Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5101

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OW–2004–11. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 to 

4:30, Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jesse W. Pritts, Engineering and 

Analysis Division, Office of Water 

(4303T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 566–1038; fax number: 

(202) 566–1053; e-mail address: 

pritts.jesse@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What Entities Are Potentially Affected 

by This Final Rule? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include facilities that discharge 

wastewater from transportation 

equipment cleaning activities and 

include the following types:

Category Examples of regulated entities 

Examples of common North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) codes 

Industry ............................................ Facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank 

trucks, rail tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, or 

ocean/sea tankers used to transport materials or cargos that come 

into direct contact with tank or container interior, except where 

such tank cleanings are performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations.

311613, 311711, 311712, 311222, 

311223, 311225, 484121, 

484122, 484210, 484230, 

488390, 488490. 

EPA does not intend the preceding 

table to be exhaustive, but rather it 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that EPA is now aware could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be affected. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria listed at 40 CFR 442.1. If you 

still have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

For the various statutes and executive 

orders that require findings for 

rulemaking, EPA incorporates the 

findings from the direct final 

rulemaking into this companion notice 

for the purpose of providing public 

notice and opportunity for comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442 

Environmental protection, Barge 

cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank 

cleaning, Transportation equipment 

cleaning, Waste treatment and disposal, 

Water pollution control.

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–1861 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AE59 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle 

(Cicindela nevadica lincolniana)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Salt Creek tiger beetle (Cicindela 

nevadica lincolniana) as endangered 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle, a member of 

5102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the family Cicindelidae, is endemic to 

the saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska 

and associated streams in the northern 

third of Lancaster County and southern 

margin of Saunders County in Nebraska, 

where it is found in barren salt flat and 

saline stream edge habitats. Of six 

known populations in 1991, three are 

now extirpated and the remaining three 

are small and highly threatened by 

further habitat destruction, degradation, 

and fragmentation. These three small 

populations of Salt Creek tiger beetles 

are vulnerable to local extirpations from 

random natural events and humaninduced activities. This proposal, if 

made final, would extend Federal 

protection and recovery provisions of 

the Act to the Salt Creek tiger beetle.

DATES: We will consider all comments 

on this proposed rule received by the 

close of business on April 4, 2005. 

Requests for a public hearing must be 

received by March 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Nebraska Ecological 

Services Field Office, 203 West Second 

Street, Federal Building, Second Floor, 

Grand Island, Nebraska 68801. 

2. You may hand deliver comments to 

our office at the address given above or 

send via fax (facsimile: 308/384–8835). 

3. You may send comments via 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fw6_sctbeetle@fws.gov. See the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

The complete file for this proposed 

rule is available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Nebraska Ecological Services 

Field Office, 203 West Second Street, 

Federal Building, Second Floor, Grand 

Island, Nebraska 68801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Steve Anschutz, Field Supervisor, at the 

address listed above (telephone: 308/

382–6468, extension 12; facsimile: 308/

384–8835).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle is an 

active, ground-dwelling, predatory 

insect that captures smaller or similarsized arthropods in a ‘‘tiger-like’’

manner by grasping prey with its 

mandibles (mouthparts). Salt Creek tiger 

beetle larvae live in permanent burrows 

in the ground and are voracious 

predators, fastening themselves by 

means of abdominal hooks to the tops 

of their burrows and rapidly extending 

outward to seize passing prey. Eightyfive species and more than 200 

subspecies of tiger beetles of the genus 

Cicindela are known from the United 

States (Boyd et al. 1982). The Salt Creek 

tiger beetle is 1 of 32 species and 

subspecies of tiger beetles that have 

been recorded in Nebraska. 

Tiger beetle species occur in many 

different habitats, including riparian 

habitats, beaches, dunes, woodlands, 

grasslands, and other open areas 

(Pearson 1988; Knisley and Hill 1992). 

Individual tiger beetle species are 

generally highly habitat-specific because 

of oviposition and larval sensitivity to 

soil moisture, composition, and 

temperature (Pearson 1988; Pearson and 

Cassola 1992). A common component of 

tiger beetle habitat appears to be open 

sunny areas for hunting and 

thermoregulation (an adaptive behavior 

to use sunlight or shade to regulate body 

temperature) (Knisley et al. 1990; 

Knisley and Hill 1992). Although tiger 

beetles have been well studied as a 

taxonomic group, the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle, an inhabitant of an extremely 

limited habitat type (i.e., barren salt flats 

and saline stream edges of the saline 

wetlands and associated streams of 

eastern Nebraska) has, until recently, 

received very little ecological study. 

