3964 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG23

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Endangered

Status for 12 Species of Picture-wing

Flies From the Hawaiian Islands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose

endangered status pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), for 12 species of

Hawaiian picture-wing flies—

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. These species are found

on one or more of the following

Hawaiian Islands: Kaua‘i, O‘ahu,

Moloka‘i, Mau‘i, and Hawai‘i. These 12

species face substantial threats from one

or more of the following: habitat

degradation, loss of host plants,

biological pest control, and predation

from alien arthropods. Due to the

restricted distributions and small

populations, three species (D.

heteroneura, D. mullia, and D.

neoclavisetae) are in danger of

extinction from naturally occurring

random events. This proposal, if made

final, would implement the protection

provisions provided by the Act for these

Hawaiian picture-wings.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by March 19,

2001. Requests for public hearings must

be received by March 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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

to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office,

P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850–

0001.

(2) You may send comments by e-mail

to pwflies_pr@fws.gov (see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file

formats and other information about

electronic filing); or

(3) You may hand-deliver comments

to our Pacific Islands Office at 300 Ala

Moana Blvd., Room 3–122, Honolulu,

HI.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting documentation used

in the preparation of this proposed rule,

will be available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Henson, Field Supervisor, at the above

address (telephone 808/541–3441,

facsimile 808/541–2756).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Many of the major ecological zones of

the earth are represented in Hawai‘i,

from coral reef systems through rain

forests to high alpine deserts, in less

than 10,800 square kilometers (6,500

square miles) of land. The range of

topographies creates a great diversity of

climates. Windward (northeastern)

slopes can receive up to 1,000

centimeters (cm) (400 inches (in.)) of

rain per year, while some leeward coasts

that lie in the rain shadow of the high

volcanoes are classified as deserts,

receiving as little as 25 cm (10 in.) of

rain annually. This topographic and

climatic regime has given rise to a rich

diversity of plant communities,

including coastal, dryland, montane,

subalpine, and alpine; dry, mesic, and

wet; and herblands, grasslands,

shrublands, forests, and mixed

communities (Gagne and Cuddihy

1990). These habitats and plant

communities in turn support one of the

most unique arthropod faunas in the

world, with an estimated 10,000

endemic species (Howarth 1990).

Unusual characters of the arthropod

fauna of Hawai‘i include the presence of

relict species; the absence of social

insects, such as ants and termites;

endemic genera; extremely small

geographic ranges; adaptation of species

to very specific conditions or

environments; novel ecological shifts;

flightlessness; and loss of certain

antipredator behaviors (Zimmerman

1948, 1970, Simon et al. 1984, Howarth

1990).

Perhaps the most remarkable group of

Hawaiian insects, and that which most

typifies insect evolution in Hawai‘i, is

the flies in the family Drosophilidae

(Williamson 1981). To date, 511 species

of Hawaiian Drosophilidae have been

named and described. An additional

250–300 species are already in the

collection at the University of Hawai‘i

and await identification and

description, and new species are still

being discovered from localities not

previously sampled. It is estimated that

as many as 1,000 species may be present

in native Hawaiian ecosystems

(Kaneshiro 1993). The Drosophilidae

family in Hawai‘i represents one of the

most remarkable cases of specific

adaption to local conditions that has

been found in any group of animals over

the entire world (Hardy and Kaneshiro

1981). They are distributed throughout

the high islands of the Hawaiian

archipelago, each species displaying not

only a highly characteristic trait of being

found only on a single island, but also

extraordinary physical diversity and

adaptations that show their intimate

ecological relationship to the native

flora (Carson and Yoon 1982).

Drosophilidae are similar in structure

to other flies in that adults have three

main body parts: a head, thorax, and

abdomen. A pair of antennae arises from

the front of the head, between the eyes.

The single pair of wings and three pairs

of legs are attached to the thorax. The

abdomen is composed of multiple

segments. 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); when fully

grown, the larvae change into pupae (a

resting form) in which they

metamorphose and emerge as adults.

The Hawaiian Drosophilidae have

also developed and adapted ecologically

to a tremendous diversity of ecosystems

ranging from desert-like habitats where

the soil is powdery dry, to rain forests

with lush, tree-fern jungles, and in

swampland perpetually shadowed by

rain clouds and with vegetation

burdened with dripping, moss-laden

branches. While the larval stages of

most species are saprophytic (feeding on

decaying vegetation, such as rotting

leaves, bark, flowers, and fruits), some

have become highly specialized, being

carnivorous on egg masses of spiders, or

feeding on green algae growing

underwater on boulders in streams. As

a group, the Hawaiian Drosophilidae

appear to be widespread and can be

found in most of the natural

communities in Hawai‘i.

Unlike most Hawaiian insects that

remain obscure, typically known only

from their original taxonomic

descriptions, most aspects of Hawaiian

Drosophilidae biology have been

researched, including their internal and

external morphology, behavior, ecology,

physiology, biochemistry, the banding

sequence of giant chromosomes, as well

as detailed analyses of the structure of

the DNA molecules. More than 80

research scientists and over 350

undergraduates, graduate students, and

post-doctoral fellows have participated

in research on the Hawaiian

Drosophilidae, resulting in over 600

scientific publications on the biology of

these flies. The Hawaiian Drosophilidae

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3965

is arguably the most intensively studied

group of all terrestrial Hawaiian

organisms.

Research on Hawaiian Drosophilidae

has resulted in the development and

testing of new theories of evolutionary

biology (Bradley et al. 1991, Carson

1971, 1982a, Kaneshiro 1976, 1980,

1987, 1989). Ideas on the development

of species and island evolution

developed from studies on Hawaiian

Drosophilidae are now referenced in

most modern textbooks of biology and

evolution (e.g., Ridley 1993). These flies

have also been the subject of numerous

television programs produced by the

BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation),

NOVA, National Geographic Society,

and other educational film makers. The

BBC, in conjunction with the Open

University in England, has also

produced several programs focused on

the research of the Hawaiian

Drosophilidae, and these programs are

being used in educational courses about

evolution.

The Hawaiian Drosophila Project at

the University of Hawai‘i has

coordinated and cooperated in most of

the research on the Hawaiian

Drosophilidae. It has also maintained

extensive collection records of these

species. These records form the basis for

much of the data used to develop this

proposed rulemaking. Three decades of

collection work are maintained in

permanent files of the Hawaiian

Drosophila Project within the University

of Hawai‘i’s Center for Conservation

Research and Training. Also, collection

notes of the individual researchers on

the project contain extensive records of

host plant associations of most of these

species. Understanding the host plant

association is important due to the fact

that all of these flies appear to be closely

linked with one or more particular host

plant species. These host plant species

provide necessary habitat requirements

for the flies, including shelter, food, and

areas for courtship. The host plants, and

suitable habitat for the host plants, are

absolutely essential for the flies’

survival and recovery.

Biologists have observed a general

decline of the Hawaiian Drosophilidae

along with other components of the

native ecosystem. As noted by Spieth

(1980), during the early part of the

century, the Tantalus area behind the

city of Honolulu was the major spot for

collecting Drosophila species. By 1963,

the majority of the native Drosophila

species in this area had been

exterminated, apparently due to

intrusion of exotic vegetation and

predation by ants. Quantitative

sampling since 1971 has demonstrated

dramatic declines in the abundance of

some species and in other cases local

extirpations (Foote and Carson 1995). A

review of the data collected by the

Hawai‘i Drosophila Project and

assessment of the threats to remaining

populations suggests that at least 12

species of these flies are presently

threatened with extinction.

All 12 species in this proposed

rulemaking belong to the species group

commonly known as the picture-wings

Drosophila. This group consists of 106

known species, most of which are large

with elaborate markings on otherwise

clear wings of both sexes, the pattern of

which varies among species (Hardy and

Kaneshiro 1981, Carson 1992). The

picture-wing Drosophila have been

referred to as the ‘‘birds of paradise’’ of

the insect world because of the males’

extremely elaborate and spectacular

courtship displays and territorial

defense behavior. Males occupy

territories that serve as mating arenas to

which receptive females are attracted for

mating. The males fight among

themselves for the best territories and

establish a dominance hierarchy like

some birds and mammals. Native

Hawaiians apparently did not

differentiate among the different

species, but referred to flies collectively

as nalo. Recognizing that some or all of

these species may belong in the genus

Idiomyia (Grimaldi 1990), we accept the

most recent taxonomic description of

the Hawaiian taxa as Drosophila

(Nishida 1994) and will refer to the

species in this proposed rule

collectively as ‘‘Hawaiian picturewinged Drosophila,’’ or ‘‘Hawaiian

picture-wings.’’ There has also been no

traditional Hawaiian or European use of

common names for individual species of

Hawaiian picture-wings.

Each species of Hawaiian picturewing in this proposed rulemaking is

found only on a single island, and each

breeds only in a single or a few related

species of plants (see Table 1).

