You may submit your comments and materials concerning this revised proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). If you use e mail to submit your comments, please include ``Attn: Hawaii picture wing flies critical habitat'' in your email subject header, preferably with your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your email, contact us directly by calling our Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office at 8087929400. Please note that we must receive comments by the date specified in the DATES section in order to consider them in our final determination and that we will close out the email address fw1piepwfch@fws.gov at the termination of the public comment period.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire commentincluding your personal identifying informationmay be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this revised proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850, (telephone 8087929400).

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this revised proposed rule. For additional information on the 12 species of Hawaiian picturewing flies for which we are proposing to designate critical habitat, refer to the final listing rule for the 12 species of picturewing flies published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26835).

This revised proposal replaces our original proposal to designate critical habitat for the 12 species of picturewing flies published on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994). In that rule, we proposed to designate approximately 18 acres (ac) (7.3 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for 11 of the 12 species of Hawaiian picturewing flies. In that same proposal we indicated our intent to exclude several areas from the critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and not to include specific areas that we believed did not meet the definition of critical habitat under
[[Page 67429]]
section 3(5)(A) of the Act. We did not propose critical habitat for Drosophila neoclavisetae, a species endemic to Maui, because we did not believe that Maui Pineapple Company's Puu Kukui Watershed Management Area met the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, based on ongoing conservation efforts. These were the only areas identified to be essential for the conservation of D. neoclavisetae. Under this revised proposed rule, we are proposing to designate critical habitat for D. neoclavisetae. Under this revised proposed rule, we are proposing to designate approximately 9,238 ac (3,738 ha) as critical habitat for 12 species of Hawaiian picturewing flies. Of these lands, we are exempting 78 ac (31 ha) of land from this proposed critical habitat revision under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act that are covered by the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Oahu Training Areas Natural Resource Management (Final Report, August 2000) and the Oahu Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 20022006 (Army 2000).

We are revising our original proposal because we received comments from peer reviewers in response to the original proposed rule questioning the methodology and lack of scientific basis. The current revised proposal is based on the best scientific data available, including defining suitable habitat based on distribution and density of host plants. The methods section of this notice presents the specific details and approach used to identify the revised proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.

Previous Federal Actions

For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the 12 species of Hawaiian picturewing flies, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26835), and the original proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994).

Under the terms of a settlement agreement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on August 31, 2005 (CBD v. Allen, CV05274HA), we were to (1) make a final listing decision for the 12 picturewing flies by May 6, 2006; (2) propose to designate critical habitat by September 15, 2006; and (3) finalize a critical habitat rule by April 17, 2007. Our determination that the designation of critical habitat for the 12 species of Hawaiian picturewing flies was prudent was included in the final listing rule, published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26849).

On August 15, 2006, we published a proposal to designate 18 ac (7.3 ha) of critical habitat for 11 picturewing fly species on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Molokai, and Oahu (71 FR 46994). Publication of this proposed rule opened a 60day public comment period, which closed on October 16, 2006. On January 4, 2007, we published a notice announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis for the designation of critical habitat for 11 species of picturewing flies and reopening the public comment period on the proposal until January 19, 2007 (72 FR 321).

We received comments from peer reviewers expressing concern with the biological adequacy of the proposed 18acre (7.3ha) designation, and the need to consider host plant density and distribution information in determining critical habitat boundaries. In addition, one of the peer reviewers presented new observation data for one of the species addressed in the proposed rule. On April 16, 2007, we submitted a joint stipulation with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to the U.S. District Court to modify the timetable of the August 31, 2005, settlement agreement for the proposed and final critical habitat rules for the 12 Hawaiian picturewing flies, citing the need to address comments received during the public comment periods and to conduct additional review of the proposal. A joint stipulation was approved by the Court on April 18, 2007, to allow additional time to reconsider the proposed rule in light of the comments received, and to provide an opportunity for additional public comment. Under the terms of the extension, we are required to submit a proposed critical habitat rule to the Federal Register by November 15, 2007, and a final critical habitat rule by November 15, 2008.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features:
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner.

For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must first contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Occupied habitat that contains the features essential to the conservation of the species meets the definition of critical habitat only if those features may require special management considerations or protection.

Under the Act, we can designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat only when we determine that the best available scientific data demonstrate that the designation of that area is essential to the conservation needs of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
[[Page 67430]]
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.

Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species, as additional scientific information may become available in the future. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.

Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts to the extent any new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available in determining areas occupied at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia, and areas unoccupied at the time of listing that are essential to their conservation. Based on the best available information, the units being proposed in this revised proposed rule as critical habitat represent the only geographical areas known to us that provide these essential conservation features. As a result, we are not proposing critical habitat in any areas outside the geographical areas presently occupied by each of the 12 species.

We have also reviewed the available information that pertains to the habitat requirements for these species. The following geospatial, tabular data sets were used in preparing this revised proposed critical habitat: Occurrence data for all 12 species (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 116); vegetation mapping data for the Hawaiian Islands (Gap Analysis Program (GAP) DataHawaiian Islands 2005); color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital aerial photographs for the Hawaiian Islands dated April to May 2005; and 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles. Land ownership was determined from geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from Oahu County (2006); Hawaii County (2005); Kauai County (2005); and Maui County (2004).