Originally, the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

was described by Casey (1916) as a 

separate species of C. lincolniana. Willis 

(1967) identified C. n. lincolniana as a 

subspecies of C. nevadica which 

evolved from C. n. knausi; this is the 

currently accepted taxonomic 

classification. The evolution of C. n. 

lincolniana is a result of its isolation 

from the gene pool sometime after the 

Kansan, but possibly during the 

Yarmouth glaciation. There also are 

spatial separations between C. n. knausi

and C. n. lincolniana. C. n. knausi has 

been collected in Sheridan and Garden 

Counties in the Nebraska Sandhills, a 

distance of several hundred miles from 

the saline wetlands and associated 

streams of eastern Nebraska that provide 

habitat for the Salt Creek tiger beetle.

The Salt Creek tiger beetle is metallic 

brown to dark olive green above, with 

a metallic dark green underside, and 

measures 1.3 centimeters (cm) (0.5 inch 

(in)) in total length. It is distinguished 

from other tiger beetles by its distinctive 

form and the color pattern on its dorsal 

and ventral surfaces. The elytra (wing 

covers) are metallic brown or dark olive 

green, and the head and pronotum 

(body segment behind the head) are 

dark brown (Carter 1989). 

Leon Higley (L. Higley, University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), pers. comm. 

2002) believes the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

has a 2-year life cycle, not uncommon 

for tiger beetles. Adults are first 

observed as early as the end of May or 

as late as mid-June, and disappear by 

mid to late July. Their numbers peak 

about 2 weeks after the first individuals 

appear and begin to feed and mate. After 

mating, the male rides atop the female, 

presumably preventing her from remating, a phenomenon known as mateguarding. Females lay their eggs along 

sloping banks of creeks in areas where 

the salt layer is exposed in the soil 

horizon, in barren salt flats of saline 

wetlands, and along saline stream edges 

that are found in close association with 

water, near a seep or stream. 

Researchers from UNL speculate that, 

during the night, female Salt Creek tiger 

beetles lay about 50 eggs (Farrar 2003). 

Spomer and Higley (2001) describe 

the life cycle of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle in detail through egg, larval, and 

adult stages, as follows. After the egg 

hatches, the young larva digs a burrow 

and uses its head to scoop out soil. The 

larva takes these small mud clods to the 

burrow entrance and flips them outside 

the hole. Larval burrows occur within a 

few inches of the water’s edge. The 

small larva waits at the top of its burrow 

and ambushes prey that passes too near 

the burrow entrance. Once it has 

captured its prey, the larva pulls it into 

the burrow with the aid of three hooks 

on the dorsum of the fifth abdominal 

segment. These hooks also function to 

prevent the larva from being pulled 

from its burrow by larger prey or 

predators. The larva will plug its burrow 

and retreat inside during periods of high 

water, very hot weather, or very dry 

conditions. As the larva grows, it molts 

to a larger instar (a life stage between 

molts), enlarging and lengthening its 

burrow. For the most part, a Salt Creek 

tiger beetle larva will remain active 

until cold weather, and then it plugs its 

burrow and hibernates. The Salt Creek 

tiger beetle has three instars. It probably 

overwinters as a third instar, pupates in 

May, and emerges as an adult. Before 

pupation, the larva seals its burrow 

entrance and digs a side chamber about 

5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 in) below the soil 

surface. After the adult emerges from 

the pupa, it remains in the chamber 

until its cuticle hardens. Steve Spomer 

(S. Spomer, UNL, pers. comm. 2002) 

postulates that adult Salt Creek tiger 

beetles live for approximately 6 weeks. 

Distribution and Status 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle occurs in 

saline wetlands—on exposed saline 

mud flats and along mud banks of 

streams and seeps that contain salt 

deposits (Carter 1989; Spomer and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5103

Higley 1993; LaGrange 1997; Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) 

1999). Adults are confined to moist, 

muddy areas within a few yards of 

wetland and stream edges. Salt Creek 

tiger beetles require these open barren 

areas for construction of larval burrows, 

thermoregulation, and foraging (S. 

Spomer, pers. comm. 2002; L. Higley, 

pers. comm. 2002). The density of larval 

burrows decreases as vegetative cover 

increases (S. Spomer, pers. comm. 2002; 

R. Harms, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, pers. obs. 2001). The Salt Creek 

tiger beetle is adapted to brief periods of 

high water inundation and highly saline 

conditions (Spomer and Higley 1993). 

