarily of mixed-species

mesic and dry forest communities

composed of native and introduced

plants, with smaller amounts of dry

shrub land and cliff communities

(Hawaiı` Heritage Program 1991).

Unit 2 contains the second largest

O‘ahu ‘elepaio subpopulation,

encompassing several land parcels,

including Honouliuli Preserve (which is

managed by The Nature Conservancy of

Hawaiı`), Naval Magazine Pearl Harbor

Lualualei Branch, Na ̄na ̄kuli State Forest

Reserve, and other unmanaged State

lands. This unit also contains several

scattered ‘elepaio territories north of the

core subpopulation on U.S. Army

Schofield Barracks South Range. In

addition to protecting currently

occupied habitat, proposed lands in

Unit 2 include peripheral areas of

currently unoccupied habitat in

Honouliuli Preserve, Lualualei, and

Schofield Barracks South Range that are

needed for recovery to allow expansion

of the core subpopulation, and dry

shrub land and cliff habitats on

unmanaged State land between

Lualualei and Honouliuli and on

Schofield Barracks South Range that

provide for dispersal among parts of the

southern Waia`nae subpopulation and

between the northern and southern

Waia`nae subpopulations.

Unit 3: Central Koo`lau Mountains

Unit 3 is the largest unit,

encompassing 14,840 ha (36,669 ac) of

the higher elevations of the central

Koo`lau Mountains. Natural features of

the unit include the summit of the

Koo`lau Range and the upper portions of

numerous narrow valleys separated by

steep ridges, including (from south to

north) Manaika ̄i, Moanalua, South

Ha ̄lawa, North Ha ̄lawa, Kalauao,

Waimalu, Waimano, M ̄ nana, Waiawa,

Ka ̄papa, Kaukonahua, and Poamoho on

the leeward (western) side, and Waihee`,

Kaa`laea, Waia ̄hole, Waika ̄ne, and

Kahana on the windward (eastern) side.

Vegetation consists primarily of

montane and lowland wet and mesic

forest, and smaller areas of shrub land

and wet cliff plant communities (Hawaiı`

Heritage Program 1991). The higher

elevations of the unit are primarily

native forest dominated by o`hia` and

koa, but the lower elevations are more

disturbed and dominated by a variety of

introduced plant species.

Unit 3 contains two important core

‘elepaio subpopulations: one located

almost entirely on private land in

Moanalua, North and South Ha ̄lawa,

Ma ̄naiki, and Kalauao valleys at the

southern end of the unit; the other on

the windward side in Kahana Valley

State Park and on private lands in

Waika ̄ne Valley. The unit also contains

a few scattered ‘elepaio territories in

Waı ̄hole State Forest Reserve. Proposed

30384 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

lands include the existing

subpopulations, and also provide for the

expansion and recovery of existing

subpopulations by including adjacent

lands in Manaiki, Waimalu, Waimano,

Ma ̄nana, Waiawa, Ka ̄papa, Kaukonahua,

and Poamoho on the leeward (western)

side, and in Waihee`, Kaa`laea, Waia ̄hole,

Waika ̄ne, and Kahana on the windward

(eastern) side that are currently

unoccupied but were occupied since

1975. Unit 3 also includes wet shrub

land and cliff habitats along the Koo`lau

summit that provide for dispersal of

e`lepaio between the windward and

leeward sides of the Koo`lau Mountains.

The existing core subpopulations are

geographically distant from each other

and probably are isolated. Restoration of

e`lepaio in intervening areas would

increase the chances of dispersal and

genetic exchange between

subpopulations and restore

metapopulation function. Currently

unoccupied habitat lies on the Oa`hu

Forest National Wildlife Refuge, U.S.

Army Schofield Barracks East Range,

U.S. Army Fort Shafter, E` wa and

Waia ̄hole State Forest Reserves, Kahana

Valley State Park, and 9 privately

owned parcels. The narrow indentation

in the southern portion of Unit 3 reflects

the H–3 freeway and adjacent cleared

areas in North Ha ̄lawa Valley.

Unit 4: Kalihi-Kapa ̄lama

Unit 4 consists of approximately 800

ha (1,977 ac) encompassing the higher

elevations of the leeward (western) side

of the central K‘oolau Mountains above

Kalihi and Kapa ̄lama. It is bounded on

the north by the Likelike Highway and

on the south by the Pali Highway.

Natural features of the unit include the

upper portions of Kalihi, Kamanaiki,

and Kapa ̄lama valleys. Vegetation

consists primarily of mixed-species wet

and mesic forest composed of native

and introduced plant species (Hawaı`i

Heritage Program 1991). The higher

elevations are primarily native forest

dominated by`o ̄hı`a and koa, but the

lower elevations are more disturbed and

are dominated by introduced plant

species. This unit is not known to

contain any ‘elepaio at present, but it

was occupied within the last 20 years,

still contains suitable forest habitat, and

provides an important habitat steppingstone that increases the chances of

dispersal and genetic exchange between

‘elepaio subpopulations in the central

and southern K‘oolau units. This unit

includes lands within the State of

Hawaı`i Honolulu Watershed Forest

Reserve, two parcels owned by the City

and County of Honolulu, and 3 private

parcels.

Unit 5: Southern K‘oolau Mountains

Unit 5 consists of approximately

4,197 ha (10,371 ac) encompassing the

higher elevations of the southern

K‘oolau Mountains. It is bounded on the

west by the Pali Highway. Natural

features of the unit include: the summit

of the southern K‘oolau Mountains,

including Konahuanui, the highest peak

in the K‘oolau Range at 960 m (3,150 ft),

the upper portion of Maunawili Valley

on the windward (northern) side of the

mountains, and the upper portions of

numerous narrow valleys separated by

steep ridges on the leeward side,

including (from east to west) Ka`alakei,

Kulı`ou`ou, Ku ̄paua, Pia, Kulu`ı ̄, Wailupe,

Kapakahi, Waı`alae Nui, Pa ̄lolo, Ma ̄noa,

Tantalus, and Pauoa. The vegetation

consists primarily of mixed-species wet,

mesic, and dry forest communities, with

small areas of mesic shrub land and wet

cliff plant communities (Hawaı`i

Heritage Program 1991). The higher

elevations are primarily native forest

dominated by`o ̄hı`a and koa, but the

lower elevations are more disturbed and

are dominated by introduced plant

species, particularly guava, kukui,

christmasberry, and mango.