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ISLAND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIES

Species Kaua‘i O‘ahu Moloka‘i Mau‘i Hawai‘i Primary host plants

Drosophila aglaia .................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Urera glabra (o ̄puhe)

Drosophila

differens.

.................... current ......... .................... .................... Clermontia

spp. (‘o ̄ha ̄

wai).

Drosophila

hemipeza.

.................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Urera spp. (o ̄puhe) and Lobelia

spp. (o ̄ha ̄)

Drosophila

heteroneura.

.................... .................... .................... .................... current ............ Clermontia spp., Delissea spp.,

and Cheirodendron spp. (o ̄lapa)

Drosophila

montgomeryi.

.................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Urera Ka‘ala e (o ̄puhe)

Drosophila mulli .. .................... .................... .................... .................... current ............ Pritchardia beccariana (loulu)

Drosophila

musaphilia.

current ............ .................... .................... .................... .................... Acacia koa (koa)

Drosophila

neoclavisetae.

.................... .................... .................... current ............ .................... Cyanea spp. (ha ̄ha ̄)

Drosophila obatai .................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Pleomele forbesii (hala pepe)

Drosophila

ochrobasis.

.................... .................... .................... .................... current ............ Myrsine spp. (ko ̄lea), Marattia spp.

and Clermontia spp.

Drosophila

substenoptera.

.................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Cheirodendron spp. and

Tetraplasandra spp. (‘ohe

mauka)

Drosophila

tarphytrichia.

.................... current ............ .................... .................... .................... Charpentiera spp. (pa ̄pala)

current = population observed within the past 20 years.

3966 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Discussion of the 12 Species Proposed

for Listing

Drosophila aglaia

Drosophila aglaia was first collected

in 1946 on Mount Ka‘ala on the island

of O‘ahu, and described by Elmo Hardy

in 1965 (Hardy 1965). Drosophila aglaia

is a small species, 4.0 mm (0.15 in.) in

length, with wings 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) long.

It has a yellow head that is

approximately one-third wider than

long. The eyes are brown, and the

antennae are yellow, tinged with brown.

The thorax is clear yellow with three

broad brown stripes on the top, and the

legs are yellow. The abdomen is brown

with a large yellow spot on each of the

hind corners. The wings are

predominantly clear with irregular but

characteristic brown markings, and are

about two and three-quarter times

longer than wide.

Drosophila aglaia is known only from

six localities in the Wai‘anae Mountains

of O‘ahu. It has been recorded on land

owned by the State of Hawai‘i

Department of Land and Natural

Resources (DLNR) at Makaleha Valley,

Peacock Flats Trail, and Pu‘u Kaua.

Additionally, this species is known

from private land holdings at Palikea

Ridge, Pu‘u Kaua, and Kalua‘a gulch,

and is also found on Federal land

owned by the United States Army at

Pu‘u Pane. The occurrence of D. aglaia

is restricted to the patchy distribution of

its host plant, Urera glabra), a small

endemic tree. The larvae of D. aglaia

develop in the bark and stem of U.

glabra. This tree does not form large

stands, but is scattered throughout

slopes and valley bottoms in mesic and

wet forest habitat on all the main

islands. In the Wai‘anae Mountains on

O‘ahu, this tree occurs infrequently in

mesic forest. Because D. aglaia is reliant

on an infrequently occurring host plant,

it is difficult to estimate the size of the

land area on which this species occurs.

Each site is probably less than several

acres. The major threats to D. aglaia are

predation by ants and habitat

degradation from feral ungulates, alien

plants, and fire.

Drosophila differens

Drosophila differens was described by

Elmo Hardy and Kenneth Kaneshiro

(1975) from specimens collected at

South Hanalilolilo, Moloka‘i, in 1972.

Previous to the description, D. differens

was referred to as ‘‘Idiomyia planitibia

from Moloka‘i.’’ This species is large,

approximately 7.0 mm (0.3 in.) in

length, with wings 8.3 mm (0.33 in.)

long. Drosophila differens looks very

similar to D. planitibia of Mau‘i, but can

be differentiated from D. planitibia by

its entirely or predominantly yellow

face. There is also a difference in the

markings found on the leading edge of

the wings. In D. planitibia males, the

marking extends about two-thirds the

distance to the tip of the wings, while

in D. differens males, it extends nearly

to the marking at the tip of the wing.

Hybridization experiments have

demonstrated that D. planitibia from

Mau‘i and D. differens from Moloka‘i

represent distinct species as they are

incapable of inter-breeding (Kaneshiro

and Kaneshiro 1995). Crosses have been

done in both directions and have

resulted in fertile females, but sterile

males. Other than differences in color,

no morphological characters separate

these species, and they are, therefore,

considered to be sibling species.

Drosophila differens is restricted to

the island of Moloka‘i where it is known

from three populations on private land:

Kaunu O Hua, Pu‘u Kolekole, and south

Hanalilolilo where it was last observed

on July 22, 1986. Montgomery (1975)

found D. differens to breed in the bark,

stems, and leaves of Clermontia spp. in

wet rainforest habitat. This species is

endangered by habitat degradation from

feral ungulates and alien weeds, and

predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila hemipeza

Elmo Hardy (1965) described

Drosophila hemipeza from specimens

collected at Pu ̄pu ̄ kea, O‘ahu, in 1952.

Drosophila hemipeza is most closely

related to D. planitibia and D. differens.

The key differences among these species

is in the color of the face, which in D.

hemipeza is pale yellow and densely

covered with white fuzz. The thorax of

D. hemipeza is predominantly yellow

with two brown stripes on the top, and

the legs are entirely yellow. This species

is 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) long; the front legs

are very slender with short straight

bristles; and the wings are 6.0 mm (0.2

in.) in length, slender, and somewhat

pointed.

Drosophila hemipeza is restricted to

the island of O‘ahu where it is known

from six localities. In the Wai‘anae

Mountains, it is known from privately

owned land at Palikea Ridge, Kalua‘a

Gulch, and Mauna Kapu. The species is

also known from State of Hawai‘i DLNR

land in Makaleha and Wai‘anae Valleys

as well as from City and County of

Honolulu holdings in Wai‘anae Valley.

The only occurrence of this species in

the Ko‘olau Range is from City and

County of Honolulu property at Pauoa

Flats on Mt. Tantalus.

Montgomery (1975) determined that

Drosophila hemipeza utilizes several

different mesic forest plants as larval

breeding substrates. It breeds in the bark

of Urera kaalae, a Federal endangered

species (56 FR 55770), in the stems of

Lobelia spp., and in the bark and stems

of Cyanea spp., in mesic forest habitat.

This Hawaiian picture-wing is

endangered by habitat degradation from

feral ungulates, alien weeds, and fire,

and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila heteroneura

R.C.L. Perkins described Idiomyia

heteroneura, based on specimens from

‘O ̄ la‘a on Hawai‘i island (Perkins 1910).

This taxon was later transferred to the

genus Drosophila (Hardy 1969), forming

its presently accepted name, D.

heteroneura. Drosophila heteroneura

has very large spots on the bases of the

wings. However, the most characteristic

feature of this species is the broad head

of the male with the eyes situated

laterally, thus giving it a hammer-head

appearance. The hammer-head and

entirely yellow face differentiate it from

the closely related species, D. silvestris.

The thorax is predominantly yellow

with several black streaks and markings

on top. The legs are yellow except for

slight tinges of brown on the ends of the

middle and hind femora and tibiae. The

wings are hyaline (transparent) and are

very similar in markings and venation to

those of D. silvestris, except that the

marking in the front margin of the wing

of D. heteroneura extends nearly to the

marking at the end of the wing. The

abdomen is shining black with a large

yellow spot on the top of each segment.

This species is about 5.7 mm (0.22 in.)

in length with wings approximately 7.0

mm (0.3 in.) long.

Drosophila heteroneura is restricted

to the island of Hawai‘i where it was

historically known from 16 localities, on

4 of the island’s 5 volcanoes (Huala ̄lai,

Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Kı ̄lauea).

This species has never been found on

the Kohala Mountains. The species was

believed to be extinct in the late 1980s,

until it was rediscovered on private

acreage at Huala ̄lai Volcano in 1993.

The remaining population is extremely

small, with a 90 percent reduction from

historical abundance (Kaneshiro and

Kaneshiro 1995).

Drosophila heteroneura breeds

primarily in the bark and stems of

Clermontia spp. and Delissea spp., but

it is also known to utilize

Cheirodendron spp. in open rain forest

habitat. This Hawaiian picture-wing is

endangered by habitat degradation from

ungulates and alien weeds, predation by

ants and alien wasps, and an extremely

small remaining population.

Drosophila montgomeryi

Named after Dr. Steven L.

Montgomery in honor of his work on

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3967

Hawaiian picture-wings, Drosophila

montgomeryi was described by Elmo

Hardy and Kenneth Kaneshiro (1971)

from specimens collected in the

Wai‘anae Mountains of O‘ahu in 1970.