Saline wetlands in eastern Nebraska 

occur in swales and depressions within 

the floodplain of Salt Creek and its 

tributaries in northern Lancaster and 

southern Saunders Counties. LaGrange 

(1997) suggests that the saline wetlands 

of eastern Nebraska receive their salinity 

from groundwater passing through an 

underground rock formation containing 

salts deposited by an ancient sea that 

once covered Nebraska. Saline wetlands 

of eastern Nebraska are characterized by 

saline soils and halophytes (plants 

adapted to saline conditions). Saline 

wetlands usually have a central area 

that is devoid of vegetation, and when 

dry, exhibit salt encrusted mudflats 

(barren salt flats) (LaGrange 1997). This 

is the area used by the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle and numerous other salineadapted insects. Although Murphy 

(1992) indicated that historically there 

were approximately 7,300 ha (18,000 ac) 

of saline wetlands in eastern Nebraska, 

the distribution of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle was limited to specific habitats 

within those wetlands. These habitats 

included barren salt flats (devoid of 

vegetation) and moist, unvegetated 

saline streambanks of Salt Creek and its 

tributaries in the northern third of 

Lancaster County and southern margin 

of Saunders County. 

We examined the insect collection at 

the UNL State Museum to assess the 

historical distribution of the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle. From 1900 through 1918, 11 

collectors collected 134 Salt Creek tiger 

beetles (B. Ratcliffe, State Museum, 

UNL, pers. comm. 2003). Of these 134 

Salt Creek tiger beetles, 81 beetles (60 

percent) were collected from an area 

identified as Salt Basin; the remaining 

53 Salt Creek tiger beetles were 

collected in other unidentified areas in 

Lincoln, Nebraska. Salt Basin, also 

referred to as Salt Lake, is now called 

Capital Beach Lake (Cunningham 1985; 

Farrar and Gersib 1991). We also 

reviewed files from the NGPC’s Natural 

Heritage Program and found records of 

Salt Creek tiger beetles in the Snow 

Entomological Collection of the Natural 

History Museum at the University of 

Kansas, and a private collection by 

Walter Johnson (M. Fritz, Nebraska 

Natural Heritage Program, NGPC, pers. 

comm. 2003). Significant collections of 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle from Salt Lake 

(Capital Beach) in 1964, 1965, 1970, and 

1972 are housed at the Snow 

Entomological Collection. Additional 

queries of various museums around the 

country found Salt Creek tiger beetles in 

the Natural History Museum of Los 

Angeles, California (B. Harris, Natural 

History Museum of Los Angeles, pers. 

comm. 2003) and the Orma J. Smith 

Museum of Natural History, Caldwell, 

Idaho (J. Wood, Orma J. Smith Museum 

of Natural History, pers. comm. 2003). 

Based on our examination of collections 

and the review of records, all known 

Salt Creek tiger beetle specimens were 

collected in areas identified as either 

Salt Basin or Salt Lake (and now known 

as Capital Beach) or the City of Lincoln, 

Nebraska.

The insect collections provide some 

information about the historical 

distribution of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. More importantly, this 

information documents the presence of 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle at Capital 

Beach from the date of the first 

collection there in 1900 to the last in 

1972. Thus, we have concluded that 

between 1900 and 1972, Salt Creek tiger 

beetles were present in numbers large 

enough to sustain a population at 

Capital Beach. The size of this 

population is not known. In 1984, Mark 

Carter, a graduate student in entomology 

at UNL and Steve Spomer, associate 

entomology professor at UNL, 

conducted visual searches for the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle at Capital Beach and 

other sites that appeared to provide 

suitable habitat (Spomer and Higley 

2001). They found a low number of 

adults at Capital Beach, but provided no 

information on population numbers, 

and noted that the habitat had been 

degraded at Capital Beach (Spomer and 

Higley 1993). By 1998, surveyors did 

not observe any Salt Creek tiger beetles 

at Capital Beach, and the species has not 

been found there since, despite surveys 

being conducted annually through 2002 

(Spomer et al. 2002). 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle has one of 

the most restricted ranges of any insect 

in the United States (Spomer and Higley 

1993) only occurring along limited 

segments of Little Salt Creek and 

adjacent remnant salt marshes in 

Lancaster County, Nebraska. Intensive 

visual surveys conducted by UNL 

entomologists from 1991 through 2004 

found Salt Creek tiger beetles at a total 

of 13 sites in northern Lancaster and 

southern Saunders Counties, although 

beetles were not found, nor were 

surveys conducted, at all 13 sites in all 

14 years (Spomer et al. 2002 and 2004). 