We reviewed a variety of peerreviewed and other articles for this revised proposal, which included background information on the biology of each of the 12 species, (e.g., Montgomery 1975, pp. 83, 94, 9698, and 100; Foote and Carson 1995, pp. 14; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 147); plant ecology and biology (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 45, 52 53, 971, 1,3141,315, and 1,3511,352); and the ecology of the Hawaiian Islands and the areas being considered in this revised proposal (e.g., Smith 1985, pp. 227233; Stone 1985, pp. 251253, 256, and 260263; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 5966, 7376, and 8894). Additional information reviewed included the October 29, 1991, final rule listing the plant species Urera kaalae (a host plant for two of the fly species) as endangered (56 FR 55770); the May 9, 2006, final listing rule for the 12 species of picturewing flies (71 FR 26835); the August 15, 2006, proposed critical habitat designation for 11 species of picturewing flies (71 FR 46994); unpublished reports by TNCH; and aerial photographs and satellite imagery of the Hawaiian Islands.

We obtained additional information through personal communications with landowners, scientists, and land managers familiar with the 12 species and their habitats, including individuals affiliated with the University of Hawaii, University of California at Berkeley, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bishop Museum, Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, TNCH, and the U.S Army. Specific information from these sources included estimates of historic and current distribution, abundance, and territory sizes for the 12 species, as well as data on resources and habitat requirements.

As described in the final listing rule (May 9, 2006, 71 FR 26835), each species of Hawaiian picturewing fly addressed in this revised proposal is found only on a single island, and the larvae of each species is dependant upon only a single or a few related species of plants (host plant(s)) (summarized in Table 1).
Table 1.Distribution of 12 Hawaiian PictureWing Flies by Island, General Habitat Type, and Primary Host Plant(s) General habitat Species Island Elevation range type Primary host plants Oahu Species Drosophila aglaia.............. Oahu............. 1,4002,900 feet Mesic forest..... Urera glabra. (ft) (425885 meters (m)). D. hemipeza.................... Oahu............. 1,5002,900 ft Mesic forest..... Cyanea sp., Lobelia (460885 m). sp., Urera kaalae (E). D. montgomeryi................. Oahu............. 1,9002,900 ft Mesic forest..... Urera kaalae (E). (580885 m). D. obatai...................... Oahu............. 1,5002,500 ft Dry to mesic Pleomele forbesii. (460760 m). forest. [[Page 67431]]
D. substenoptera............... Oahu............. 1,3004,000 ft Wet forest....... Cheirodendron (3951,220 m). platyphyllum, C. trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis, T. oahuensis. D. tarphytrichia............... Oahu............. 1,9002,900 ft Mesic forest..... Charpentiera obovata. (580885 m). Hawaii (Big Island) Species D. heteroneura................. Big Island....... 3,0006,000 ft Mesic to wet Cheirodendron (9151,830 m). forest. trigynum, Clermontia sp., Delissea parviflora. D. mulli....................... Big Island....... 2,1503,250 ft Wet forest....... Pritchardia (655990 m). beccariana. D. ochrobasis.................. Big Island....... 3,4005,400 ft Mesic to wet Clermontia sp., (1,0351,645 m). forest. Marattia douglasii, Myrsine sp. Molokai Species D. differens................... Molokai.......... 3,6504,500 ft Wet forest....... Clermontia sp. (1,1151,370 m). Kauai Species D. musaphilia.................. Kauai............ 2,6003,700 ft Mesic forest..... Acacia koa. (7901,130 m). Maui Species D. neoclavisetae............... Maui............. 3,4004,600 ft Wet forest....... Cyanea kunthiana, C. (1,0401,400 m). macrostegia ssp., macrostegia. Oahu Species

Drosophila aglaia

Drosophila aglaia is historically known from five localities within the Waianae Mountains of Oahu between 1,4002,900 feet (ft) (425885 meters (m)) above sea level. Drosophila aglaia is restricted to the natural distribution of its larval stage host plant, Urera glabra (family Urticaceae), which is a small shrublike endemic tree found within dry to mesic, lowland, Diospyros sp., ohia and koa forest. The larvae of D. aglaia feed within the decomposing bark and stem of U. glabra. This plant does not form large stands, and is infrequently scattered throughout slopes and gulches within mesic forest habitat in the Waianae Mountains on Oahu.

Drosophila hemipeza

Drosophila hemipeza is restricted to the island of Oahu where it is historically known from seven localities between 1,5002,900 ft (460 885 m) above sea level (not including the Pupukea site, which is considered an extirpated population). Montgomery (1975, p. 96) determined that D. hemipeza larvae feed within the decomposing portions of several different mesic forest plants, including the decomposing stems of Lobelia sp. (family Campanulaceae), and the decomposing bark and stems of Cyanea sp. (family Campanulaceae), on steep ridges and gulches within dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 17; Science Panel 2005, p. 16). The larvae also feed within the decomposing bark of Urera kaalae (family Urticaceae), a federally endangered plant (Service 1995, pp. 8183; October 29, 1991, 56 FR 55770) that grows on slopes and in gulches of diverse mesic forest (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 1,3141,315). In 2004, only 41 individuals of U. kaalae were known to remain in the wild (USFWS 2004, p. 9). In 2005, TNCH outplanted many seedlings of this species at several locations within D. hemipeza's historic range (TNCH 2005, p. 6).