Unit 5 contains the largest

remaining`elepaio subpopulation,

located in Kulı`ou` ou, Ku ̄paua, Pia,

Kulu`ı ̄, Wailupe, Kapakahi, and Waı`alae

Nui valleys, and two smaller`elepaio

populations located nearby in Pa ̄lolo

and Ma ̄noa valleys. The current

distribution of ‘elepaio in the southern

K‘oolau Mountains represents a remnant

of what was once a single large

continuous population. In addition to

protecting the largest remaining

subpopulation and two smaller

subpopulations, proposed lands in Unit

5 provide for recovery through

expansion of existing subpopulations by

including currently unoccupied lands in

Maunawili, Pa ̄lolo, Ma ̄noa, Nu`uanu,

Tantalus, and Pauoa that were occupied

since 1975 and contain the most

preferred forest types. Proposed lands in

Unit 5 also provide for recovery by

including shrub land and wet cliff

habitats along the Ko`olau summit that

are used for dispersal and link

subpopulations on the windward and

leeward sides of the K‘oolau Mountains,

thereby helping to restore

metapopulation function. Restoration

of`elepaio in unoccupied lands in

Tantalus and Pauoa at the western end

of Unit 5 would increase the chances of

dispersal and genetic exchange between

the southern K‘oolau subpopulation and

the central K‘oolau subpopulation.

Ownership within Unit 5 consists of the

Honolulu Watershed, Maunawili, and

Kulı`ou` ou State Forest Reserves, several

parcels owned by the City and County

of Honolulu, and nine private parcels.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies, including the Service,

to ensure that actions they fund,

authorize, or carry out do not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat to the

extent that the action appreciably

diminishes the value of the critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of

the species. Individuals, organizations,

states, local governments, and other

non-Federal entities are affected by the

designation of critical habitat only if

their actions occur on Federal lands,

require a Federal permit, license, or

other authorization, or involve Federal

funding.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is designated or

proposed. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal

agencies to confer with us on any action

that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result

in destruction or adverse modification

of proposed critical habitat. Conference

reports provide conservation

recommendations to assist the agency in

eliminating conflicts that may be caused

by the proposed action. The

conservation recommendations in a

conference report are advisory.

We may issue a formal conference

report, if requested by the Federal action

agency. Formal conference reports

include an opinion that is prepared

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the

species was listed or critical habitat

designated. We may adopt the formal

conference report as the biological

opinion when the species is listed or

critical habitat designated, if no

substantial new information or changes

in the action alter the content of the

opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).

If a species is listed or critical habitat

is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires

Federal agencies to ensure that actions

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of such a species nor to

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency (action

agency) must enter into consultation

with us. Through this consultation the

Federal action agency would ensure that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30385

the permitted actions do not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion

concluding that a project is likely to

result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat, we also

provide reasonable and prudent

alternatives to the project, if any are

identifiable. Reasonable and prudent

alternatives are defined at 50 CFR

402.02 as alternative actions identified

during consultation that can be

implemented in a manner consistent

with the intended purpose of the action,

that are consistent with the scope of the

Federal agency’s legal authority and

jurisdiction, that are economically and

technologically feasible, and that the

Director believes would avoid

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent

alternatives can vary from slight project

modifications to extensive redesign or

relocation of the project. Costs

associated with implementing a

reasonable and prudent alternative are

similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require

Federal agencies to reinitiate

consultation on previously reviewed

actions in instances where critical

habitat is subsequently designated and

the Federal agency has retained

discretionary involvement or control

over the action or such discretionary

involvement or control is authorized by

law. Consequently, some Federal

agencies may request reinitiation of

consultation with us on actions for

which formal consultation has been

completed if those actions may affect

designated critical habitat.

Activities on Federal lands that may

affect the`elepaio or its critical habitat

will require section 7 consultation.

Activities on private or State lands

requiring a permit from a Federal

agency, such as a permit from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers under section

404 of the Clean Water Act, or some

other Federal action, including funding

(e.g., from the Federal Highway

Administration, Federal Aviation

Administration, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, or Natural

Resources Conservation Service) will

also continue to be subject to the section

7 consultation process. Federal actions

not affecting listed species or critical

habitat and actions on non-Federal

lands that are not federally funded or

permitted do not require section 7

consultation.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us

to evaluate briefly in any proposed or

final regulation that designates critical

habitat those activities involving a

Federal action that may adversely

modify such habitat or that may be

affected by such designation. Activities

that may result in the destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat

include those that alter the primary

constituent elements to an extent that

the value of critical habitat for the

survival and recovery of the ‘elepaio is

appreciably reduced. We note that such

activities may also jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

Activities that may directly or indirectly

adversely affect critical habitat for the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio include, but are not

limited to:

(1) Removing, thinning, or

destroying`elepaio habitat (as defined in

the primary constituent elements

discussion), whether by burning,

mechanical, chemical, or other means

(e.g., woodcutting, grading, overgrazing,

construction, road building, mining,

herbicide application, etc.).

(2) Appreciably decreasing habitat

value or quality as an indirect effect of

an action (e.g., introduction or

promotion of potential nest predators,

diseases or disease vectors, vertebrate or

invertebrate food competitors, or

invasive plant species; forest

fragmentation; overgrazing;

augmentation of feral ungulate

populations; water diversion or

impoundment, groundwater pumping,

or other activities that alter water

quality or quantity to an extent that

affects vegetation structure or produces

mosquito breeding habitat; and

activities that increase the risk of fire).

To properly portray the effects of

critical habitat designation, we must

first compare the section 7 requirements

for actions that may affect critical

habitat with the requirements for

actions that may affect a listed species.