The 13 survey sites are identified by: (1) 

Locality (street or road name); (2) local 

name; or (3) land owner name. Visual 

counts of adults were made by 

researchers walking across the barren 

salt flats and along the edges of saline 

streams on sunny days during mid to 

late June when the population of 

emerged adults is and at its greatest 

abundance (S. Spomer, pers. comm. 

2001; Allgeier et al. 2003). Evening 

counts also were conducted using a 

black light (ultraviolet), because the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle is highly attracted to 

this type of light source. Visual surveys 

during the day and night were 

conducted using the same techniques 

for all years and all sites surveyed (S. 

Spomer, pers. comm. 2002), and the 

surveys in all 14 years were conducted 

by the same researcher, which would 

reduce surveyor bias and ensure 

consistency among survey years. 

Pearson and Cassola (1992) found that 

tiger beetle population size can be 

accurately estimated through visual 

counting due to the relative ease of 

observing and counting individuals, and 

because of their specialized habitat 

requirements. Visual counts, although 

having limitations (Horn 1976), can 

provide relative estimates and, if 

conducted in a similar manner every 

year, a good estimate of the health and 

stability of populations (Allgeier et al.

2003). Furthermore, harm to the insect 

is limited using visual survey 

techniques because experienced 

researchers are able to identify the 

insect without handling it. 

In addition to the visual surveys, 

researchers undertook a mark/recapture 

study for the first time in 2002. Prior to 

2002, researchers were unable to find a 

permanent marker that could be used to 

distinguish marked and unmarked 

beetles (a prerequisite for mark/

recapture studies) (Spomer and Higley 

1993; S. Spomer, pers. comm. 2001). In 

2002, UNL entomologists discovered a 

paint marker that would adhere to the 

beetles’ elytra (Allgeier et al. 2003). This 

allowed researchers to conduct a mark/

recapture study using Salt Creek tiger 

beetle adults captured at Little Salt 

Creek across from Arbor Lake, north of 

the Interstate 80 and North 27th Street 

Interchange in Lincoln, Nebraska. The 

Little Salt Creek site was used because 

visual surveys revealed that this site 

harbored the highest number of adult 

beetles. 

Although its use for estimating the 

true population size for the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle is somewhat limited by a 

5104 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

small sample size, the mark/recapture 

study did establish that Salt Creek tiger 

beetles marked at the Little Salt Creek 

site traveled to other nearby survey 

sites. Allgeier et al. (2003) found two 

marked adult Salt Creek tiger beetles at 

Arbor Lake, a saline wetland separated 

from Little Salt Creek by a 2-lane gravel 

road. They had moved a distance of 460 

and 365 meters (m) (1,509 and 1,198 feet 

(ft)), respectively, from where they were 

originally marked. Based on results of 

the 2002 mark/recapture study, we have 

concluded that Salt Creek tiger beetle 

adults are mobile and can move to 

nearby suitable habitats. 

We examined data from the 1991 to 

2004 survey sites and determined that 

some of these sites could be combined 

to identify different populations of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles based on the 

following criteria: (1) Close proximity of 

sites (i.e., nearby, contiguous, or 

neighboring) to each other; (2) distances 

of less than 805 m (2,640 ft) separating 

sites; and (3) the combination of survey 

sites satisfying criteria 1 and 2, and 

providing both suitable saline wetland 

(i.e., barren salt flats) and stream (saline 

edges) habitats forming a saline 

wetland/stream complex. The distance 

used in criterion 2 above (805 m (2,640 

ft)) are based on the 2002 mark/

recapture study by Allgeier et al. (2003), 

which established that Salt Creek tiger 

beetles can move among nearby suitable 

habitats, as well as the distance at 

which Salt Creek tiger beetles may be 

attracted to artificial sources of light. 

On the basis of the above criteria, our 

evaluation of the 13 survey sites 

resulted in the delineation of six 

different populations of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles, half of which have been 

extirpated since annual surveys began 

in 1991 (a population is considered 

extirpated after 2 consecutive years of 

negative survey results). The six Salt 

Creek tiger beetle populations, 

including the three that have been 

extirpated, are described below in order 

of abundance based on visual surveys 

conducted from 1991 to 2004: (1) Little 

Salt Creek-Arbor Lake; (2) Little Salt 

Creek-Roper; (3) Upper Little Salt CreekNorth; (4) Upper Little Salt Creek-South; 

(5) Jack Sinn Wildlife Management Area 

(WMA); and (6) Capital Beach.

Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake Population 

The Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

population contains the largest number 

of Salt Creek tiger beetles. The 

abundance of Salt Creek tiger beetles 

there is expected, given the large, 

relatively intact saline wetland complex 

within which the population occurs. 

The Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

population is located approximately 1.6 

km (1 mi) north of the Interstate 80 and 

North 27th Street Interchange on the 

northern city limits of Lincoln, 

Nebraska. It exists along the saline 

stream edge of Little Salt Creek and on 

the barren salt flats of an adjacent saline 

wetland. This population was 

monitored at up to three survey sites 

from 1991 to 2004. The population 

averaged 329 individuals per year over 

that 14-year period. Visual surveys for 

the entire Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

Population in 1991–2004 found 171, 94, 

62, 376, 459, 437, 406, 254, 208, 225, 

434, 511, 583, and 392 adult 

individuals, respectively (Spomer and 

Higley 1993; Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004; and Allgeier et al.

2003). In addition, a mark/recapture 

study conducted in 2002 estimated that 

the population size was approximately 

970 adult Salt Creek tiger beetles, with 

95 percent confidence (an estimate of 

precision) that the true population is 

between 704 and 1,606 adults (Allgeier 

et al. 2003). Both visual surveys and the 

mark/recapture study show that this 

population is very small when 

compared to known populations of 

other tiger beetle species, even 

including the federally listed threatened 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle (C. 

dorsalis dorsalis) and Puritan tiger 

beetle (C. puritana). A comparison of 

population sizes of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles, Northeastern beach tiger beetles, 

and Puritan tiger beetles is discussed 

below. 

Little Salt Creek-Roper Population 

The Little Salt Creek-Roper 

population is the second largest 

remaining population of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles, based on visual surveys 

conducted from 1994 to 2004. This 

population is located immediately south 

of the Interstate 80 and North 27th 

Street Interchange, and approximately 

1.6 km (1 mi) downstream of the Little 

Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population. 

Similar to the Little Salt Creek-Arbor 

Lake population, this population is 

associated with a saline wetland and 

stream complex located along Little Salt 

Creek. Visual surveys were conducted 

on up to three survey sites from 1994 to 

2004, but only one site was surveyed 

from 1994 to 1997. A second site was 

added in 1998, after the Lower Platte 

South Natural Resource District was 

deeded a restored saline wetland as part 

of a mitigation requirement for a 

Department of the Army permit issued 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). However, researchers 

from UNL found only one Salt Creek 

tiger beetle at the restored wetland in 

1998 and none since then (Spomer et al.

1999, 2001, 2002, and 2004; Allgeier et 

al. 2003). In 2001, UNL researchers 

found 28 Salt Creek tiger beetles on a 

privately owned saline wetland adjacent 

to Little Salt Creek and across the 

stream from the restored mitigation 

wetland, after the landowner granted 

permission to conduct visual surveys 

(Spomer et al. 2001, 2002, and 2004; 

Allgeier et al. 2003). We consider this 

private saline wetland as the third site 

of the Little Salt Creek-Roper population 

because of its location and close 

proximity to the two other sites. A 

fourth site was also surveyed in 2004, 

resulting in the observation of three Salt 

Creek tiger beetles. The number of adult 

individuals of the Little Salt CreekRoper Population found at all 4 sites in 

1994–2004 was 54, 161, 151, 144, 45, 

55, 80, 85, 258, 162, and 154, 

respectively (Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004; Allgeier et al.

2003). A mark/recapture study was not 

conducted on this population of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles due to the small 

population size and a limited window 

of opportunity. 

Upper Little Salt Creek-North 

Population 

The Upper Little Salt Creek-North 

population is the third and last extant 

population of Salt Creek tiger beetles. 

This population is located 

approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) upstream 

from the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

population, and exists only on the 

saline stream edges of Little Salt Creek. 

Although former saline wetlands (i.e.,

barren salt flats) exist adjacent to this 

population, these wetlands are degraded 

(drained because of the incisement of 

Little Salt Creek) and no longer provide 

suitable habitat for the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. This population is comprised of 

four sites along Little Salt Creek that 

were surveyed from 1991 to 2004. Over 

the course of the 14-year survey period, 

2 of the survey sites that comprise this 

population were surveyed at least 10 

times. A third site was surveyed in 

1994, 1998, 2002, and 2003. The survey 

of a new and fourth site in 2002 by UNL 

researchers resulted in the observation 

of one Salt Creek tiger beetle (Spomer et 

al. 2002; Allgeier et al. 2003). From 

1991 to 1996, the number of adult 

beetles found in the Upper Little Salt 

Creek-North Population averaged 32 

individuals per year (Spomer and 

Higley 1993; Spomer et al. 1997). Since 

then, the number of adult beetles 

surveyed in the population has averaged 

five individuals per year. The number of 

adult individuals found during visual 

surveys in 1991–2004 was 24, 32, 48, 

35, 14, 41, 0, 4, 8, 4, 0, 8, 0, and 12, 

respectively (Spomer and Higley 1993; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5105

Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 

and 2004; Allgeier et al. 2003). L. Higley 

and S. Spomer (pers. comm. 2002) 

presumed that this population would be 

extirpated because of the low and 

decreasing number of adults found 

during surveys. A mark/recapture study 

was not done for this population due to 

the small population and a limited 

window of opportunity. 