Drosophila montgomeryi

Drosophila montgomeryi is historically known from three localities within the Waianae Mountains on western Oahu between 1,9002,900 ft (580885 m) above sea level. Montgomery (1975, p. 97) reported that the larvae of this species feed within the decaying bark of Urera kaalae, a federally endangered plant (USFWS 1995, pp. 8183; October 29, 1991, 56 FR 55770) that grows on slopes and in gulches within mesic, lowland, diverse ohia and koa forest (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 1,3141,315). As stated earlier, in 2004, only 41 individuals of U. kaalae were known to remain in the wild (USFWS 2004, p. 9). In 2005, TNCH outplanted many seedlings of this species at several locations within D. montgomeryi's historic range (TNCH 2005, p. 6).

Drosophila obatai

Drosophila obatai is historically known from two localities between 1,5002,500 ft (460760 m) above sea level on the island of Oahu. Drosophila obatai larvae feed within decomposing portions of Pleomele forbesii (family Agavaceae), a candidate for Federal listing (May 11, 2005, 70 FR 24883) (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 27; Montgomery 1975, p. 98). These host plants grow on slopes within dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest, and occur singly or in small clusters, rarely forming large stands (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 1,3511,352). Drosophila substenoptera

Drosophila substenoptera is historically known from seven localities in both the Koolau and Waianae Mountains on the island of Oahu at elevations between 1,3004,000 ft (3951,220 m) above sea level. Montgomery (1975, p. 100) determined that D. substenoptera larvae feed within the decomposing bark of Cheirodendron platyphllum and C. trigynum trees (family Araliaceae), and Tetraplasandra kavaiensis and T. oahuensis trees
[[Page 67432]]
(family Araliaceae) in localized patches within mesic to wet, lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest.

Drosophila tarphytrichia

Drosophila tarphytrichia was historically known from both the Koolau and the Waianae Mountains between 1,9002,900 ft (580 to 885 m) above sea level on the island of Oahu. Drosophila tarphytrichia is now apparently extirpated from the Koolau range, where it was originally discovered near Manoa Falls, and is presently known from four localities in the Waianae Mountains (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995; Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program (HBMP), in litt. 2005; K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a). The larvae of D. tarphytrichia feed on the decomposing portions of the stems and branches of Charpentiera obovata trees (family Amaranthaceae) within dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest (Montgomery 1975, p. 100).
Hawaii (Big Island) Species

Drosophila heteroneura

Drosophila heteroneura has been the most intensely studied of the 12 species discussed in this revised proposed rule (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 19). This species is restricted to the island of Hawaii, where historically it was known to be widely distributed between 3,0006,000 ft (9151,830 m) above sea level. Drosophila heteroneura has been recorded from 24 localities on 4 of the island's 5 volcanoes (Hualalai, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea) within mesic to wet, montane, ohia and koa forest (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 4 8). D. heteroneura larvae primarily feed within the decomposing bark and stems of Clermontia sp. (family Campanulaceae), including C. clermontioides, and Delissea parviflora (family Campanulaceae), but it is also known to feed within decomposing portions of Cheirodendron trigynum (family Araliaceae) (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 19). Drosophila mulli

Drosophila mulli is restricted to the island of Hawaii and is historically known from three localities between 2,1503,250 ft (655 990 m) above sea level. Only adult flies of these species have ever been observed, and only on the leaf undersides of the endemic fan palm, Pritchardia beccariana (family Arecaceae), occurring within wet, montane, ohia forest. This is the only known association of a Drosophila species with a native Hawaiian palm species. The exact larval feeding site on this host plant remains unknown because attempts to rear D. mulli from decaying parts of P. beccariana have thus far been unsuccessful (W. P. Mull, Biologist, pers. comm. 1994, p. 1; Science Panel 2005, p. 21).

Drosophila ochrobasis

Historically, Drosophila ochrobasis was widely distributed between 3,4005,400 ft (1,0351,645 m) above sea level on the island of Hawaii. D. ochrobasis has been recorded from 11 localities on 4 of the island's 5 volcanoes (Hualalai, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and the Kohala mountains) (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 8; K. Magnacca, University of California at Berkley, in litt. 2006). The larvae of this species have been reported to feed within decomposing portions of three different host plant groups, Myrsine sp. (family Myrsinaceae), Clermontia sp. (family Campanulaceae), and Marattia douglasii (family Marattiaceae) within mesic to wet, montane, ohia, koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest (Montgomery 1975, p. 98; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 29). Kauai Species