This species morphologically appears to

be most closely related to D. pisonia

from the island of Hawai‘i. It can be

distinguished by the narrow, pale brown

stripe on each side of the top of the

thorax, the long hairs on the front legs,

and the second antennal segment,

which is yellow, tinged with brown on

the top.

Drosophila montgomeryi is restricted

to the Wai‘anae Mountains on the island

of O‘ahu, where it is known from

private holdings at Pu‘u Kaua and

Kalua‘a Gulch, and State of Hawai‘i

DLNR property at Pu‘u Kaua and

Alaiheihe Gulch. Montgomery (1975)

reported that the larvae of this species

feed in the decaying bark of Urera

kaalae, which grows on slopes and in

gulches of diverse mesic forest. This

Hawaiian picture-wing is endangered by

habitat degradation from feral ungulates,

alien weeds, and fire, and predation by

ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila mulli

Drosophila mulli was described by

William Perreira and Kenneth

Kaneshiro (1990) and named for the

eminent Hawaiian naturalist, William P.

Mull, who first discovered this species.

The head of D. mulli is yellow on the

front, covered with a light, silvery grey

fuzz. The face of the male is

characteristically white, while that of

the female is brown. The top of the

thorax is brownish yellow and lacks

conspicuous markings or stripes. The

legs are predominantly yellow, and the

front legs of males bear three distinct

rows of long, curled hairs. The wings

are two and one-half times longer than

wide with distinct brown markings at

the base and the tip. The length of the

body is 4.3–5.0 mm (0.17–0.2 in.), and

the wings are 4.3–4.8 mm (0.17–0.19 in.)

long.

Drosophila mulli is restricted to the

island of Hawai‘i and is known only

from the State of Hawai‘i DLNR-owned

‘O ̄ la‘a Forest Reserve at an elevation of

985 meters (m) (3,200 feet (ft)). Adults

are found only on the undersides of

leaves of Pritchardia beccariana, an

endemic fan palm, but the larval feeding

site is still unknown. Attempts to rear

this species from decaying parts of P.

beccariana have been unsuccessful

(W.P. Mull, Volcano, Hawai‘i, pers.

comm., 1995). However, because of the

extremely localized population within a

relatively small patch of P. beccariana,

that a strong association between D.

mulli and this plant is likely. This

Hawaiian picture-wing is endangered by

habitat degradation from feral pigs and

alien weeds, limited numbers, and

predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila musaphilia

Elmo Hardy (1965) formally described

Drosophila musaphilia from specimens

at Ko ̄ke‘e, Kaua‘i, in 1952. Although

Hardy (1965) indicated that D.

musaphilia is very similar to D.

villosipedis, based on both

chromosomal data, as well as

comparison of the male genitalia, D.

musaphilia is clearly most closely

related to D. hawaiiensis (Kaneshiro et

al. 1995).

Drosophila musaphilia is

characterized by a predominantly black

thorax with gray fuzz and a very narrow

gray stripe extending down the top. The

legs are dark brown to yellow, with the

front tibia devoid of ornamentation, and

the tips of the legs have abundant long

black hairs on top. The wings are three

times longer than wide with

characteristic markings of the D.

hawaiiensis group. The abdomen is dark

brown to black and densely covered

with brown fuzz. The body length is

about 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) and the wings

5.25 mm (0.207 in.) long.

Drosophila musaphilia is restricted to

the island of Kaua‘i where it is known

from State of Hawai‘i DLNR-owned land

at Alexander Reservoir, Ko ̄ke‘e State

Park, and Halemanu. This species is

extremely rare and has been observed

only five times in the last 25 years.

Montgomery (1975) determined that the

host plant for D. musaphilia is Acacia

koa. The females lay their eggs, and the

larvae develop in the sap seeping from

injured trees. This Hawaiian picturewing is endangered by habitat

degradation from feral ungulates, alien

weeds, hurricanes, and fire, and

predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila neoclavisetae

Drosophila neoclavistae was

described by William Perreira and

Kenneth Kaneshiro (1990) from

specimens collected at Pu‘u Kukui,

West Mau‘i, in 1969. The species

appears to be restricted to a ridge top at

an elevation of 1,371 m (4,500 ft)

(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). It was

named for its obvious affinities with D.

clavistae from East Mau‘i. Both species

are similar in wing and thoracic

markings as well as sharing one of the

most bizarre courtship dances in the

family. The male bends its abdomen up

over its head, produces a bubble of

liquid from its anal gland believed to be

a sex pheromone, and then vibrates the

abdomen, fanning the scent toward the

female. Both D. neoclavistae and D.

clavistae are members of the D.

adiastola species group (Perreira and

Kaneshiro 1990), and, while other

species in this group perform similar

mating behaviors, they are highly

exaggerated in D. clavistae and D.

neoclavistae.

Drosophila neoclavistae is between

6.0–6.4 mm (0.2–0.25 in.) in length,

with wings 6.5–7.0 mm (0.26–0.3 in.)

long. It is distinguished by its amber

brown head and yellow face, with the

middle portion raised to form a

prominent ridge. The thorax is

predominantly reddish brown with a

distinct brown median stripe, bordered

on each side by two brown stripes. The

legs are yellow, with brown on the

femora and a distinct brown band on the

tips of the tibiae. The wings are broad

and rounded, more than twice as long

as wide, and with the front portion

covered with brown markings and large

clear spots tinged light yellow. It shares

with D. clavistae an extra crossvein in

the wing, which sets both these species

apart from the other species of the D.

adiastola species group. The abdomen is

dark brown and black with numerous

long hairs on the hind segments of the

male.

Drosophila neoclavistae is restricted

to the island of Mau‘i where it is known

only from State of Hawai‘i DLNR

property at Pu‘u Kukui. The host plant

of this species has not yet been

confirmed, although it is believed to be

associated with Cyanea sp.. All

collections of this species have come

from within a small patch of Cyanea

spp., and many other species in the D.

adiastola species group utilize these and

other plants in the family

Campanulaceae. This Hawaiian picturewing is endangered by habitat

degradation from feral ungulates and

alien weeds, limited numbers, and

predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila obatai

Drosophila obatai was described by

Elmo Hardy and Kenneth Kaneshiro in

1972, from specimens collected in the

Wai‘anae Mountains of O‘ahu. This

species was named for Mr. John Obata,

who has made significant contributions

to the study of Hawaiian Drosophila

because of his knowledge of the native

plants and habitats where these insects

are found. Drosophila obatai resembles

D. sodomae from Mau‘i and Moloka‘i,

and is distinguished by small

differences in wing markings and the

black coloration of the abdomen.

Drosophila obatai is restricted to the

island of O‘ahu where it is known from

State of Hawai‘i DLNR-owned land at

Makaleha Valley in the Mokul’‘ia Forest

Reserve in the Wai‘anae Mountains, and

3968 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Wailupe Gulch located in the Honolulu

Watershed Forest Reserve in the

southern Ko‘olau Mountains. This

species is also known from Federal land

owned by the Army at Pu‘u Pane, and

from City and County of Honolulu and

private holdings at Wai‘alae Nui.

Drosophila obatai use Pleomele forbesii

as a host plant (Montgomery 1975). This

host plant, growing on slopes in dry

forest and diverse mesic forest, occurs

singly or in small clusters and does not

form large stands of many individuals

(Wagner et al. 1990). Threats to this

Hawaiian picture-wing include habitat

degradation from feral ungulates, alien

weeds, and fire, and predation by ants

and alien wasps.

Drosophila ochrobasisn

Drosophila ochrobasis was originally

described by Elmo Hardy and Kenneth

Kaneshiro (1968) based on a specimen

collected from Pu‘u Huala ̄lai at an

elevation of 1,692 m (5,550 ft). Based on

chromosomal studies, D. ochrobasis

appears to be most closely related to

D.setosimentum (Kaneshiro et al. 1995).

Both the body and wings are

approximately 4.6 mm (0.18 in.) in

length. The head is yellow in front and

brown on top, and the face is white with

a prominent ridge running down the

middle. The thorax is yellow except for

a large brown spot on each side. The

legs are yellow tinged with brown. In

males, the basal three-fifths of the wing

is predominantly clear to translucent

with faint transverse streaks of brown.

The outer two-thirds of the wing is dark

brown with large clear spots similar to

that portion of the wings in Drosophila

setosimentum. The females of D.

ochrobasis are virtually

indistinguishable from those of

D.setosimentum females.

Drosophila ochrobasis is restricted to

the island of Hawai‘i and has been

found on State of Hawai‘i DLNR

property at Kı ̄puka and Alakahi Stream.

It has also been observed at Kı ̄puka

Pa ̄hipa and Huala ̄lai, both of which are

privately owned. Drosophila ochrobasis

was collected almost every year from

1967 to 1975, sometimes in large

numbers, but has now virtually

disappeared (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro

1995). It was last observed at Kı ̄puka on

February 14, 1986. This species has

been reported to utilize several host

plants, including Myrsine spp.,

Clermontia spp., and Marattia spp.

(Montgomery 1975). Threats to this

Hawaiian picture-wing include habitat

degradation from ungulates and alien

weeds, and predation by ants and alien

wasps.