Section 7 prohibits actions funded,

authorized, or carried out by Federal

agencies from jeopardizing the

continued existence of a listed species

or destroying or adversely modifying the

listed species’ critical habitat. Actions

likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued

existence’’ of a species are those that

would appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival and recovery

of a listed species. Actions likely to

result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat are those

that would appreciably reduce the value

of critical habitat for the survival and

recovery of the listed species.

Common to both definitions is an

appreciable detrimental effect on

survival and recovery of a listed species.

Given the similarity of these definitions,

actions likely to result in the destruction

or adverse modification of critical

habitat would almost always result in

jeopardy to the species concerned,

particularly when the area of the

proposed action is occupied by the

species concerned. In those cases,

critical habitat provides little additional

protection to a species, and the

ramifications of its designation are few

or none. However, critical habitat

designation in unoccupied areas may

trigger consultation under section 7 of

the Act where it would not have

otherwise occurred if critical habitat

had not been designated.

Federal agencies already consult with

us on activities in areas currently

occupied by the species to ensure that

their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

These actions include, but are not

limited to:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting

waters of the United States by the Army

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows,

damming, diversion, and channelization

by Federal agencies;

(3) Development on private or State

lands requiring permits from other

Federal agencies, such as Housing and

Urban Development;

(4) Military training or similar

activities of the U.S. Department of

Defense (Army and Navy) on their lands

or lands under their jurisdiction at

Schofield Barracks, Ma ̄kua Military

Reservation, Fort Shafter, Kawailoa

Training Area, and Pearl Harbor Naval

Magazine Lualualei Branch;

(5) Construction of communication

sites licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission;

(6) Road construction and

maintenance, right-of-way designation,

and regulation of agricultural activities

be Federal agencies;

(7) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency; and

(8) Activities not previously

mentioned that are funded or authorized

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(Forest Service, Natural Resources

Conservation Service), Department of

Defense, Department of Transportation,

Department of Energy, Department of

Interior (U.S. Geological Survey,

National Park Service), Department of

Commerce (National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration),

Environmental Protection Agency, or

any other Federal agency.

If you have questions regarding

whether specific activities would

constitute adverse modification of

critical habitat, contact the Field

Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Requests for copies of the

regulations on listed wildlife and plants

and inquiries about prohibitions and

30386 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

permits should be directed to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered

Species Act Section 10 Program at the

same address.

Application of the Section 3(5)(A)

Criteria Regarding Special Management

Considerations or Protection

Critical habitat is defined in section 3,

paragraph (5)(A) of the Act as—(i) the

specific areas within the geographic area

occupied by a species, at the time it is

listed in accordance with the Act, on

which are found those physical or

biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) that

may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographic

area occupied by a species at the time

it is listed, upon a determination that

such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species. Special

management and protection are not

required if adequate management and

protection are already in place.

Adequate special management or

protection is provided by a legally

operative plan/agreement that addresses

the maintenance and improvement of

the primary constituent elements

important to the species and manages

for the long-term conservation of the

species. If any areas containing the

primary constituent elements are

currently being managed to address the

conservation needs of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

and do not require special management

or protection, these areas would not

meet the definition of critical habitat in

section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and would

not be included in this proposed rule.

To determine if a plan provides

adequate management or protection we

consider: (1) Whether there is a current

plan specifying the management actions

and whether such actions provide

sufficient conservation benefit to the

species; (2) whether the plan provides

assurances that the conservation

management strategies will be

implemented; and (3) whether the plan

provides assurances that the

conservation management strategies will

be effective. In determining if

management strategies are likely to be

implemented, we consider whether: (a)

A management plan or agreement exists

that specifies the management actions

being implemented or to be

implemented; (b) there is a timely

schedule for implementation; (c) there is

a high probability that the funding

source(s) or other resources necessary to

implement the actions will be available;

and (d) the party(ies) have the authority

and long-term commitment to

implement the management actions, as

demonstrated, for example, by a legal

instrument providing enduring

protection and management of the

lands. In determining whether an action

is likely to be effective, we consider

whether: (a) The plan specifically

addresses the management needs,

including reduction of threats to the

species; (b) such actions have been

successful in the past; (c) there are

provisions for monitoring and

assessment of the effectiveness of the

management actions; and (d) adaptive

management principles have been

incorporated into the plan.

Based on information provided to us

by landowners and managers to date, we

find that no areas are adequately

managed and protected to address the

threats to ‘elepaio. Several areas are

covered under current management

plans and are being managed in a

manner that meets some of the

conservation needs of the O‘ahu

‘elepaio, but in no areas does the

management adequately reduce the

primary threats to this species.

Specifically, the threat from introduced

nest predators, primarily rodents, has

been successfully managed on a small

scale in Honouliuli Preserve by The

Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i, in

Schofield Barracks West Range and

M’kua Military Reservation by the U.S.

Army, and in the Honolulu Watershed

Forest Reserve by the Hawai‘i State

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, but in

each case the management actions have

affected only a small proportion of the

‘elepaio in the area. Adequate reduction

of the threat from rodents will require

larger scale management that protects

more ‘elepaio. The other primary threat

to the O‘ahu ‘elepaio, introduced

diseases carried by mosquitoes, has not

been managed in any area.

The O‘ahu Forest National Wildlife

Refuge does not meet these criteria

because the refuge was created only

recently (December 2000) and there is

no current management that meets the

recovery needs of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio.

Refuge lands have not been adequately

surveyed yet, and even whether the area

is currently occupied by ‘elepaio

remains uncertain.

The Sikes Act Improvements Act of

1997 (Sikes Act) requires each military

installation that includes land and water

suitable for the conservation and

management of natural resources to

complete, by November 17, 2001, an

Integrated Natural Resources

Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP

integrates implementation of the

military mission of the installation with

stewardship of the natural resources

found there. Each INRMP includes an

assessment of the ecological needs on

the installation, including needs to

provide for the conservation of listed

species; a statement of goals and

priorities; a detailed description of

management actions to be implemented

to provide for these ecological needs;

and a monitoring and adaptive

management plan. We consult with the

military on the development and

implementation of INRMPs for

installations with listed species. We

believe that bases that have completed

and approved INRMPs that address the

needs of the species generally do not

meet the definition of critical habitat

discussed above, because they require

no additional special management or

protection. Therefore, we do not include

these areas in critical habitat

designations if they meet the following

three criteria: (1) A current INRMP must

be complete and provide a conservation

benefit to the species; (2) the plan must

provide assurances that the

conservation management strategies will

be implemented; and (3) the plan must

provide assurances that the

conservation management strategies will

be effective, by providing for periodic

monitoring and revisions as necessary.