Drosophila musaphilia

Drosophila musaphilia is historically known from only four sites, one at 1,900 ft (579 m) above sea level, and three sites between 2,600 3,700 ft (7901,130 m) above sea level on the island of Kauai. Montgomery (1975, p. 97) determined that the host plant for D. musaphilia is Acacia koa (koa) occurring within mesic, montane, ohia and koa forest. The females lay their eggs on, and the larvae develop in, the moldy slime flux (seep) that occasionally appears on certain trees with injured plant tissue and seeping sap. Understanding the full range of D. musaphilia is difficult because its host plant is fairly common and stable within and surrounding its known range on Kauai; however, the frequency of suitable slime fluxes occurring on the host plant appears to be much more restricted and temporally unpredictable (Science Panel 2005, pp. 2324).
Maui Species

Drosophila neoclavisetae

Two populations of Drosophila neoclavisetae were found historically along the Puu Kukui Trail within montane wet Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) forests on West Maui. One habitat site was discovered in 1969 at 4,500 ft (1,370 m) and the other in 1975 at 3,500 ft (1,070 m) above sea level (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 26; K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 11). The larval stage host plant of D. neoclavisetae has not yet been confirmed, although it is likely to be one or both of the two Cyanea sp. (Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia ssp. macrostegia) (family Campanulaceae) present within its range and occurring within wet, montane, ohia forest. Because both collections of this fly occurred within a small patch of Cyanea sp., and many other species in the Drosophila adiastola species group use plant species in this genus and other plants in the family Campanulaceae, researchers believe that one or both of the two Cyanea sp. found at Puu Kukui are the correct larval stage host plants for D. neoclavisetae (Science Panel 2005, pp. 1920; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 26).
Molokai Species

Drosophila differens

Drosophila differens is historically known from three sites between 3,6504,500 ft (1,1151,370 m) above sea level, within montane wet ohia forest (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 2) on the island of Molokai. Montgomery (1975, p. 83) found that D. differens larvae feed within the decomposing bark and stems of Clermontia sp. (family Campanulaceae) within wet, montane, ohia forest (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 16). Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied at the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the primary constituent elements (PCEs) to be those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

We derived the specific primary constituent elements (PCEs) required for these 12 picturewing flies from the biological needs of each species as described in the listing rule, published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26835), and the August 15, 2006, [[Page 67433]]
proposed critical habitat designation for 11 picturewing flies (71 FR 46994).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

The general life cycle of Hawaiian Drosophilidae is typical of that of most flies: After mating, females lay eggs from which larvae (immature stage) hatch; as larvae grow, they molt (shed their skin) through three successive stages (instars); and when fully grown, the larvae change into pupae (a transitional form) in which they metamorphose and emerge as adults.

Breeding for all 12 species of flies included in this revised proposal generally occurs yearround, but egg laying and larval development increase following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter, upon which the flies feed, increases in response to the heavy rains (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 12). In general, Drosophila lay between 50 and 200 eggs at a single time. Eggs develop into adults in about a month, and adults generally become sexually mature one month later. Adults generally live for one to two months.

It is unknown how much space is needed for these flies to engage in courtship and territorial displays, and mating activities. Adult behavior may be disrupted or modified by less than ideal conditions, such as decreased forest cover or loss of suitable food material (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 12). Additionally, adult behavior may be disrupted and the flies themselves may be susceptible to the hunting activities of nonnative hymenoptera including yellow jacket wasps and ants (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 4142). The larvae generally pupate within the soil located below their host plant material, and it is presumed that they require relatively undisturbed and unmodified soil conditions to complete this stage before reaching adulthood (Science Panel 2005, p. 5). Lastly, it is wellknown that these 12 species and most picturewing flies are susceptible to even slight temperature increases, an issue that may be exacerbated by loss of suitable forest cover or the impacts from global warming (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 12).

Food

Each species of Hawaiian picturewing fly described in this document is found only on a single island, and the larvae of each are dependent upon only a single or a few related species of plants (summarized in Table 1). The adult flies feed on a variety of decomposing plant matter. The water or moisture requirements for all 12 of these species is unknown; however, during drier seasons or during times of drought, it is expected that available adult and larval stage food material in the form of decaying plant matter may decrease (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 12).
Primary Constituent Elements for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia

Within the geographical areas occupied by each Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia, we must identify the PCEs that may require special management considerations or protections.

Based on the requisites for each species discussed above and our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of each species, and the requirements to sustain the essential life history functions of the 12 species, the following PCEs for larval and adult life stages of Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia are: Oahu Species

The PCEs for Drosophila aglaia are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, Diospyros sp., ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,400 2,900 ft (425885 m); and (2) the larval host plant Urera glabra.

The PCEs for Drosophila hemipeza are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,5002,900 ft (460885 m); and (2) the larval host plants Cyanea angustifolia, C. calycina, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, C. grimesiana ssp. obatae, C. membranacea, C. pinnatifida, C. superba ssp. superba, Lobelia hypoleuca, L. niihauensis, L. yuccoides, and Urera kaalae.

The PCEs for Drosophila montgomeryi are: (1) Mesic, lowland, diverse ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,9002,900 ft (580885 m); and (2) the larval host plant Urera kaalae.

The PCEs for Drosophila obatai are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,5002,500 ft (460760 m); and (2) the larval host plant Pleomele forbesii.