Drosophila substenoptera

Elmo Hardy described Idiomyia

substenoptera in 1965. He then later

determined the genus Idiomyia to be

synonymous with Drosophila (Hardy

1969), thus creating the current name of

Drosophila substenoptera. This species

is closely related to D. planitibia and

other closely related flies (Kaneshiro et

al. 1995) but is quite distinctive from all

the other species in this group because

of characteristic markings on the wings,

the narrow wing shape, and the

complex structures of the male genitalia.

Drosophila substenoptera is

predominantly yellow with two black

stripes extending down the entire length

of the top surface of the thorax. The legs

are yellow and lack long hairs on the

dorsal surfaces. Body length is 4.35 mm

(0.171 in.), and the wings are 5.0–5.3

mm (0.2–0.21 in.) long.

Drosophila substenoptera is restricted

to the island of O‘ahu where it is known

from the following private holdings:

Wiliwili Nui Ridge, Castle Trail, Ha ̄lawa

Ridge Trail, and Palikea Ridge.

Drosophila substenoptera is also found

on State of Hawai‘i DLNR property at

Mt. Ka‘ala and the DuPont trail as well

as on City and County of Honolulu

owned acreage at Ka‘au Crater. This

species has never been abundant at any

of these locations, but now appears to be

extant only on the summit of Mt. Ka‘ala

, despite intensive efforts to relocate it

at other sites. Montgomery (1975)

determined that this Hawaiian picturewing breeds in the bark of

Cheirodendron spp. and Tetraplasandra

spp. trees in wet forest habitat. Threats

to this species include habitat

degradation from feral ungulates and

alien weeds, and predation by ants and

alien wasps.

Drosophila tarphytrichia

Drosophila tarphytrichia was

described by Elmo Hardy (1965) from

specimens collected from Ma ̄noa Falls

on O‘ahu, in 1949. This species is

closely related to D. vesciseta based on

the structure of the male genitalia

(Kaneshiro et al. 1995), but can be

differentiated by distinct wing markings

and the ornamentation of the front legs

of the male. The thorax is almost

entirely yellow to red with a tinge of

brown on the top. The legs are yellow,

with the tip of the front leg strongly

flattened laterally and with a dense

clump of black hairs. This species is

3.70 mm (0.148 in.) long with wings 4.0

mm (0.2 in.) long.

Drosophila tarphytrichia is restricted

to the island of O‘ahu where it was

historically known from both the

Ko‘olau and Wai‘anae mountain ranges.

It is now apparently extinct in the

Ko‘olau range and presently known

from four localities in the Wai‘anae

Mountains. Three populations are found

on privately owned lands at Mauna

Kapu, Palikea ridge, and Kalua‘a Gulch.

The fourth is known from private and

State of Hawai‘i DLNR land at Pu‘u

Kaua. This species breeds on the stems

and branches of Charpentiera spp. trees

in mesic forest habitat (Montgomery

1975). Threats to this species include

habitat degradation from feral ungulates

and alien weeds, and predation by ants

and alien wasps.

Previous Federal Action

Ten of these proposed species were

classified as candidates for listing in the

February 28, 1996, Notice of Review of

Plant and Animal Taxa That Are

Candidates for Listing as Endangered or

Threatened Species (Notice of Review)

(61 FR 7596). The remaining two

species, Drosophila differens and D.

ochrobasis, were classified as

candidates for listing in the Notice of

Review dated September 19, 1997 (62

FR 49398). Candidates are those taxa for

which the Service has on file substantial

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support preparation of

listing proposals.

The processing of this proposed rule

conforms with our Listing Priority

Guidance published in the Federal

Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR

57114). The guidance clarifies the order

in which we will process rulemakings.

Highest priority is processing

emergency listing rules for any species

determined to face a significant and

imminent risk to its well-being (Priority

1). Second priority (Priority 2) is

processing final determinations on

proposed additions to the lists of

endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants. Third priority (Priority 3) is

processing new proposals to add species

to the lists. The processing of

administrative petition findings

(petitions filed under section 4 of the

Act) is the fourth priority (Priority 4).

The processing of this proposed rule is

a Priority 3 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting These

Species

The procedures for adding species to

the Federal Lists are found in section 4

of the Endangered Species Act (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the

accompanying regulations (50 CFR part

424). A species may be determined to be

an endangered or threatened species

due to one or more of the five factors

described in section 4(a)(1). Threats to

these 12 species are summarized in

Table 2.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3969

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THREATS TO 12 HAWAIIAN PICTURE-WING FLIES

Species

Threats

Major alien

plants

Feral animal activity

Fire Alien

insects

Limited

numbers* Pigs Goats Deer Cattle

Drosophila aglaia .................... 1,2,3,6 ............... X X .................. .................. X X ..................

Drosophila differens ................ 2 ........................ X X X .................. .................. X ..................

Drosophila hemipeza .............. 1,2,3,5,6 ............ X X .................. .................. .................. X ..................

Drosophila heteroneura .......... 2,4,8,9 ............... X .................. .................. X .................. X X

Drosophila montgomeryi ......... 1,2,3,6 ............... .................. X .................. .................. X X ..................

Drosophila mulli ...................... 2,8,9 .................. X .................. .................. .................. .................. X X

Drosophila musaphilia ............ 2,3,6,7,8 ............ X X X .................. X X ..................

Drosophila neoclavisetae ........ 2,8 ..................... X .................. .................. .................. .................. X X

Drosophila obatai .................... 1,2,3,5,6 ............ X X .................. .................. X X ..................

Drosophila ochrobasis ............ 2,4,8,9 ............... X .................. .................. X .................. X ..................

Drosophila substenoptera ....... 2,5,6 .................. X .................. .................. .................. .................. X ..................

Drosophila tarphytrichia .......... 1,2,3,5,6 ............ X X .................. .................. .................. X ..................

1 -Schinus terebinthifolius 2 -Psidium cattleianum 3 -Melinus minutiflora 4 -Pennisetum setaceum 5 -Clidemia hirta 6 -Lantana

camara 7 -Rubus argutus 8 -Passiflora mollissima 9 Rubus ellipticus

* Fewer than three populations

The five factors and their application

to 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 as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

Native vegetation on all the main

Hawaiian islands has undergone

extreme alteration because of past and

present land management practices,

including ranching, deliberate

introduction of alien plants and

animals, and agricultural development

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Some of the

primary threats facing the 12 Hawaiian

picture-wing species proposed for

listing are ongoing and threatened

destruction and adverse alteration of

habitat by feral animals and alien

plants.

All 12 of the proposed species are

endangered by feral animals to various

degrees. The early human inhabitants of

the Hawaiian Islands introduced

Polynesian pigs (Sus spp.), and more

recently European settlers introduced

more ungulate species, such as goats

(Capra hircus), axis deer (Axis axis),

black-tailed deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), cattle (Bos taurus), and other

domesticated pigs (S. scrofa), for food,

commercial ranching activities, and

hunting. Over the 200 years following

the introduction of these animals, their

numbers increased, and the adverse

impacts of these feral ungulates on

native vegetation have become

increasingly apparent. Beyond the direct

effect of trampling and grazing native

plants, these feral ungulates have

contributed significantly to the heavy

erosion taking place on most of the main

Hawaiian islands.

Pigs that were introduced to the

Hawaiian Islands have escaped

domestication and successfully

established feral populations in wet and

mesic forests and grasslands of Kaua‘i,

O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, Mau‘i, and Hawai‘i.

Their presence on these islands

threatens the existence of at least 11 of

the proposed Hawaiian picture-wing

species (see Table 2). Foote and Carson

(1995) experimentally demonstrated the

detrimental impact of feral pigs on

Hawaiian picture-wings by showing that

areas that had been fenced to exclude

pigs supported higher numbers of flies

and the plants they require for habitat.

Conversely, areas of the same habitat

that were not fenced were altered by

pig-foraging activities resulting in the

direct destruction of host plants.

Furthermore, the foraging activities

modified the habitat by making it more

suitable for invasive plants that could

crowd out host plants. While foraging,

pigs root and trample the forest floor,

encouraging the establishment of alien

plants in the newly disturbed soil. Pigs

also disperse alien plant seeds through

their feces and on their bodies,

accelerating the spread of alien plants

through native forest (Cuddihy and

Stone 1990, Stone 1985).

Goats native to the Middle East and

India were first successfully introduced

to the Hawaiian Islands in 1792. Feral

goats now occupy a wide variety of

habitats from lowland dry forests to

montane grasslands on Kaua‘i, O‘ahu,

Moloka‘i, Mau‘i, and Hawai‘i, where

they consume native vegetation, trample

roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion,

and promote the invasion of alien plants

(Stone 1985, van Riper and van Riper

1982). Goats are significantly degrading

the habitat of at least seven species

proposed in this rule (see Table 2). On

Kaua‘i, goats contribute to the

substantial decline of Drosophila

musaphilia. On O’ahu, encroaching

urbanization and hunting pressure tend

to concentrate the goat population in the

dry upper slopes of the Wai‘anae

Mountains, where populations of D.

aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, D.

obatai, and D. tarphytrichia exist

(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). The

goat population in the Wai‘anae area is

apparently increasing, becoming an

even greater threat to the native habitat

there. On Moloka‘i, at least one

population of D. differens at Pu‘u

Kolekole is presently endangered by

goats.