If all of these criteria are met, then the

lands covered under the plan would not

meet the definition of critical habitat. To

date, no military installation on O‘ahu

has completed a final INRMP that

provides sufficient management and

protection for the ‘elepaio.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that

we designate critical habitat on the basis

of the best scientific and commercial

information available, and that we

consider the economic and other

relevant impacts of designating a

particular area as critical habitat. We

may exclude areas from critical habitat

designation if the benefits of exclusion

outweigh the benefits of designation,

provided the exclusion will not result in

the extinction of the species. We will

conduct an analysis of the economic

impacts of designating these areas as

critical habitat prior to a final

determination. When completed, we

will announce the availability of the

draft economic analysis with a notice in

the Federal Register.

Currently, there are no habitat

conservation plans (HCPs) that include

the O‘ahu ‘elepaio as a covered species.

However, we believe that in most

instances the benefits of excluding HCPs

from critical habitat designations will

outweigh the benefits of including them.

In the event that future HCPs are

developed within the boundaries of

proposed or designated critical habitat,

we will work with applicants to ensure

that the HCPs provide for protection and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30387

management of habitat areas essential

for the conservation of this species. This

will be accomplished by either directing

development and habitat modification

to nonessential areas, or appropriately

modifying activities within essential

habitat areas so that such activities will

not adversely modify the critical habitat.

We will provide technical assistance

and work closely with applicants

throughout the development of any

future HCPs to identify lands essential

for the long-term conservation of the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio and appropriate

management for those lands. The take

minimization and mitigation measures

provided under such HCPs would be

expected to protect the essential habitat

lands proposed as critical habitat in this

rule and provide for the conservation of

the covered species. Furthermore, we

will complete intra-Service consultation

on our issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B)

permits for these HCPs to ensure permit

issuance will not destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat. If an HCP that

includes the O’ahu ‘elepaio is ultimately

approved after this critical habitat

designation is finalized, we will reassess

the critical habitat boundaries in light of

the HCP. We will seek to undertake this

review when the HCP is approved, but

funding constraints may influence the

timing of such a review.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. We are particularly

interested in comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why any area should

or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4

of the Act and 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1),

including whether the benefits of

designation will outweigh any threats to

the species due to designation;

(2) Specific information on the

number and distribution of O‘ahu

‘elepaio and what habitat is essential to

the conservation of this species and

why;

(3) Whether lands within proposed

critical habitat are currently being

managed to address conservation needs

of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio;

(4) Land use practices and current or

planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat;

(5) Any foreseeable economic or other

impacts resulting from the proposed

designation of critical habitat, in

particular, any impacts on small entities

or families;

(6) Whether future development and

approval of conservation measures (e.g.,

Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor

Agreements, etc.) should be excluded

from critical habitat and, if so, by what

mechanism; and,

(7) Economic and other values

associated with designating critical

habitat for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio, such as

those derived from non-consumptive

uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birdwatching, enhanced watershed

protection, improved air quality,

increased soil retention, ‘‘existence

values,’’ and reductions in

administrative costs).

If we receive information that any of

the areas proposed as critical habitat are

currently being managed to address the

conservation needs of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio

and provide adequate management and

protection, these areas would not meet

the definition of critical habitat in

section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and would

not be included in the final critical

habitat designation for the O‘ahu

‘elepaio. If you wish to comment, you

may submit your comments and

materials concerning this proposal by

any one of several methods:

1. You may submit written comments

and information to Paul Henson, Field

Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard,

Room 3–122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI

96850.

2. You may hand deliver written

comments to our Pacific Islands Fish

and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana

Boulevard, Room 3–122, Honolulu,

Hawai‘i.

3. You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to

FW1PIE_OahuElep_crithab@r1.fws.gov.

If you are sending comments by

electronic mail (e-mail), please submit

them in ASCII file format or embedded

in the text of the e-mail message, and

avoid the use of special characters and

encryption. Please include ‘‘Attn: 1018–

AG99’’ and your name and return

address in your e-mail message. If you

do not receive a confirmation from the

system that we have received your email message, contact us directly by

calling our Pacific Islands Fish and

Wildlife Service Office at phone number

808/541–3441. Please note that the email address

(FW1PIE_OahuElep_crithab@r1.fws.gov)

will be closed at the termination of the

public comment period.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Respondents may request that we

withhold their home address, which we

will honor to the extent allowable by

law. There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. To the

extent consistent with applicable law,

we will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the Pacific Islands Fish and

Wildlife Office in Honolulu.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions

of at least three appropriate and

independent specialists regarding this

proposed rule. The purpose of such

review is to ensure listing and critical

habitat decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions,

and analyses. We will send copies of

this proposed rule to these peer

reviewers immediately following

publication in the Federal Register. We

will invite the peer reviewers to

comment, during the public comment

period, on the specific assumptions and

conclusions regarding the proposed

designations of critical habitat. We will

consider all comments and data

received during the 60-day comment

period on this proposed rule during

preparation of a final rulemaking.

Accordingly, the final decision may

differ from this proposal.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations and notices

that are easy to understand. We invite

your comments on how to make this

proposed rule easier to understand,

including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2)

Does the proposed rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the

format of the proposed rule (grouping

and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Is the description of the

proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble

helpful in understanding the document?

(5) Is the background information useful

30388 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

and is the amount appropriate? (6) What

else could we do to make the proposed

rule easier to understand? Send a copy

of any comments that concern how we

could make this notice easier to

understand to: Office of Regulatory

Affairs, Department of the Interior,

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail

your comments to this address:

Execsec@ios.doi.gov.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order

12866, this document is a significant

rule and was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). We are

preparing a draft analysis of this

proposed action, which will be available

for public comment, to determine the

economic consequences of designating

the specific areas as critical habitat. The

availability of the draft economic

analysis will be announced in the

Federal Register so that it is available

for public review and comments.