The PCEs for Drosophila substenoptera are: (1) Mesic to wet, lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,3004,000 ft (3951,220 m); and (2) the larval host plants Cheirodendron platyphyllum ssp. platyphyllum, C. trigynum ssp. trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis, and T. oahuensis.

The PCEs for Drosophila tarphytrichia are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,9002,900 ft (580885 m); and (2) the larval host plant Charpentiera obovata. Hawaii (Big Island) Species

The PCEs for Drosophila heteroneura are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 3,0006,000 ft (9151,830 m); and (2) the larval host plants Cheirodendron trigynum ssp. trigynum, Clermontia clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montisloa, C. parviflora, C. peleana, C. pyrularia, and Delissea parviflora.

The PCEs for Drosophila mulli are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 3,1503,250 ft (960990 m); and (2) the larval host plant Pritchardia beccariana.

The PCEs for Drosophila ochrobasis are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia, koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest between the elevations of 3,4005,400 ft (1,0351,645 m); and (2) the larval host plants Clermontia calophylla, C. clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C. drepanomorpha, C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montisloa, C. parviflora, C. peleana, C. pyrularia, C. waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine lanaiensis, M. lessertiana, and M. sandwicensis.

Kauai Species

The PCEs for Drosophila musaphilia are: (1) Mesic, montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 2,6003,700 ft (7901,130 m); and (2) the larval host plant Acacia koa.

Maui Species

The PCEs for Drosophila neoclavisetae are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 3,4004,600 ft (1,0401,400 m), and (2) the larval host plants Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia ssp. macrostegia.

Molokai Species

The PCEs for Drosophila differens are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia forest between the elevations of 3,6504,500 ft (1,1151,370 m); and (2) the larval host plants Clermontia arborescens ssp. waihiae, C. granidiflora ssp. munroi, C. kakeana, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes, and C. pallida.

We propose units for designation based on sufficient PCEs being present
[[Page 67434]]
to support at least one of each of the 12 species' life history functions. Each of the areas proposed in this revised proposed rule have been determined to contain sufficient PCEs to provide for both the larval and adult life stage for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied areas contain features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protections.

Nonnative plants and animals pose the greatest threats to these 12 picturewing flies. In order to counter the ongoing degradation and loss of habitat caused by feral ungulates and invasive nonnative plants, active management or control of nonnative species is necessary for the conservation of all populations of the 12 picturewing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 3738). Without active management or control, native habitat containing the features that are essential for the conservation of the 12 picturewing flies will continue to be degraded or destroyed. In addition, habitat degradation and destruction as a result of fire, competition with nonnative insects, and predation by nonnative insects, such as the western yellowjacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica), may significantly threaten many of the populations of the 12 picturewing flies.

In this revised proposed rule, all of the proposed critical habitat units for the 12 picturewing flies may require special management to address feral ungulates, invasive nonnative plants, and yellowjacket wasps. In addition, the units in dry or mesic habitats (see Table 1 above) may also require special management to address fire and ants. These threats are discussed below.

Feral Ungulates

Feral ungulates have devastated native vegetation in many areas of the Hawaiian Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6066). Because the endemic Hawaiian flora evolved without the presence of browsing and grazing ungulates, many plant groups have lost their adaptive defenses such as spines, thorns, stinging hairs, and defensive chemicals (University of Hawaii Department of Geography 1998, p. 138). Pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos taurus) disturb the soil, and readily eat native plants (including the native host plants for 1 or more of the 12 picturewing flies), and distribute nonnative plant seeds that can alter the ecosystem. In addition, browsing and grazing by feral ungulates in steep and remote terrain causes severe erosion of entire watersheds due to foraging and trampling behaviors (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6064 and 66).

Feral Pigs (Sus scrofa)

Feral pigs threaten all populations of the 12 picturewing flies. Feral pigs are found from dry coastal grasslands through rain forests and into the subalpine zone on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6465). An increase in pig densities and expansion of their distribution has caused widespread damage to native vegetation (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6465). Feral pigs create open areas within forest habitat by digging up, eating, and trampling native species (Stone 1985, pp. 262263). These open areas become fertile ground for nonnative plant seeds spread through their excrement and by transport in their hair (Stone 1985, pp. 262263). In nitrogenpoor soils, feral pig excrement increases nutrient availability, enhancing establishment of nonnative weeds that are more adapted to richer soils than are native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6465). In this manner, largely nonnative forests replace native forest habitat (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 6465).

Foote and Carson (1995, pp. 24) found that pig exclosures on the island of Hawaii supported significantly higher relative frequencies of picturewing flies compared to other native and nonnative Drosophila species (7 percent of all observations outside of the exclosure and 18 percent of all observations inside the exclosure), and their native host plants. Loope et al. (1991, pp. 910 and 19) demonstrated that excluding pigs from a montane bog on northeastern Haleakala, Maui, resulted in an increase in native plant cover from 6 to 95 percent after 6 years of protection.