Eight axis deer were introduced to the

island of Moloka‘i in 1868. By the turn

of the century, their numbers had

increased to thousands of animals

(Tomich 1986). The herds had so

damaged the vegetation on Moloka‘i that

professional hunters were hired to

control their numbers (Tomich 1986).

However, by then, the native vegetation

had suffered irreparable damage from

overgrazing by axis deer. These deer

continue to degrade the habitat by

trampling and overgrazing vegetation,

which removes ground cover and

exposes the soil to erosion. Activity of

deer on Moloka‘i has resulted in loss of

habitat for Drosophila differens. The

axis deer population is not presently

managed by the State of Hawai‘i DLNR

or any other agency.

Black-tailed deer were first

introduced to Kaua‘i in 1961 for the

purpose of sport hunting, and today

probably number well over 500 animals.

The deer are presently confined to the

western side of the island, where they

feed on a variety of native and alien

3970 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

plants (van Riper and van Riper 1982).

The presence of these deer on Kaua‘i is

endangering some Drosophila

musaphilia habitat.

Large-scale ranching of cattle in the

Hawaiian Islands began in the middle of

the 19th century on the islands of

Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Mau‘i, and Hawai‘i. Large

ranches, tens of thousands of acres in

size, developed on East Mau‘i and

Hawai‘i (Cuddihy and Stone 1990)

where most of the State’s large ranches

still exist today. Degradation of native

forests used for ranching activities

became evident soon after full-scale

ranching began. The negative impact of

cattle on Hawai‘i’s ecosystem is similar

to that described for goats and deer

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, Stone 1985).

Cattle grazing continues in several

lowland regions in the northern portion

of the Wai‘anae Mountains of O‘ahu. On

Mau‘i, cattle ranching is the primary

agricultural activity in many areas and

presently threatens populations of

Drosophila heteroneura and D.

ochrobasis.

Most of the plants that serve as

breeding sites for these proposed

Hawaiian picture-wings occur as

understory vegetation beneath the

canopy of the Metrosideros polymorpha

(‘ohi‘a) and Acacia koa, and are affected

by competition with alien weeds. All of

the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing species

being proposed for listing are

endangered by loss of host plants due to

competition with one or more alien

plant species. The most significant of

these alien plants appear to be Schinus

terebinthifolius (Christmasberry),

Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava),

Melinus minutiflora (molasses grass),

Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass),

Clidemia hirta (Koster’s curse), Lantana

camara (lantana), Passiflora mollissima

(banana poka), Rubus argutus (prickly

Florida blackberry), and R. ellipticus

(Himalayan raspberry).

Many noxious alien plants, such as

Schinus terebinthifolius, have invaded

the dry to mesic lowland regions of the

Hawaiian Islands. Introduced to Hawai‘i

before 1911, S. terebinthifolius forms

dense thickets that shade out and

displace other plants (Cuddihy and

Stone 1990). This fast-growing tree or

shrub is found in lowland areas of the

major Hawaiian Islands and is currently

expanding its range (Smith 1985).

Schinus terebinthifolius is now a major

component of the mesic forests of the

Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau mountains of

O‘ahu and currently threatens the

habitat of Drosophila aglaia, D.

hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, D. obatai,

and D. tarphytrichia.

Psidium cattleianum, an invasive

shrub or small tree native to tropical

America, has become naturalized on all

of the main Hawaiian islands. Like

Schinus terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum

is capable of forming dense stands that

exclude other plant species (Cuddihy

and Stone 1990). This alien plant grows

primarily in mesic and wet habitats and

provides food for several alien animal

species, including feral pigs and game

birds, which disperse the plant’s seeds

through the forest (Smith 1985, Wagner

et al. 1985). Psidium cattleianum is

considered one of the greatest alien

plant threats to Hawai‘i’s rainforests.

Psidium cattleianum is a major invader

of forests in the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau

Mountains of O‘ahu, where it often

forms single-species stands. It poses a

threat to all proposed species of

Hawaiian picture-wings on O‘ahu.

Psidium cattleianum also threatens D.

musaphilia on Kaua‘i, D. differens on

Moloka‘i, D. neoclavisetae on Mau‘i,

and D. heteroneura, D. mulli, and D.

ochrobasis on the island of Hawai‘i.

First introduced to the Hawaiian

Islands as cattle fodder, Melinus

minutiflora (molasses grass) was later

planted for erosion control (Cuddihy

and Stone 1990). This alien grass

quickly spread to dry and mesic forests

previously disturbed by ungulates.

Melinus minutiflora produces a dense

mat capable of smothering plants (Smith

1985), essentially preventing seedling

growth and native plant reproduction

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Because it

burns readily and often grows at the

border of forests, this grass tends to

carry fire into areas with woody native

plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, Smith

1985). It is able to spread prolifically

after a fire and effectively compete with

less fire-adapted native plant species,

ultimately creating a stand of alien grass

where forest once stood. Melinus

minutiflora is becoming a major threat

to six of the proposed species on four

islands. On Kaua‘i it threatens the

habitat of Drosophila musaphilia. In the

Wai‘anae Mountains of O‘ahu, M.

minutiflora threatens the habitat of D.

aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, D.

obatai, and D. tarphytrichia.

Pennisetum setaceum has greatly

increased fire risk in some regions,

especially on the dry slopes of Hual’lai,

K’lauea, and Mauna Loa volcanoes on

the island of Hawai‘i. The effects of P.

setaceum invasion are similar to those

discussed above for Melinus

minutiflora. Pennisetum setaceum

threatens the native vegetation on the

leeward slopes of Hual’lai in a region

where Drosophila heteroneura and D.

ochrobasis occur.

Clidemia hirta, a noxious shrub native

to tropical America, was first reported

on O‘ahu in 1941. It had spread through

much of the Ko‘olau Mountains by the

early 1960s, and spread to the Wai‘anae

Mountains by 1970 (Cuddihy and Stone

1990). It poses a serious threat to

Drosophila hemipeza, D. obatai, D.

substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia by

displacing native plants used by these

Hawaiian picture-wings as breeding

sites.

Lantana camara, a native of the West

Indies, became naturalized in dry to

mesic forests and shrublands of the

Hawaiian Islands before 1871 (Cuddihy

and Stone 1990). This shrub often forms

thick cover and produces chemicals that

inhibit the growth of other plant species

(Smith 1985). On Kaua‘i, L. camara is a

major component of the vegetation

around the east and west rims of

Waimea Canyon and the western ridges,

and threatens the habitat of Drosophila

musaphilia. It poses a threat to all

proposed species of Hawaiian picturewings on O‘ahu.

Rubus argutus was introduced to the

Hawaiian Islands in the late 1800s

(Haselwood and Motter 1976). The fruit

and seeds of this plant are easily spread

by birds to open areas where this plant

can form dense, impenetrable thickets

(Smith 1985). On Kaua‘i, the habitat of

Drosophila musaphilia is endangered by

this noxious weed.

Passiflora mollissima, a vine in the

passionflower family, was introduced to

the islands in the 1920s, probably as an

ornamental. This vine is extremely

detrimental to certain wet forest habitats

of Kaua‘i, Mau‘i, and Hawai‘i. Heavy

growth of this vine can cause damage or

death to the native trees by overloading

branches, causing breakage, or by

forming a dense canopy cover,

intercepting sunlight and shading out

native plants below. This weed

threatens Drosophila musaphilia on

Kaua‘i, D. neoclavisetae on Mau‘i, and

D. heteroneura, D. mulli, and D.

ochrobasis on the island of Hawai‘i.

A recent introduction to the Hawaiian

Islands, Rubus ellipticus is rapidly

becoming a major weed pest in wet

forests, pastures, and other open areas

on the island of Hawai‘i. It forms large

thorny thickets and displaces native

plants. Its ability to invade the

understory of wet forests enables it to

fill a niche presently unoccupied by any

other major wet forest weed in Hawai‘i.

This has resulted in an extremely rapid

population expansion of this alien plant

in recent years. Rubus ellipticus

threatens the habitat of Drosophila

heteroneura, D. mulli, and D.

ochrobasis.

Fire threatens species of Hawaiian

picture-wings living in dry to mesic

grassland, shrubland, and forests on two

islands. On Kaua‘i, fire is a significant

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3971

threat to Drosophila musaphilia.