(a) While we will prepare an

economic analysis to assist us in

considering whether areas should be

excluded pursuant to section 4 of the

Act, we do not believe this rule will

have an annual economic effect of $100

million or adversely affect an economic

sector, productivity, jobs, the

environment, or other units of

government. Therefore, we do not

believe a cost benefit and economic

analysis pursuant to EO 12866 is

required.

Under the Act, critical habitat may

not be adversely modified by a Federal

agency action; critical habitat does not

impose any restrictions on non-Federal

persons unless they are conducting

activities funded or otherwise

sponsored, authorized, or permitted by

a Federal agency (see Table 4 below).

Section 7 requires Federal agencies to

ensure that they do not jeopardize the

continued existence of this species.

Based upon our experience with this

species and its needs, we conclude that

any Federal action or authorized action

that could potentially cause adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat

would currently be considered as

‘‘jeopardy’’ under the Act in areas

occupied by the species. Accordingly,

the designation of currently occupied

areas as critical habitat does not have

any incremental impacts on what

actions may or may not be conducted by

Federal agencies or non-Federal persons

that receive Federal authorization or

funding. The designation of areas as

critical habitat where section 7

consultations would not have occurred

but for the critical habitat designation

may have impacts on what actions may

or may not be conducted by Federal

agencies or non-Federal persons who

receive Federal authorization or funding

that are not attributable to the species

listing. We will evaluate any impact

through our economic analysis (under

section 4 of the Act; see Economic

Analysis section of this rule). NonFederal persons that do not have

Federal involvement in their actions are

not restricted by the designation of

critical habitat.

TABLE 4.—IMPACTS OF O‘AHU ‘ELEPAIO LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Categories of activities Activities potentially affected by species listing only

Additional activities potentially affected by critical habitat designation1

Federal activities potentially affected.2Activities the Federal Government carries out that result in removing,

thinning, or destroying ‘elepaio habitat (as defined in the primary

constituent elements discussion), whether by burning, mechanical,

chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting, grading, overgrazing,

construction, road building, mining, herbicide application, etc.) and

appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality through indirect effects (e.g., introduction or promotion of potential nest predators,

diseases or disease vectors, vertebrate or invertebrate food competitors, or invasive plant species, forest fragmentation, overgrazing, augmentation of feral ungulate populations, water diversion or impoundment, groundwater pumping, or other activities that

alter water quality or quantity to an extent that affects vegetation

structure or produces mosquito breeding habitat, and activities that

increase the risk of fire).

These same activities carried out

by Federal Agencies in designated areas where section 7

consultations would not have

occurred but for the critical habitat designation.

Private or other non-Federal activities potentially affected.3Activities funded, authorized, or permitted by the Federal Government that results in removing, thinning, or destroying ‘elepaio habitat (as defined in the primary constituent elements discussion),

whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g.,

woodcutting, grading, overgrazing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide application, etc.) and appreciably decreasing habitat

value or quality through indirect effects (.e.g., introduction or promotion of potential nest predators, diseases or disease vectors,

vertebrate or invertebrate food competitors, or invasive plant species, forest fragmentation, overgrazing, augmentation of feral

ungulate populations, water diversion or impoundment, groundwater pumping, or other activities that alter water quality or quantity to an extent that affects vegetation structure or produces mosquito breeding habitat, and activities that increase the risk of fire).

These same activities funded, authorized, or permitted by Federal Agencies in a designated

area where section 7 consultations would not have occurred

but for the critical habitat designation.

1This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to those activities potentially affected by listing the species. 2Activities initiated by a Federal agency.

3Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or funding.

(b) This rule will not create

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. As discussed above, Federal

agencies have been required to ensure

that their actions not jeopardize the

continued existence of the O‘ahu

‘elepaio since its listing in May 2000.

The prohibition against adverse

modification of critical habitat would

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30389

not be expected to impose any

additional restrictions to those that

currently exist in the proposed critical

habitat on currently occupied lands. We

will evaluate any impact of designating

areas where section 7 consultations

would not have occurred but for the

critical habitat designation through our

economic analysis. Because of the

potential for impacts on other Federal

agency activities, we will continue to

review this proposed action for any

inconsistencies with other Federal

agency actions.

(c) This rule, if made final, will not

materially affect entitlements, grants,

user fees, loan programs, or the rights

and obligations of their recipients.

Federal agencies are currently required

to ensure that their activities do not

jeopardize the continued existence of a

listed species, and, as discussed above,

we do not anticipate that the adverse

modification prohibition resulting from

critical habitat designation will have

any incremental effects in areas of

occupied habitat.

(d) This rule will not raise novel legal

or policy issues. The proposed rule

follows the requirements for

determining critical habitat contained in

the Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.)

In the economic analysis (required

under section 4 of the Act), we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will have a significant

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. As discussed under Regulatory

Planning and Review above, this rule is

not expected to result in any restrictions

in addition to those currently in

existence for areas where section 7

consultations would have occurred as

result of the species being listed under

the Act. We will also evaluate whether

designation includes any areas where

section 7 consultations would occur

only as result of the critical habitat

designation, and in such cases

determine if it will significantly affect a

substantial number of small entities. As

indicated in Table 3 (see Proposed

Critical Habitat Designation section), we

propose designation on property owned

by local governments and private

property. Within these areas, the types

of Federal actions or authorized

activities that we have identified as

potential concerns are:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting

waters of the United States by the Army

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows,

damming, diversion, and channelization

by Federal agencies;

(3) Development on private or State

lands requiring permits from other

Federal agencies, such as Housing and

Urban Development;

(4) Military training or similar

activities of the U.S. Department of

Defense (Army and Navy) on their lands

or lands under their jurisdiction at

Schofield Barracks, Ma ̄kua Military

Reservation, Fort Shafter, Kawailoa

Training Area, and Pearl Harbor Naval

Magazine Lualualei Branch;

(5) Construction of communication

sites licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission;

(6) Road construction and

maintenance, right-of-way designation,

and regulation of agricultural activities

by Federal agencies;

(7) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency; and

(8) Activities funded by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Energy, or any other

Federal agency.