Feral Goats (Capra hircus)

Feral goats threaten populations of the picturewing flies on Oahu (Drosophila aglaia and D. obatai), Hawaii (D. heteroneura), and Kauai (D. musaphilia). Feral goats occupy a wide variety of habitats on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii, from lowland dry forests to montane grasslands where they consume native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion, and promote invasion of nonnative plants (van Riper and van Riper 1982, pp. 3435; Stone 1985, p. 261). On Oahu, goat populations are increasing and spreading in the dry upper slopes of the Waianae Mountains, becoming an even greater threat to the native habitat (K. Kawelo, U.S. Army Environmental Division, pers. comm. 2005, p. 1).

Feral Cattle (Bos taurus)

Feral cattle threaten populations of Drosophila heteroneura on the island of Hawaii. Largescale ranching of cattle began in the 19th century on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 5962). Large ranches, tens of thousands of acres in size, still exist on the islands of Maui and Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 5962). In addition, the grazing of cattle continues in several lowland regions in the northern portion of the Waianae Mountains of Oahu. Degradation of native forests used for ranching activities is evident. Feral cattle occupy a wide variety of habitats from lowland dry forests to montane grasslands, where they consume native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion, and promote the invasion of nonnative plants (van Riper and van Riper 1982, p. 36; Stone 1985, pp. 256 and 260).

Nonnative Plants

The invasion of nonnative plants contributes to the degradation of native forests and the host plants of picturewing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 3839; Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 5253 and 971; Science Panel 2005, p. 28), and threatens all populations of the 12 picturewing flies. Some nonnative plants form dense stands, thickets, or mats that shade or outcompete native plants. Nonnative vines cause damage or death to native trees by overloading branches, causing breakage, or forming a dense canopy cover that intercepts sunlight and shades out native plants below. Nonnative grasses readily burn and often grow at the border of forests, and carry fire into areas with woody native plants (Smith 1985, pp. 228229; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 8894). The nonnative grasses are more fireadapted and can spread prolifically after a fire, ultimately creating a stand of nonnative grasses where native forest once existed. Some nonnative plant species produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plant species (Smith 1985, p. 228; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 971).

Fire

Fire threatens habitat of the Hawaiian picturewing flies in dry to mesic grassland, shrubland, and forests on the islands of Kauai (Drosophila musaphilia), Oahu (D. aglaia, D.
[[Page 67435]]
hemipeza, D. mongomeryi, D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia), and Hawaii (D. heteroneura). Dry and mesic regions in Hawaii have been altered in the past 200 years by an increase in fire frequency, a condition to which the native flora is not adapted. The invasion of fireadapted alien plants, facilitated by ungulate disturbance, has contributed to wildfire frequency. This change in fire regime has reduced the amount of forest cover for native species (Hughes et al. 1991, p. 743; Blackmore and Vitousek 2000, p. 625) and resulted in an intensification of feral ungulate herbivory in the remaining native forest areas. Habitat damaged or destroyed by fire is more likely to be revegetated by nonnative plants that cannot be used as host plants by these picturewing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 47).
Nonnative Insect Competitors

Tipulid Flies

The Hawaiian Islands now support several established species of nonnative insects which compete with some of the 12 picturewing flies within their larval stage host plants. The most important group of nonnative insect competitors includes tipulid flies (crane flies, family Tipulidae). The larvae of some species within this group feed within the decomposing bark of some of the host plants utilized by picturewing flies, including Charpentiera, Cheirodendron, Clermontia, and Pleomele spp. (Science Panel 2005, p. 11; K. Magnacca, U.S. Geological Survey, in litt. 2005, p. 1; S. Montgomery, in litt. 2005a, p. 1). Therefore, all of the picturewing flies addressed in this rule, except for Drosophila mulli, D. musaphilia, and D. neoclavisetae face larvalstage competition from nonnative tipulid flies. The tipulid larvae feed within the same portion of the decomposing host plant area normally occupied by the picturewing fly larvae. The likely effect of this competition is a reduction in available host plant material for picturewing fly larvae (Science Panel 2005, p. 11). In laboratory studies, Grimaldi and Jaenike (1984, p. 1) demonstrated that competition between Drosophila spp. larvae and other fly larvae can exhaust food resources, which affects both the probability of larval survival and the body size of adults, resulting in reduced adult fitness, fecundity, and lifespan.

Scolytid Beetles

Additionally, the Hawaiian Islands now support several species of nonnative beetles (family Scolytidae, genus Coccotrypes), a few of which bore into and feed on the nuts produced by certain native plant species including Pritchardia beccariana, the host plant of Drosophila mulli. Affected Pritchardia spp., including P. beccariana, drop their fruit before the nuts reach maturity due to the boring action of the scolytid beetles. Little natural regeneration of this host plant species has been observed in the wild since the arrival of this scolytid beetle (K. Magnacca, in litt. 2005, p. 1; Science Panel 2005, p. 11). Compared to the host plants of the other picturewing flies, P. beccariana is long lived (up to 100 years), but over time scolytid beetles may have a significant impact on the availability of habitat for D. mulli.