Hurricane Iniki, in 1992, resulted in an

enormous fuel load of downed woody

debris and significantly raised the

potential for serious fires on the western

slopes of Kaua‘i (Hawai‘i DLNRDepartment of Forestry and Wildlife

1993) . On O‘ahu, fire is a potential

threat to D. montgomeryi, D. aglaia, and

D. obatai in the Wai‘anae Mountains.

The effects of fires on native Hawaiian

vegetation are largely deleterious,

tipping the competitive balance toward

alien species. Unlike native plant

species, many alien plant species

recover quickly and increase in cover

following fires (Cudihy and Stone 1990).

Hawaiian picture-wing habitat that is

damaged or destroyed by fire is likely to

be invaded and revegetated by alien

plants that cannot be used as host plants

by picture-wings.

Two Hawaiian picture wings,

Drosophila obatai and D. aglaia, occur

on Federal property at Pu‘u Pane, a part

of the United States Army’s Schofield

Barracks Military Reservation. The

gently sloping lands below Pu‘u Pane

are used as a live firing range, and

ordnance-induced fires are a common

occurrence. Although firebreak roads

have been constructed around the

perimeter of the firing range,

uncontrollable fire still remains a threat

to these species and their habitat.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not a threat to any

of the proposed Hawaiian picturewings. While these and other species are

valuable and popular as scientific

research subjects, only a small number

of researchers actively engage in field

collections of these taxa. The

individuals involved in this activity are

professional biologists, knowledgeable

and cognizant of the biology and

conservation status of these animals.

Because of the special collecting

techniques involved, the use of these

flies by more people for any purpose is

highly unlikely. In addition, the

collection of small numbers of adult

flies would have little impact on the

viability of a population, and such

collection is necessary for accurate

identification and conservation

research.

C. Disease or Predation

Over 2,500 alien arthropods are now

established in Hawai‘i (Howarth 1990,

Howarth et al. 1995, Nishida 1994),

with a continuing establishment rate of

10-20 new species per year (Beardsley

1962, 1979). Many of these alien species

have severe effects on the native

Hawaiian insect fauna (Asquith 1995).

Species of social Hymenoptera (ants and

some wasps) and parasitic wasps pose

the greatest threat to the Hawaiian

picture-wings. Ants and other social

insects frequently dominate the

ecologies of tropical ecosystems and

strongly influence the evolution of

certain plants and animals. However, all

of the native Hawaiian arthropods,

including the Hawaiian picture-wings,

evolved without the predation influence

of ants or social wasps, and the

subsequent arrival of these new groups

to the Hawaiian islands has been

devastating to the relatively defenseless

native Hawaiian invertebrate flora.

Ants can be particularly destructive

predators because of their high

densities, recruitment behavior,

aggressiveness, and broad range of diet

(Reimer 1993). These attributes allow

some ants to affect prey populations

independent of prey density; thus ants

can locate and destroy isolated

populations and individuals (Nafus

1993). At least 36 species of ants are

known to be established in the

Hawaiian Islands, and particularly

aggressive species have had severe

effects on the native insect fauna

(Zimmerman 1948). By the late 1870s,

the big-headed ant (Pheidole

megacephala) was present in Hawai‘i,

and its predation on native insects was

noted by the early Hawaiian naturalist

R.C.L. Perkins (1913), ‘‘It may be said

that no native Hawaiian Coleoptera

insect can resist this predator, and it is

practically useless to attempt to collect

where it is well established. Just on the

limits of its range, one may occasionally

meet with a few native beetles (e.g.,

species of Plagithmysus), often with

these ants attached to their legs and

bodies, but sooner or later they are quite

exterminated from these localities.’’

With few exceptions, native insects

have been eliminated from areas where

the big-headed ant is present (Perkins

1913, Gagne 1979, Gillespie and Reimer

1993), and it has been documented to

completely exterminate populations of

native insects.

The Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex

humilis) was discovered on the island of

O‘ahu in 1940 and is now established

on all the main islands. Unlike the bigheaded ant, the Argentine ant is

primarily confined to higher elevations

(Reimer et al. 1990). This species has

been demonstrated to reduce

populations or even eliminate native

arthropods at high elevations in

Haleakala National Park on Mau‘i (Cole

et al. 1992). While this species does not

disperse by flight, colonies are moved

about with soil and construction

material; a colony was recently

discovered on an isolated peak on the

island of O‘ahu under a radio tower.

The long-legged ant (Anoplolepis

longipes) appeared in Hawai‘i in 1952

and now occurs on O‘ahu, Mau‘i, and

Hawai‘i (Reimer et al. 1990). It inhabits

low-elevation (less than 600 m (2,000

ft)), rocky areas of moderate rainfall

(less than 250 cm (100 in.) annually)

(Reimer et al. 1990). Direct observations

indicate that Hawaiian arthropods are

susceptible to predation by this species

(Gillespie and Reimer 1993), and Hardy

(1979) documented the disappearance of

most native insects from Kipahulu

Stream on Mau‘i after the area was

invaded by the long-legged ant.

At least two species of fire ants,

Solenopsis geminita and S. papuana, are

also important threats (Reagan 1986;

Gillespie and Reimer 1993) and occur

on all the major islands (Reimer et al.

1990). Solenopsis geminita is known to

be a significant predator on pest fruit

flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawai‘i

(Wong and Wong 1988). Solenopsis

papuana is the only abundant,

aggressive ant that has invaded intact

mesic forest above 600 m (2,000 ft) and

is still expanding its range in Hawai‘i

(Reimer 1993).

Numerous other ant species are

recognized as threats to native

invertebrates, and additional species

become established almost yearly.

While the larvae of most of the

Hawaiian picture-wings feed deep in the

substrate of the host plant, they emerge

and move away to pupate in the ground,

thus exposing themselves to predation

by ants. Upon newly emerging as adults,

these flies are particularly susceptible to

predation. Adult picture-wings have

been observed with ants attached to

their legs (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro

1995).

Another group of social insects that

are voracious predators and were

originally absent from Hawai‘i are

yellowjacket wasps (Hymenoptera:

Vespidae). In 1977, an aggressive race of

the western yellowjacket (Paravespula

pennsylvanica) became established in

Hawai‘i and is now abundant at most

higher elevations (Gambino et al. 1990).

In Haleakala National Park on Mau‘i,

yellowjackets were found to forage

predominantly on native arthropods

(Gambino et al. 1987, 1990, Gambino

and Loope 1992). Overwintering

yellowjacket colonies in Hawai‘i can

produce over half a million foragers that

consume tens of millions of arthropods,

and evidence exists for localized

reduction in native arthropod

abundance (Gambino and Loope 1992).

Yellowjackets have been observed

preying on Hawaiian picture-wings

(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995), and

3972 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the establishment of this species on the

island of Hawai‘i corresponded with a

significant decline in several species of

Hawaiian picture-wings (Carson 1982b,

1986, Foote and Carson 1995).

Yellowjackets pose a serious threat to all

Hawaiian picture-wing species in this

proposed rulemaking.

Hawai‘i also has a limited number of

native parasitic Hymenoptera (wasps),

with only species of Eucoiliidae

recorded to utilize Hawaiian picturewings as hosts. Several species of alien

braconid wasps, Diaschasmimorpha

tryoni, D. longicaudatus, Opius

vandenboschi, and Biosteres arisanus,

were purposefully introduced into

Hawai‘i to control several species of

pest tephritid fruit flies (Funasaki et al.

1988). However, none of these parasitic

wasps are specific to the pest flies, but

are known to attack other species of

flies, including native Hawaiian

Tephritidae. While these wasps have

not been recorded parasitizing Hawaiian

picture-wings, and may not successfully

develop in Drosophilidae, females will

sting any fly larva available and can

cause significant mortality (T. Duan,

University of Hawai‘i, pers. comm.,

1995). Large extensive releases of these

wasps or introductions of new species

pose potential threats to Hawaiian

picture-wings.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

Currently, no Federal, State, or local

laws, treaties, and/or regulations

specifically apply to the 12 proposed

species of Hawaiian picture-wings.

Some of the species may indirectly

receive some protection under Federal

and State laws because they utilize host

plants that are protected under the

Federal Endangered Species Act and the

State of Hawai‘i’s Endangered Species

Act. This indirect protection, however,

is not sufficient since the species of

Hawaiian picture-wings that utilize

protected host plants may not be

physically present on the host plants at

all times and because some threats to

these Hawaiian picture-wings can occur

regardless of their presence on a

protected host plant.

As stated above, alien parasitic wasps

pose a threat to the Hawaiian picturewings. Some alien wasp species have

been introduced by Federal and State

agencies for biological control of pest

flies. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), under the authority of

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), regulates

biological control agents as pesticides.

However, EPA only regulates

microorganisms (i.e., bacteria, fungi,

protozoa, and viruses). EPA has

exempted all other organisms from

requirements of FIFRA, because it has

determined that they are regulated by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (USDA–APHIS). The State of

Hawai‘i requires that new introductions

be reviewed by special committees

before release (HRS Chapt. 150A), and

current USDA–APHIS policy is to

submit permit application materials,

including an environmental assessment

or environmental impact statement, to

the Service’s Pacific Islands Office for

review under section 7 of the Act and

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). However, predicting from

laboratory studies the impacts

introduced species may have on an

ecosystem is difficult (Kauffman and

Nechols 1992) and the purposeful

release or augmentation of any Dipteran

predator or parasitoid is a potential

threat to these 12 species of Hawaiian

picture-wing flies.