Upper Little Salt Creek-South 

Population 

The Upper Little Salt Creek-South 

population was located approximately 5 

km (3 mi) upstream from the Little Salt 

Creek-Arbor Lake Population. Degraded 

and non-functioning saline wetlands 

exist adjacent to Little Salt Creek, and 

although once devoid of vegetation, 

saline stream edge habitats are now 

vegetated at this site. This population’s 

only known site was surveyed in 1991–

2004 revealing 7, 5, 4, 8, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, and 0 adult individuals, 

respectively (Spomer and Higley 1993; 

Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 

and 2004; Allgeier et al. 2003). The 

Upper Little Salt Creek-South 

Population is considered to be 

extirpated because no Salt Creek tiger 

beetles have been found there since 

1995.

Jack Sinn Wildlife Management Area 

Population 

Salt Creek tiger beetles from sites 

comprising the Jack Sinn WMA 

population have not been found since 

1998 (Spomer et al. 1999, 2001, 2002, 

and 2004; Allgeier et al. 2003). This 

population was made up of one survey 

site located on Rock Creek in southern 

Saunders and northern Lancaster 

Counties, approximately 20 km (10 mi) 

northeast of the Little Salt Creek-Arbor 

Lake population. This population of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles was on property 

owned by NGPC. Surveys for the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle in 1991, 1992, 1993, 

1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 

2002, 2003, and 2004, found 15, 11, 1, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, and 0 adult 

individuals, respectively (Spomer and 

Higley 1993; Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004; Allgeier et al.

2003). The Jack Sinn WMA Population 

is considered to be extirpated because 

no Salt Creek tiger beetles have been 

found there since 1998. Loss and 

fragmentation of barren salt flat and 

stream habitats likely resulted in the 

loss of this population. 

Capital Beach Population 

Capital Beach was once one of the 

largest saline wetland tracts in eastern 

Nebraska, with a size of approximately 

162 ha (400 ac) (Cunningham 1985). 

Although we do not have any 

information on the number of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles that existed historically at 

Capital Beach, we have concluded, 

based on the number of museum and 

private collection specimens collected 

at Capital Beach (i.e., Salt Basin) since 

the early 1900s, that a sustainable 

population of Salt Creek tiger beetles 

once was present there. All that remains 

of suitable habitat at Capital Beach now 

is a 10- to 20-m (40- to 50-ft) wide ditch 

that parallels Interstate 80 for 

approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi), located 

west of the Interstate 80 and North 27th 

Street Interchange. Visual surveys for 

Salt Creek tiger beetles from this 

population were conducted in 1991, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 

2003, and 2004 with 12, 8, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 

0, and 0 adult individuals found, 

respectively (Spomer and Higley 1993; 

Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 

and 2004; Allgeier et al. 2003). No 

individuals have been found at Capital 

Beach since 1998 (Spomer et al. 2002 

and 2004; Allgeier et al. 2003), leading 

us to conclude that this population is 

now extirpated. 

Conclusion of Salt Creek Tiger Beetle 

Population Review 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle, highly 

specialized in habitat use, has probably 

always been rather localized in 

distribution. Information from surveys 

conducted from 1991 through 2004 and 

from museum collections show that the 

number of known populations has 

declined from six to three. Salt Creek 

tiger beetles were last found in the 

Upper Little Salt Creek-South 

population in 1995, and no individuals 

have been found in either the Jack Sinn 

WMA or the Capital Beach populations 

since 1998. Thus, we have determined 

that three known populations of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles have been extirpated 

in the last 9 years.

Surveys conducted over a 14-year 

period establish that the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle is an extremely rare insect, 

numbering only in the hundreds and 

confined to an extremely small range. 

Visual surveys conducted in 1991–2004 

show substantial annual fluctuations 

with 229, 150, 115, 473, 637, 631, 550, 

308, 271, 309, 519, 777, 745, and 558 

adult tiger beetles found each year, 

respectively, although not all sites were 

surveyed in all years (Spomer and 

Higley 1993; Spomer et al. 1997, 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004; Allgeier et al.