Nonnative Insect Predators

Nonnative arthropods pose a serious threat to Hawaii's native Drosophila, both through direct predation or parasitism as well as competition for food or space (Howarth and Medeiros 1989, pp. 8283; Howarth and Ramsay 1991, pp. 8083; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 4045 and 47; Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 41, 5457). Due to their large colony sizes and systematic foraging habits, species of social Hymenoptera (ants and some wasps) and parasitic wasps pose the greatest predation threat to the Hawaiian picturewing flies (Carson 1982, p. 1, 1986, p. 7; Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169170; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 4045 and 47).

Ants

Ants are believed to threaten populations of picturewing flies in mesic areas on Oahu (Drosophila aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. mongomeryi, D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia) and Hawaii (D. heteroneura) (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 43; Science Panel 2005, p. 28). At least 44 species of ants are known to be established on the Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk Project (HEAR) database, in litt. 2005, p. 2) and 4 particularly aggressive ant species have severely affected the native insect fauna (Zimmerman 1948, p. 173; HEAR database, in litt. 2005, p. 4). Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod fauna, and native species evolved in the absence of predation pressure from ants. Ants can be particularly destructive predators because of their high densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness, and broad range of diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 1415, 17). The threat to picturewing flies is amplified by the fact that most ant species have winged reproductive adults (Borror 1989, pp. 737738) and can quickly establish new colonies, spreading throughout suitable habitats (Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 5557). These attributes and the lack of native species' defenses to ants allow some ant species to destroy isolated prey populations (Nafus 1993, p. 151). Hawaiian picturewing flies pupate in the ground where they are exposed to predation by ants. Newly emerging adults have been observed with ants attached to their legs (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 43).

Western YellowJacket Wasp

An aggressive race of the western yellowjacket wasp became established in the State of Hawaii in 1978, and this species is now abundant between 1,9693,445 ft (6001,050 m) in elevation (Gambino et al. 1990, p. 1,088). On Maui, yellowjackets have been observed carrying and feeding upon recently captured adult Hawaiian Drosophila (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 41). While there is no documentation that conclusively ties the decrease in picturewing fly observations at historical sites with the establishment of yellowjacket wasps within their habitats, the concurrent arrival of wasps and decline of picture wing fly observations for all 12 picturewing flies on several of the islands (Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii) suggests that the wasps may have played a significant role in the decline of some picturewing fly populations (Carson 1982, p. 1, 1986, p. 7; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 3; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995; Science Panel 2005, p. 28). Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

In this revised proposed rule, we are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands with documented occurrences and that contain the primary constituent elements for these 12 Hawaiian picturewing flies. The primary dataset we used to document observations of these 12 picturewing flies spans the years 19651999 (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 116). Additional data were obtained from individuals familiar with particular species and locations, and other sources of information as described in the above ``Methods'' section. Many sites were surveyed infrequently or have not been surveyed for a substantial period of time, while other sites have relatively complete records from 19661999. It is important to note that the traditional methods used to survey for the 12 species locate only adult flies. The adult flies of all of these species are generalist microbivores; in contrast, the larval stage typically requires a very specific host plant species (in some cases, several species or genera) for successful development. The primary constituent elements of the revised proposed critical [[Page 67436]]
habitat include both the host plants used by the larvae, as well as the native forest components used by foraging adults. We used known adult location data to identify each critical habitat unit, and included the surrounding area encompassing the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species.

While there has been considerable survey work conducted for Hawaiian picturewing flies overall, some areas where these 12 species are found have not been surveyed in many years. We used the results of the best available, recent survey information to develop the revised, initial working draft critical habitat unit maps for each species. In addition, one peer reviewer identified a population of Drosophila ochrobasis that was previously unknown to us in an area containing the features essential to the conservation of this species (K. Magnacca, in litt. 2006). This area has been included in this revised proposal (see Unit 19West Kohala MountainsDrosophila ochrobasis).

We used the best available, recent survey data for adult flies to determine which sites we would identify as occupied and which sites we would identify as unoccupied. Additionally, we did not include in this revised proposal some sites where a given species had been observed according to the most recent survey data if the area had either become degraded (e.g., due to loss or degradation of native vegetation, increase in nonnative vegetation, or documented presence of yellow jacket wasps) and lacked PCEs, or if multiple surveys at a particular site over the course of several years failed to detect a species. However, we did not use the presence of yellowjacket wasps alone to conclusively determine a site as being unoccupied, unless the habitat was also degraded in other respects. Lastly, it is important to point out that because of the time that has elapsed since some surveys were conducted, it is possible that some sites identified as unoccupied (and thus not included in this revised proposed critical habitat) have since been reoccupied by the species. Conversely, we recognize it may be possible that some sites that we have identified as occupied according to the most recent survey data may now be unoccupied. However, we believe that using the most recent survey results, in conjunction with information on existing habitat conditions, reflects the best available information for determining occupancy.