Federal listing would automatically

invoke listing under Hawai‘i State law,

which prohibits taking and encourages

conservation by State government

agencies. Hawai‘i’s Endangered Species

Act (HRS, Sect. 195D–4(a)) states, ‘‘Any

species of aquatic life, wildlife, or land

plant that has been determined to be an

endangered species pursuant to the

(Federal) Endangered Species Act shall

be deemed to be an endangered species

under the provisions of this chapter and

any indigenous species of aquatic life,

wildlife, or land plant that has been

determined to be a threatened species

pursuant to the (Federal) Endangered

Species Act shall be deemed to be a

threatened species under the provisions

of this chapter.’’ State regulations

prohibit the removal, destruction, or

damage of federally listed animals

found on State lands (HRS, Sect. 195D–

4(e)). Further, the State may enter into

agreements with Federal agencies to

administer and manage any area

required for the conservation,

management, enhancement, or

protection of endangered species (HRS,

Sect. 195D–5(c)). Funds for these

activities could be made available under

section 6 (Cooperation with the States)

of the Act. Federal listing of these

species will, therefore, trigger the

protection available under State law.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

The small number of populations of

Drosophila neoclavisetae, D. mulli, and

D. heteroneura puts these species at risk

of extinction from naturally occurring,

yet relatively common, events such as

hurricanes and landslides. A hurricane

could cause total population loss by

causing direct mortality, habitat

destruction or modification, and the

spread of invasive alien plants. The

continued existence of these picturewings is further complicated by their

limited habitat. Drosophila mulli is only

found at one location on the island of

Hawai‘i within a localized patch of

Pritchardia beccariana. Adults are

found only on the undersides of this

plant, and further associations between

D. mulli and this host plant are likely.

Drosophila neoclavisetae is restricted to

a ridgetop on the island of Mau‘i where

it has been found only within a small

patch of endemic Cyanea spp.

Drosophila heteroneura was believed to

be extinct until it was rediscovered on

private acreage at Huala ̄lai Volcano in

1993. This remaining population is

extremely small, with a 90 percent

reduction from historical abundance

(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995).

Naturally occurring random events such

as hurricanes or landslides may destroy

vital P. beccariana or Cyanea spp., thus

placing D. mulli and D. neoclavisetae at

significant risk of extinction by

eliminating the only habitat in which

they have been found. Additionally, the

destruction of native plants opens a

niche for the establishment of

introduced alien plant species. Once

alien species are established, it is

difficult for native plants, including

host plants for Drosophila spp., to

recover and thrive successfully.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by the

12 species in determining to propose

this rule. Based on this evaluation, the

proposed action is to list 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, as endangered. All

12 species are endangered by one or

more of the following: habitat

degradation by pigs, goats, deer, cattle,

and alien plants; habitat loss from fire;

predation by ants and alien wasps; and

biological pest control. Three species

are known from less than three

populations, making them susceptible to

extinction from naturally occurring

random events. Because these 12

species are in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

their ranges, they fit the definition of

endangered as defined in the Act.

Therefore, the Service proposes to list

these species as endangered.

Critical Habitat

In the last few years, a series of court

decisions has overturned our

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3973

determinations regarding a variety of

species that designation of critical

habitat would not be prudent (e.g.,

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F.

3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation

Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.

2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the

standards applied in those judicial

opinions, we have examined the

question of whether critical habitat for

the 12 species of Drosophila flies would

be prudent.

Although the 12 species have small

population sizes, they do not appear to

be vulnerable to unrestricted collection,

vandalism, or other intentional

disturbance at this time. We remain

concerned that these threats might be

exacerbated by the publication of

critical habitat maps and further

dissemination of locational information.

However, we have examined the

evidence available and have not found

specific evidence of taking, vandalism,

collection, or trade of this species or any

similarly situated species.

Consequently, consistent with

applicable regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we

do not expect that the identification of

critical habitat will increase the degree

of threat to this species of taking or

other human activity.

In the absence of a finding that critical

habitat would increase threats to a

species, if any benefits would result

from critical habitat designation, then a

prudent finding is warranted. In the

case of these species, some benefits may

result from designation of critical

habitat. The primary regulatory effect of

critical habitat is the section 7

requirement that Federal agencies

refrain from taking any action that

destroys or adversely modifies critical

habitat. While a critical habitat

designation for habitat currently

occupied by these species would not be

likely to change the section 7

consultation outcome, because an action

that destroys or adversely modifies such

critical habitat would also be likely to

result in jeopardy to the species, in

some instances section 7 consultation

might be triggered only if critical habitat

is designated. Examples include

unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat

that may become unoccupied in the

future. Designating critical habitat may

also provide some educational or

informational benefits. Therefore, we

propose that critical habitat is prudent

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.

Critical habitat is not determinable

when one or both of the following

situations exist: the information needed

to analyze the impacts of the

designation is lacking, or the biological

needs of the species are not sufficiently

well known to permit identification of

an area as critical habitat (50 CFR

424.12). Currently, we have found that

critical habitat for the 12 Drosophila

flies is not determinable based on our

inadequate knowledge about the

relationship of the flies to their primary

and secondary host plant(s), the

distributions of these host plant(s), the

bacteria and fungal communities

necessary for successful Drosophila

larval development, and the

relationship of these flies to other native

and nonnative flies.

As discussed in the Background

section of this proposed rule, each of the

twelve species of Drosophila proposed

for listing is restricted geographically to

a single island; six species are reported

from Oahu, three species are reported

from the island of Hawaii, and one

species, each, is reported from Kauai,

Molokai, and Maui. All twelve species

appear to have highly specialized

breeding sites; they use small sections of

fermenting or rotting areas on their host

plant(s). The host plants are also, in

many cases, ‘‘single-island endemics’’.

Some, in fact, have already been

independently listed as endangered or

threatened and their locations are

available through various government

and privately-sponsored databases and

from individual botanists.

Unfortunately, information on the

specific locations of other host plants

may not be known, making

determination of critical habitat

difficult. In addition, we do not

currently understand the relationship

between the primary and the secondary

host plant(s) and their associated

Drosophila species. Factors that

determine host suitability may include

host plant size, the size and age of a

rotting area upon which the larvae feed,

the position of the rotting area with

respect to the surrounding vegetation,

soil moisture, relative humidity,

frequency of rainfall and fog drip, and

the presence or absence of other detritus

(decaying organic matter) feeders, such

as slugs and earthworms. However, it is

not clear from currently available

information which, or if all, of these

factor(s) are essential for the long-term

conservation of each Drosophila species.

We are also unable to determine

critical habitat for these flies based on

the lack of information on the bacteria

and fungal communities necessary for

successful Drosophila larval

development. The larvae of all twelve

Drosophila species are microbivores

(fungus feeders) and little is known

about their bacteria and fungal

requirements or about the ability of host

plant species to support them. This

information is needed to determine

what primary constituent elements are

needed for fly larvae to survive.

Finally, we are currently unable to

determine the inter-specific

relationships between these species and

other, more common species of

Drosophila, introduced tipulids (crane

flies), and other non-native fly species.

Preliminary research strongly suggests

that inter-generic competition is

potentially an important limiting factor

for the picture-wing Drosophila and

may inhibit or limit their use of certain

host plants. Additional information on

these interrelationships will assist in

determining what impacts these

relationships have on the habitat

requirements of these 12 flies.

When we find that critical habitat is

not determinable, our regulations (50

CFR 424.17) provide that, within one

year of the date of the final rule listing

the species, we must publish a final rule

designating critical habitat, based on the

best information available at the time.

Due to a limited listing budget, we plan

to employ a priority system for deciding

which outstanding critical habitat

designations should be addressed first.

We will focus our efforts on those

designations that will provide the most

conservation benefit, taking into

consideration the efficacy of critical

habitat designation in addressing the

threats to the species, and the

magnitude and immediacy of those

threats. Therefore, if these species are

listed, we will develop a proposal to

designate critical habitat for the 12

species of Drosophila flies as soon as

feasible, considering our workload

priorities, as outlined in our priority

system, and available funding.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition

through listing encourages public

awareness and results in conservation

actions by Federal, State, and private

agencies, groups, and individuals. The

Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the

State and requires that recovery actions

be carried out for all listed species.

Funding may be available through

section 6 of the Act for the State to

conduct recovery activities. The

3974 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

protection required of Federal agencies

and the prohibitions against certain

activities involving listed animals are

discussed, in part, below.

Listing the 12 Drosophila species

provides for the development and

implementation of recovery plans for

these species. These plans will bring

together Federal, State, and regional

agency efforts for the conservation of the

species. Recovery plans will establish a

framework for agencies to coordinate

their recovery efforts. The plans will set

recovery priorities and estimate the

costs of the tasks necessary to

accomplish the priorities. They will also

describe the site-specific management

actions necessary to achieve

conservation and survival of these

species.