Potentially some of these activities

sponsored by Federal agencies within

the proposed critical habitat areas are

carried out by small entities (as defined

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act)

through contract, grant, permit, or other

Federal authorization. For actions on

non-Federal property that do not have a

Federal connection (such as funding or

authorization), the current restrictions

concerning take of the species remain in

effect, and this rule will have no

additional restrictions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will cause (a) any effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, (b) any increases in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; or (c)

any significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises. As

discussed above, we anticipate that the

designation of critical habitat will not

have any additional effects on these

activities in areas where section 7

consultations would occur regardless of

the critical habitat designation. We will

evaluate any impact of designating areas

where section 7 consultations would not

have occurred but for the critical habitat

designation through our economic

analysis.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued

Executive Order EO 13211 on

regulations that significantly affect

energy supply, distribution, and use.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects

when undertaking certain actions. As

this final rule is not expected to

significantly affect energy supplies,

distribution, or use, 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

August 25, 2000 et seq.):

(a) We believe this rule will not

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small

governments. A Small Government

Agency Plan is not required. Small

governments will 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. However, as discussed above,

these actions are currently subject to

equivalent restrictions through the

listing protections of the species, and no

further restrictions are anticipated to

result from critical habitat designation

of occupied areas. In our economic

analysis, we will evaluate any impact of

designating areas where section 7

consultations would not have occurred

but for the critical habitat designation.

(b) This rule will not produce a

Federal mandate of $100 million or

greater in any year; that is, it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The designation of critical habitat

imposes no obligations on State or local

governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this rule does not have

significant takings implications. A

takings implication assessment is not

required. As discussed above, the

designation of critical habitat affects

only Federal agency actions. The rule

will not increase or decrease the current

restrictions on private property

concerning take of the species. The rule

will not increase or decrease the current

restrictions on private property

concerning take of this species. We do

not anticipate that property values will

be affected by the critical habitat

designation. Landowners in areas that

are included in the designated critical

habitat will continue to have

opportunity to utilize their property in

30390 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ways consistent with State law and with

the continued survival of the species.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have significant

Federalism effects. A Federalism

assessment is not required. As discussed

above, the designation of critical habitat

in areas currently occupied by the Oa`hu

‘elepaio would have little incremental

impact on State and local governments

and their activities. The designations

may have some benefit to these

governments in that the areas essential

to the conservation of these species are

more clearly defined, and the primary

constituent elements of the habitat

necessary to the survival of the species

are identified. While this definition and

identification does not alter where and

what federally sponsored activities may

occur, it may assist these local

governments in long range planning

rather than waiting for case-by-case

section 7 consultation to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Department of the Interior’s

Office of the Solicitor has determined

that this rule does not unduly burden

the judicial system and does meet the

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)

of the Order. We designate critical

habitat in accordance with the

provisions of the Act. The proposed rule

uses standard property descriptions and

identifies the primary constituent

elements within the designated areas to

assist the public in understanding the

habitat needs of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements for

which Office of Management and

Budget approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an

Environmental Assessment and/or an

Environmental Impact Statement as

defined by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared

in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act. A notice

outlining our reason for this

determination was published in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244). This proposed rule does

not constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.

Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

With Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) Executive

Order 13175 and the Department of the

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we

readily acknowledge our responsibility

to communicate meaningfully with

federally recognized Tribes on a

government-to-government basis. The

proposed designation of critical habitat

for the O‘ahu ‘elepaio does not contain

any Tribal lands or lands that we have

identified as impacting Tribal trust

resources.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this proposed rule is available upon

request from the Pacific Islands Fish

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Eric A. VanderWerf, Pacific Islands

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and record

keeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as

set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for

‘‘ ‘Elepaio, O‘ahu’’ under ‘‘BIRDS’’ to

read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

BIRDS

*******

‘Elepaio, O‘ahu ........ Chasiempis

sandwichensis

ibidis (Chasiempis

sandwichensis

gayi).

U.S.A. (HI) .............. Entire ...................... E 17.95(b)

*******

3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding critical

habitat for the O‘ahu ‘Elepaio

(Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis)

under paragraph (b) in the same

alphabetical order as this species occurs

in § 17.11(h), to read as follows:

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(b) Birds.

* * * * *

O‘ahu ‘elepaio (Chasiempis

sandwichensis ibidis)

1. Critical Habitat Units are depicted

for the City and County of Honolulu on

the maps following.

2. Within these areas, the primary

constituent elements required by the

O‘ahu ‘elepaio are those habitat

components that are essential for the

biological needs of foraging, sheltering,

roosting, nesting, and rearing of young.

The primary constituent elements are

provided in undeveloped areas that

support various types of wet, mesic, and

dry forest with a generally continuous

canopy and a dense understory and that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30391

are composed of native or introduced

plant species. Such forests are found in

valleys and on mountain slopes and

ridges. The primary constituent

elements associated with the biological

needs of dispersal and genetic exchange

are found in undeveloped areas that

separate ‘elepaio populations and

support wet or dry shrub land and wet

or dry cliff habitat composed of native

or introduced species. ‘Elepaio may not

establish territories in shrub or cliff

habitats and may use them only

transiently, but undeveloped areas

containing these habitats are important

for linking populations by providing

dispersal corridors and promoting

genetic exchange among populations.