2003). In addition, in 2002, a mark/

recapture study undertaken to calculate 

a total population estimate for the 

largest Salt Creek tiger beetle 

population, the Little Salt Creek-Arbor 

Lake population, resulted in an estimate 

of 970 adult beetles with a 95 percent 

confidence interval of 704 to 1,606 

beetles (Allgeier et al. 2003). 

Survey and mark-recapture results 

indicate that the number of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles, as well as the number of 

populations, is extremely small, even 

when compared to other federally-listed 

tiger beetle taxa. From 1989 to 1992, the 

number of Northeastern beach tiger 

beetles found during annual surveys at 

65 sites in Maryland and Virginia 

ranged from 9,846 to more than 17,480 

beetles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1994). Surveys of Puritan tiger beetles in 

Maryland in 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

found an average of 6,389 beetles at 15 

sites annually (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993). Both the Northeastern 

beach tiger beetle and Puritan tiger 

beetle are well-studied insects and were 

listed as threatened under the Act in 

1989 (55 FR 32088). 

Based on our analysis of private and 

public insect collections, NGPC’s 

Heritage database records, surveys 

conducted over the past 14 years, and 

professional opinions of UNL 

entomologists who have studied or are 

studying the Salt Creek tiger beetle, we 

conclude that the number of Salt Creek 

tiger beetle populations is declining and 

that the three remaining populations are 

immediately threatened with extinction. 

Previous Federal Action 

On November 15, 1994, we published 

in the Federal Register (59 FR 58982), 

an Animal Notice of Review which 

included the Salt Creek tiger beetle as a 

Category 2 candidate species for 

possible future listing as either a 

threatened or endangered species. 

Category 2 candidates were those taxa 

for which information contained in the 

Service’s files indicated that listing may 

be appropriate, but for which additional 

data were needed to support a listing 

proposal. In the subsequent February 

28, 1996, Candidate Notice of Review 

published in the Federal Register (61 

FR 7596), we indicated that the Category 

2 candidate species list was being 

discontinued, and that henceforth the 

term ‘‘candidate species’’ would be 

applied only to those taxa that would 

have earlier fit the definition of the 

former Category 1 candidate taxa, that 

is, those species for which we had on 

hand sufficient information to support a 

listing proposal. In 2000, based on an 

assessment of imminent threats, the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle became a candidate 

species for listing and was assigned a 

listing priority number of 6. On October 

30, 2001, the Salt Creek tiger beetle was 

upgraded to a priority 3 candidate for 

Federal listing, based on a review of the 

status, distribution, threats, and 

5106 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

imminence of such threats (66 FR 

54808). A priority 3 is the highest 

priority ranking in the Candidate Notice 

of Review that can be assigned to a 

subspecies. A priority 3 candidate faces 

an imminent, high-magnitude threat. 

In 1995, we entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the UNL to conduct 2 

years of Salt Creek tiger beetle surveys 

in saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska 

and associated saline streams to assess 

and quantify changes in the species’

populations that were apparent from 

earlier surveys. Results of the 1995 and 

1996 surveys were discussed above in 

the Distribution and Status section of 

this rule. Further, the UNL researchers 

agreed to determine oviposition sites 

and larval habitats of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle, initiate studies of genetic 

diversity within the C. nevadica

complex, and increase public awareness 

of the Salt Creek tiger beetle through 

education and outreach. In 2001, we 

entered into a new and expanded 

cooperative agreement with the UNL to: 

(1) Conduct surveys to determine Salt 

Creek tiger beetle abundance and 

distribution in the Salt Creek watershed; 

(2) initiate procedures for rearing Salt 

Creek tiger beetles in captivity for 

possible reintroduction into previously 

occupied and unoccupied suitable 

habitats; (3) determine the physiological 

basis for habitat preferences of female 

Salt Creek tiger beetles for ovipositing, 

both in field and laboratory settings; (4) 

determine egg and larval survivorship of 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle; and (5) 

determine whether Salt Creek tiger 

beetles are attracted to specific artificial 

light sources and the distance at which 

such light sources would attract beetles. 

In addition, the Service also provided 

the NGPC with funding in both 2001 

through 2004 through section 6 of the 

Act for research on the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. 