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

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened. Regulations

implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Act are

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section

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

agencies to confer informally 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. If a species is listed

subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires

Federal agencies to insure that activities

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or 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 must enter

into formal consultation with us.

Federal agency actions that may

require conference and/or consultation

as described in the preceding paragraph

include, but are not limited to: Army

Corps of Engineers involvement in

projects, such as the construction of

roads, bridges, and dredging projects,

subject to section 404 of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) and section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

(33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

authorized discharges under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES); U.S.

Department of Agriculture involved in

release or permitting release of

biological control agents under the Plant

Pest Act; military training and activity

carried out by the U.S. Department of

Defense; and projects by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service and

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all endangered wildlife. The

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

implemented by 50 CFR 17.21 for

endangered species, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to take (includes

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or

to attempt any of these), import or

export, ship in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of a commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce any

endangered wildlife species. It is also

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship any such wildlife that

has been taken illegally. Certain

exceptions apply to agents of the

Service and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife under

certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50

CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes, to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species, and/or for incidental take in

the course of otherwise lawful activities.

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed wildlife and inquiries

about permits and prohibitions may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Endangered Species Permits,

911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97232–4181 (telephone 503/

231–6241; facsimile 503/231–6243).

As published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272), our

policy is to identify, to the maximum

extent practicable at the time a species

is listed, those activities that would or

would not be likely to constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The

intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of the listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within

a species’ range. Likely activities that

we believe could potentially result in a

violation of section 9 of the Act include,

but are not limited to, the following:

road and firebreak construction; military

troop movements; loss of habitat due to

fire resulting from the use of military

ammunition; intentional release or

augmentation of biological control

agents; introduction of other alien

species; and collection of individuals

for any purpose without a permit.

Activities that we believe would not

likely result in a violation of section 9

of the Act include, but are not limited

to, non-destructive activities in areas

occupied by these species, such as

hiking, collecting non-host plants for

cultural usage (e.g., hula halau), and

hunting. Activities that occur under a

valid incidental take permit or in

accordance with a section 7

consultation would not violate section

9.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 of the Act should be directed

to the Manager of the Pacific Islands

Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES section).

If these Hawaiian picture-wing flies

are listed under the Act, the State of

Hawai‘i Endangered Species Act (HRS,

Sect. 195D–4(a)) is automatically

invoked, prohibiting taking and

encouraging conservation by State

government agencies. Further, the State

may enter into agreements with Federal

agencies to administer and manage any

area required for the conservation,

management, enhancement, or

protection of endangered species (HRS,

Sect. 195D–5(c)). Funds for these

activities could be made available under

section 6 of the Act (State Cooperative

Agreements). Thus, the Federal

protection afforded to these species by

listing them as endangered species will

be reinforced and supplemented by

protection under State law.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, comments or suggestions

from the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific

community, industry, or any other

interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial, or other

relevant data concerning any threat (or

lack thereof) to these species;

(2) The location of any additional

populations of these species;

(3) Identification of habitat that

should be designated as critical habitat

and the reasons why this habitat should

be determined to be critical habitat

pursuant to section 4 of the Act or any

reasons why critical habitat should not

be designated;

(4) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and population

size of these species; and

(5) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on these species.

Final issuance of regulations on these

species will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by the Service, and

such communications may lead to a

final regulation that differs from this

proposal. In accordance with

interagency policy published on July 1,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3975

1994 (59 FR 34270), upon publication of

this proposed rule in the Federal

Register we will solicit expert reviews

by at least three specialists regarding

pertinent scientific or commercial data

and assumptions relating to the

taxonomic, biological, and ecological

information for the three species. The

purpose of such a review is to ensure

that listing decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions,

and analyses, including the input of

appropriate experts. We will summarize

the opinions of these reviewers in the

final decision document. The final

determination may differ from this

proposal based upon the information we

receive.

You may request a public hearing on

this proposal. Your request for a hearing

must be made in writing and filed

within 45 days of the date of publication

of this proposal in the Federal Register.

Address your requests to the Field

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law. In

some circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish for us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. 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.

Electronic Access and Filing

You may send comments by e-mail to

pwflieslpr@fws.gov. Please submit

these comments as an ASCII file and

avoid the use of special characters and

any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: 1018–AG23’’ 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 e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our Pacific

Islands Office at phone number 808–

541–3441.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that

environmental assessments and

environmental impact statements, as

defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We

published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR

49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references and

data cited herein, as well as others, is

available upon request from Pacific

Islands Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Dr. Adam Asquith, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands

Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes 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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under the family indicated, to the

List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife 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 Common name Scientific name

INSECTS

*******

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila aglaia ............. U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila differens ......... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila hemipeza ....... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila heteroneura ... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila montgomeryi .. U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila mulli ............... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila musaphilia ...... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila neoclavisetae U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila obatai ............. U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila ochrobasis ..... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila substenoptera U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

3976 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When

listed

Critical

habitat Common name Scientific name

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing Drosophila tarphytrichia ... U.S.A. (HI) ........................ NA .................................... E NA NA

*******

Dated: December 15, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1338 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 010301D]

RIN 0648-AL95

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Amendments to

Alaska Groundfish and Crab Fishery

Management Plans to Revise the

License Limitation Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

amendments to fishery management

plans; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) has

submitted Amendment 60 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area, Amendment 58 to the

Fishery Management Plan for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and

Amendment 10 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Commercial

King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the

Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands

(FMPs). These plan amendments are

necessary to implement changes to the

License Limitation Program (LLP) as

recommended by the Council and are

intended to further the objectives of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the FMPs.

DATES: Comments on Amendments 60,

58, and 10 must be submitted by March

19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

plan amendments should be submitted

to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668,

Juneau, Alaska, 99802, Attn: Lori

Gravel, or delivered to the Federal

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau,

AK. Comments may also be sent by

facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. Copies

of Amendments 60, 58, and 10 and the

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis prepared for the

proposed plan amendments are

available from the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 605 West 4th

Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-

2252; telephone 907-271-2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Hale, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires

that each Regional Fishery Management

Council submit any fishery management

plan or plan amendment it prepares to

NMFS for review and approval,

disapproval, or partial approval. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires

that NMFS, after receiving a fishery

management plan or plan amendment,

immediately publish a notice in the

Federal Register that the fishery

management plan or plan amendment is

available for public review and

comment. This action constitutes such

notice for Amendments 60, 58, and 10

to the FMPs. NMFS will consider public

comments received during the comment

period in determining whether to

approve these proposed plan

amendments. To be considered, a

comment must be received by the close

of business on the last day of the

comment period.

In June 1995, the Council

recommended that NMFS implement

the LLP to address concerns of excess

capital in the groundfish and crab

fisheries off Alaska. The LLP is the

second stage of a multi-staged process to

reduce capacity in the affected fisheries.

The LLP will replace the Vessel

Moratorium Program (VMP), a program

implemented by NMFS on January 1,

1996, to impose a temporary

moratorium on the entry of new

capacity in the groundfish and crab

fisheries off Alaska and to define the

class of entities that would be eligible

for licenses under the LLP. The VMP

expired on December 31, 1999 (64 FR

3651). The final rule implementing the

LLP specifies that fishing will begin

under the LLP on January 1, 2000 (63 FR

52642, October 1, 1998).

If approved, Amendments 60, 58, and

10 would make several changes to the

final rule implementing the LLP. First,

the Council recommended that recent

participation criteria be added to the

eligibility requirements for a crab

species license. Originally, a person

applying for a crab species license had

to demonstrate that documented

harvests were made from a qualifying

vessel during two periods, the general

qualification period (GQP) and the

endorsement qualification period (EQP).

If approved, Amendment 10 would add

a third period, the recent participation

period (RPP), in which a person would

have to demonstrate that documented

harvests of crab were made from a

qualifying vessel. The RPP was added to

the eligibility requirements for a crab

species license because of the Council’s

concern that a crab species license

could be issued to a person whose

eligibility was based on participation

that has been inactive since 1995. These

‘‘latent licenses’’ could be transferred to

persons who would become active in

the fishery. Such transfers would be

contrary to the purpose of the LLP

because it would create the potential to

increase fishing effort above the current

levels in the crab fisheries. Except under

specific exemptions provided in the

FMP amendments, the RPP would

require that a person demonstrate that at

least one documented harvest of any

crab species was made during the

period beginning January 1, 1996,

through February 7, 1998.

The Council’s second

recommendation is to require that the

vessel designated on the LLP license be

transferred with the LLP license, if that

LLP license was issued based on

documented harvests made from a

vessel without a Federal Fisheries

Permit. A Federal Fisheries Permit is

required for any vessel that participates

in a Federal groundfish fishery off

Alaska. If a vessel did not participate in

Federal groundfish fisheries off Alaska,

its qualifying documented harvests must

have occurred in waters of the State of