After identifying occupied sites for each of the 12 species on a series of maps, we added a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer of the known elevation range of a species in a given area. This elevation range was based upon the lowest and the highest elevation at which an adult fly of a given species was observed during surveys. After this step, GIS data points showing known locations of many of the flies' host plant species were added to the map series. Most of these plant data points were established during botanical surveys unrelated to the historic studies of the picturewing flies. The larval stages for several of the 12 picturewing flies are known to feed upon host plant species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened, identified as candidate species for listing under the Act, or identified as Federal species of concern. The data points for the listed and candidate host plant species were available to us from the State's Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program (HBMP), and from survey information compiled from field biologists. For areas lacking host plant data points, we consulted HBMP literature regarding other plant species and/or queried Drosophila researchers and field biologists to determine which native host plants were present in those areas.

After generating multilayered GIS maps showing the occupied fly population sites, the known elevation range for each species, and the known host plant locations or habitat types, we prepared preliminary critical habitat unit maps. These preliminary unit maps were then overlaid on a series of satellite imagery and aerial photographs, and examined closely to identify the best quality areas containing contiguous forest and essential features. We then met individually with several Drosophila researchers (see the ``Methods'' section above) to review the different series of maps for each species and to confirm whether the preliminary unit maps included PCEs essential to both life stages (larval and adult) of each fly species. Based on these discussions, we adjusted the preliminary unit map boundaries by adding areas identified by the researchers that contain features essential to the conservation of the species, or by removing areas unlikely to contain these features. The critical habitat unit boundaries shown in the maps included in this revised proposed rule reflect the results of this analysis, after taking into account the presence of known developed areas, as described below.

In summary, we identified proposed critical habitat units that: Contain occupied population sites based on the most recent survey information; are known to contain the PCEs essential to both the larval and adult fly life stage for each species; and contain relatively contiguous native or functional native forest.

Lastly, when determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this revised proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps published with this proposed rule have been excluded by text in this revised proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the primary constituent elements in the adjacent critical habitat.

Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 32 units as critical habitat for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia. In total, approximately 9,238 ac (3,738 ha) fall within the boundaries of this revised proposed critical habitat designation. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian picturewing flies.

The areas we propose as critical habitat are:
(1) Island of Oahu: Drosophila aglaiaUnit 1Palikea; Drosophila aglaiaUnit 2Puu Kaua; Drosophila hemipezaUnit 1Kaluaa Gulch; Drosophila hemipezaUnit 2Makaha Valley; Drosophila hemipezaUnit 3Palikea; Drosophila hemipezaUnit 4Puu Kaua; Drosophila
montgomeryiUnit 1Kaluaa Gulch; Drosophila montgomeryiUnit 2 Palikea; Drosophila montgomeryiUnit 3Puu Kaua; Drosophila obatai Unit 1Puu Pane; Drosophila obataiUnit 2Wailupe; Drosophila substenopteraUnit 1Mt. Kaala; Drosophila substenopteraUnit 2 Palikea;
[[Page 67437]]
Drosophila tarphytrichiaUnit 1Kaluaa Gulch; Drosophila
tarphytrichiaUnit 2Palikea; and Drosophila tarphytrichiaUnit 3 Puu Kaua;
(2) Hawaii (Big Island): Drosophila heteroneuraUnit 1Kau Forest; Drosophila heteroneuraUnit 2Kona Refuge; Drosophila heteroneuraUnit 3Lower Kahuku; Drosophila heteroneuraUnit 4Pit Crater; Drosophila heteroneuraUnit 5Waihaka Gulch; Drosphila mulliUnit 1Olaa Forest; Drosphila mulliUnit 2Stainback Forest; Drosphila mulliUnit 3Waiakea Forest; Drosophila ochrobasisUnit 1Kipuka 9; Drosophila ochrobasisUnit 2Kipuka 14; Drosophila ochrobasisUnit 3Kohala Mountains East; Drosophila ochrobasisUnit 4Kohala Mountains West; and Drosophila ochrobasisUnit 5Upper Kahuku;
(3) Island of Kauai: Drosophila musaphiliaUnit 1Kokee;
(4) Island of Maui: Drosophila neoclavisetaeUnit 1Puu Kukui; (5) Island of Molokai: Drosophila differensUnit 1Puu Kolekole.

The areas identified as containing the features essential to the conservation of each of the 12 Hawaiian picturewing flies for which we are proposing critical habitat include a variety of undeveloped, forested areas that are used for larval stage development and adult fly stage foraging. Proposed critical habitat includes land under Federal, State, City and County, and private ownership. The approximate area and land ownership of each proposed critical habitat unit are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] Land ownership (acres) Size of Size of Proposed critical habitat unit unit in unit in City & acres hectares Federal State Co. of Private Honolulu Oahu Units Drosophila aglaiaUnit 1Palikea........ 208 84 0 4 0 204 Drosophila aglaiaUnit 2Puu Kaua....... 87 35 0 0 0 87 Drosophila hemipezaUnit 1Kaluaa Gulch. 527 213 0 0 0 527 Drosophila hemipezaUnit 2Makaha Valley 111 45 0 40 71 0 Drosophila hemipezaUnit 3Palikea...... (208) (84) 0 (4) 0 (204) Drosophila hemipezaUnit 4Puu Kaua..... (87) (35) 0 0 0 (87) Drosophila montgomeryiUnit 1Kaluaa (527) (213) 0

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 8087929400; facsimile 8087929581. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800 8778339.