Within the forests and shrub lands

providing the primary constituent

elements, plant species composition

varies with rainfall, elevation, and

degree of habitat disturbance and plant

species occur in a variety of

assemblages. Dominant native and

introduced species within these plant

assemblages include, but are not limited

to, ‘o ̄hi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha),

koa (Acacia koa), p ̄ apala ke ̄pau (Pisonia

umbellifera), lama (Diospyros

sandwicensis), m ̄ amaki (Pipturus

albidus), kaulu (Sapindus Oahuensis),

hame (Antidesma platyphyllum), ‘a ̄la‘a

(Pouteria sandwicensis), ‘a‘ali‘i

(Dodonaea viscosa), naupaka kuahiwi

(Scaevola spp.), pu ̄ kiawe (Styphelia

tameiameiae), uluhe (Dicranopteris

linearis), guava (Psidium guajava),

strawberry guava (P. cattleianum),

mango (Mangifera indica), kukui

(Aleurites moluccana), christmasberry

(Schinus terebinthifolius), ti (Cordyline

terminalis), rose apple (Syzygium

jambos), mountain apple (S.

malaccense), and Java plum (S. cumini).

3. Existing developed features and

structures, such as buildings, roads,

aqueducts, antennas, water tanks,

agricultural fields, paved areas, lawns,

and other urban landscaped areas that

do not contain one or more of the

primary constituent elements, are not

included as critical habitat.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Unit 1 (4,502 ha; 11,122 ac)

Unit 1 consists of one hundred and

one boundary points with the following

coordinates in UTM Zone 4 with the

units in meters using North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD83): 588465,

2375750; 587846, 2376228; 587213,

2376416; 586946, 2376176; 586675,

2376658; 586672, 2377028; 586468,

2377154; 586672, 2377219; 586430,

2377462; 586532, 2377741; 586464,

2377863; 586261, 2377727; 585895,

2377915; 585242, 2377801; 584907,

2377864; 584433, 2377671; 584139,

2377961; 583974, 2378388; 584099,

2378414; 584016, 2378599; 584207,

2378563; 583425, 2379849; 583801,

2379814; 583831, 2380171; 584075,

2380122; 584324, 2379841; 584526,

2380031; 584181, 2381150; 584078,

2381295; 583938, 2381385; 583738,

2381388; 583402, 2381505; 583315,

2381668; 582998, 2381518; 582785,

2381368; 582566, 2381369; 582561,

2381485; 582694, 2381702; 582685,

2381865; 582566, 2382005; 582651,

2382112; 583122, 2382432; 582768,

2382529; 582445, 2382889; 581998,

2383075; 581881, 2383019; 581546,

2383276; 581387, 2383071; 581221,

2383069; 581023, 2383019; 580811,

2382809; 580192, 2382557; 580070,

2382662; 579894, 2382772; 580060,

2383144; 580151, 2383425; 580526,

2383690; 580750, 2383802; 581314,

2383901; 581353, 2383719; 587168,

2382252; 586876, 2381574; 587645,

2381564; 587539, 2382159; 590187,

2381495; 590131, 2381324; 590955,

2381123; 591938, 2379504; 592106,

2379316; 592575, 2379032; 592871,

2378937; 592520, 2378940; 592213,

2379019; 592100, 2378936; 592014,

2378940; 591993, 2379074; 591950,

2379089; 591765, 2378955; 591393,

2378631; 591229, 2378138; 591294,

30392 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

2377905; 590979, 2377773; 590984,

2377387; 590770, 2377109; 590760,

2377063; 590999, 2376896; 590945,

2376772; 591176, 2376297; 591268,

2376320; 591426, 2376305; 591624,

2376158; 591620, 2375793; 591334,

2375340; 590950, 2375570; 590580,

2375400; 589956, 2375632; 589799,

2375555; 589539, 2375014; 589285,

2375190; 588919, 2375824; 588465,

2375750.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Unit 2 (2,515 ha; 6,215 ac)

Unit 2 consists of fifty-six boundary

points with the following coordinates in

UTM Zone 4 with the units in meters

using North American Datum of 1983

(NAD83): 592373, 2366709; 592345,

2367091; 592171, 2367271; 592449,

2367406; 591970, 2368628; 592530,

2369066; 592575, 2369415; 593190,

2369759; 593231, 2369971; 592864,

2370362; 593156, 2370385; 593368,

2370513; 593249, 2370991; 592348,

2370899; 592469, 2371381; 592374,

2371861; 592582, 2372284; 592295,

2372774; 592100, 2373836; 591816,

2374384; 592053, 2374764; 592045,

2375115; 592504, 2375529; 593245,

2375497; 594056, 2374659; 594299,

2374644; 594081, 2374253; 593970,

2373860; 594207, 2373793; 594437,

2374070; 594578, 2374412; 594867,

2374406; 594965, 2374331; 594978,

2374067; 595140, 2374463; 595431,

2374602; 595604, 2374352; 595772,

2374351; 595782, 2374020; 596005,

2373471; 595754, 2373256; 595960,

2372960; 595678, 2372709; 595531,

2372434; 595485, 2371908; 595272,

2371337; 595489, 2370340; 595296,

2369703; 595561, 2369694; 595565,

2369178; 595390, 2368213; 595117,

2368245; 594830, 2366778; 593114,

2366319; 592309, 2366563; 592373,

2366709.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30393

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Unit 3 (14,840 ha; 36,669 ac)

Unit 3 consists of one hundred and

six boundary points with following

coordinates in UTM Zone 4 with the

units in meters using North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD83): 615481,

2366443; 613829, 2366084; 612845,

2367394; 612829, 2367639; 612488,

2368140; 611561, 2368027; 611448,

2368566; 611117, 2369088; 610523,

2369387; 610693, 2369643; 610226,

2370083; 611040, 2370565; 609681,

2371985; 609025, 2371951; 609034,

2373100; 608391, 2373401; 608469,

2373609; 608065, 2373567; 607941,

2373859; 608199, 2373978; 608109,

2374925; 607637, 2375635; 607869,

2375817; 607456, 2375780; 607136,

2375598; 607046, 2375977; 607565,

2376766; 606428, 2378568; 605381,

2378725; 606026, 2379972; 604900,

2380551; 605708, 2381032; 607698,

2381439; 609468, 2381214; 610319,

2381573; 611728, 2381425; 611797,

2380904; 612201, 2380506; 613364,

2381362; 615459, 2380980; 616152,

2380161; 616780, 2378903; 616513,

2378013; 616873, 2376632; 616699,

2375737; 617180, 2375933; 617356,

2375158; 617664, 2375259; 617994,

2375029; 617757, 2373739; 618311,

2372859; 618082, 2372506; 618563,

2371385; 617894, 2370668; 618022,

2370181; 618247, 2370148; 618043,

2370014; 619043, 2369685; 618878,

2369509; 619381, 2369376; 619182,

2369040; 619525, 2368805; 619611,

2368922; 619747, 2368829; 619588,

2368664; 619928, 2368585; 619650,

2368496; 619614, 2368284; 620097,

2368401; 619967, 2368174; 620164,

2368022; 620005, 2367870; 620257,

2367795; 619954, 2367590; 620341,

2367572; 620055, 2367214; 621150,

2366779; 621549, 2366388; 621302,

2366064; 621511, 2365913; 621381,

2365424; 621553, 2365265; 621489,

2364827; 620880, 2364530; 620469,

2364040; 619115, 2363338; 617176,

2363590; 616868, 2363761; 616638,

2364642; 615913, 2365439; 615777,

2365575; 615420, 2365753; 615767,

2365918; 615684, 2366361; 616156,

2366495; 616990, 2367187; 617469,

2367398; 618312, 2367466; 619282,

2367250; 619336, 2367460; 618293,

2367672; 617426, 2367594; 616876,

2367352; 616189, 2366748; 615713,

2366555; 615481, 2366443.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

30394 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Unit 4 (800 ha; 1,977 ac)

Unit 4 consists of thirty-five boundary

points with the following coordinates in

UTM Zone 4 with the units in meters

using North American Datum of 1983

(NAD83): 619449, 2361897; 619967,

2362184; 619999, 2362473; 620286,

2362404; 620537, 2362773; 621409,

2363520; 621660, 2363584; 622719,

2364191; 622901, 2364348; 623091,

2364242; 623209, 2363699; 623046,

2363507; 623201, 2363403; 623106,

2363264; 623391, 2363271; 623404,

2363073; 623634, 2363216; 623976,

2362864; 623238, 2362105; 621688,

2361633; 621467, 2361418; 621345,

2361518; 620954, 2360860; 620598,

2360514; 620700, 2360831; 620572,

2360908; 619869, 2360908; 619670,

2360852; 619064, 2360661; 618935,

2360886; 619170, 2361072; 619199,

2361402; 619163, 2361470; 618977,

2361595; 619449, 2361897.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30395

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Unit 5 (4,197 ha; 10,371 ac)

Unit 5 consists of seventy-eight

boundary points with the following

coordinates in UTM Zone 4 with the

units in meters using North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD83): 626915,

2356759; 626560, 2357502; 626675,

2357669; 626333, 2357906; 626359,

2358234; 626110, 2358313; 626031,

2357725; 625623, 2357254; 625538,

2357354; 625351, 2357186; 625091,

2357420; 625118, 2357617; 625085,

2358039; 624568, 2358236; 624821,

2358624; 624568, 2358859; 625059,

2359019; 625083, 2359182; 624607,

2359469; 624378, 2359605; 624247,

2359627; 623768, 2359261; 623004,

2359366; 622941, 2359584; 622499,

2359435; 621968, 2359088; 621864,

2359256; 621335, 2359722; 622127,

2360488; 621920, 2360603; 623746,

2361359; 625281, 2363179; 625896,

2363475; 626109, 2363219; 626146,

2363135; 626234, 2362910; 626392,

2362857; 626871, 2362399; 626986,

2361859; 627500, 2361686; 626946,

2361095; 627268, 2360638; 627548,

2360727; 627690, 2360077; 628361,

2360895; 628839, 2360922; 629079,

2360676; 629519, 2360722; 629341,

2360070; 630776, 2359069; 631754,

2358982; 632440, 2358108; 632959,

2357815; 633019, 2357425; 632769,

2356517; 632191, 2356385; 630620,

2355286; 630491, 2355266; 630104,

2355644; 630041, 2355624; 629732,

2355117; 629510, 2355214; 629279,

2356032; 629033, 2356130; 628836,

2356015; 628378, 2356236; 628317,

2355841; 628209, 2355703; 627673,

2354542; 627125, 2354591; 627125,

2355143; 627381, 2355990; 627200,

2356033; 626832, 2355846; 626399,

2355498; 626215, 2355823; 626806,

2356493; 626915, 2356759.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

30396 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Dated: May 30, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones Jr.,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

(Proposed: Designation of critical

habitat for the Oa`hu e`lepaio

(Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis))

[FR Doc. 01–14171 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 053001D]

Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf

of Alaska, King and Tanner Crab

Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian

Islands, Scallop and Salmon Fisheries

off the Coast of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS); request for written

comments; notice of scoping meetings.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to

prepare an SEIS in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) for the essential fish

habitat (EFH) components of the

following fishery management plans

(FMPs): Groundfish Fishery of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area;

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Bering

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner

Crabs; Scallop Fishery Off Alaska; and

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off the

Coast of Alaska. The proposed action to

be addressed in the SEIS is the

development of the mandatory EFH

provisions of the FMPs. The scope of

the analysis will address the required

EFH components of the FMPs as

described in section 303(a)(7) of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will

hold public scoping meetings and

accept written comments to determine

the issues of concern and the

appropriate range of management

alternatives to be addressed in the SEIS

to describe and identify EFH and

potential Habitat Area of Particular

Concern (HAPC) designations, to

minimize to the extent practicable the

adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and to

identify other actions to encourage the

conservation and enhancement of EFH.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted through July 21, 2001. The first

public scoping meeting will be held on

Monday, June 4, 2001, in Kodiak, AK.

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

dates, times, and locations of additional

public scoping meetings.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to P. Michael Payne, Assistant

Regional Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802. Comments may be sent via

facsimile (fax) to (907) 586–7012. NMFS

will not accept comments by e-mail or

Internet. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for dates, times, and

locations of public scoping meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindy Hartmann, EFH Coordinator,

Juneau, AK, (907) 586–7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Act in 1996 set forth new mandates for

NMFS and Regional Fishery

Management Councils (Regional

Councils) to identify and protect

important marine and anadromous fish

habitat. The Regional Councils, with