On October 7, 2002, as part of an 

agreement regarding other species, the 

U.S. Department of the Interior reached 

an out-of-court settlement with several 

conservation organizations and agreed 

to make a final determination for listing 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle by no later 

than September 30, 2005. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

After thorough review and 

consideration of all available 

information, we have determined that 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle warrants 

listing as an endangered species. 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the Act set forth 

procedures for determining a species or 

subspecies to be endangered or 

threatened due to one or more of the 

five factors described in section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act. These factors and their 

application to the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

are as follows: 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Background 

The greatest threat to the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle is habitat destruction 

(Ratcliffe and Spomer 2002). Like many 

insects, the Salt Creek tiger beetle’s 

close association with specific 

habitats—salt barrens and stream 

edges—leaves it particularly vulnerable 

to habitat destruction and alteration 

through direct and indirect means (see

Pyle et al. 1981). The effects of habitat 

destruction and modification on tiger 

beetle species have been documented by 

Knisley and Hill (1992) and Nagano 

(1982). The saline wetlands of eastern 

Nebraska and associated saline streams 

used by the Salt Creek tiger beetle have 

undergone extensive degradation and 

alteration for commercial, residential, 

transportation, and agricultural 

development since the late 1800s, and 

are the most restricted and imperiled 

natural habitat type in the State (Gersib 

and Steinauer 1991). 

In order to comprehend the 

complexity and immediacy of threats to 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle, it is 

necessary to understand when and how 

the destruction and degradation of the 

beetle’s saline wetland and associated 

stream habitats took place. Cunningham 

(1985) reported that Salt Lake or Salt 

Basin (now known as Capital Beach) 

was once approximately 162 ha (400 ac) 

in size, and one of the largest saline 

wetlands in the area. The growing City 

of Lincoln (Lincoln) ditched, drained, 

and filled the saline wetlands and 

associated streams (Murphy 1992). In 

1895, Salt Lake was diked and Oak 

Creek was diverted to create a 

permanent lake for recreational 

purposes. In 1906, the lake was renamed 

Capital Beach. From the 1930s to the 

1950s, saline wetlands continued to be 

destroyed for the development of 

Lincoln (Farrar and Gersib 1991). In the 

1960s, the construction of Interstate 80, 

through the heart of the remaining Salt 

Creek tiger beetle habitat, resulted in 

additional filling, dredging, diking, 

draining, and diversion (Farrar and 

Gersib 1991). All of these commercial 

and residential developments and road 

construction activities resulted in the 

loss or degradation of barren salt flat 

and saline stream edge habitat for the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. The best 

available information indicates that 

these activities may have caused the 

extirpation of the Capital Beach 

population, possibly the largest 

historical population of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles. 

The three remaining Salt Creek tiger 

beetle populations are being surrounded 

by commercial and residential 

development (Ratcliffe and Spomer 

2002). During the 1990s, new housing, 

industrial, and commercial 

developments and infrastructure work 

degraded or destroyed many more acres 

of saline wetlands (Farrar 2003). 

Although the construction of buildings, 

homes, roads, schools, and parking lots 

is not occurring directly on salt flats and 

saline stream edges, these projects are 

occurring adjacent to these important 

habitats. Such projects have resulted in 

the creation of impervious surfaces 

(rooftops, access roads, storm sewers, 

and parking lots) that do not allow 

precipitation to seep into the ground. 

Instead, frequent high-volume 

freshwater runoff flows into saline 

wetlands, and associated streams, 

diluting salinity and altering their 

hydrology. In addition, runoff 

originating from other nearby, but not 

necessarily adjacent, residential and 

commercial developments and 

associated roads, flows through 

constructed drainages and storm sewers, 

and tributaries and contributes to an 

increase of freshwater inflow into 

downslope saline wetlands and their 

associated streams. 

Reduced salinity concentrations on 

barren salt flats and along saline stream 

edges have allowed the invasion of 

vegetation such as Typha angustifolia

(cattail) and Phalaris arundinacea (reed 

canary grass) into habitats used by the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. These plants, 

ordinarily unable to tolerate high 

salinity, are aggressive invaders that 

convert sunny, barren salt flats into 

habitat that is dominated by a 

herbaceous overstory, rendering it 

unsuitable for use by the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. This overstory shades out open 

sunny areas required by the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle to thermoregulate, forage, 

and oviposit (M. Fritz, NGPC, pers. 

comm. 2001). Increased vegetative 

encroachment is the primary factor 

attributed to the extirpation of several 

populations of other Cicindela species 

(e.g., C. abdominals and C. debilis) 

(Knisley and Hill 1992), and is one of 

the main threats to C. ohlone (66 FR 

50340). 

Reduced salinity concentrations on 

barren salt flats and along saline stream 

edges have also resulted in other direct 

impacts. Based on field and laboratory 

studies using C. circumpicta and C. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5107

togata, two tiger beetle species that are 

co-inhabitants of salt flats with the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle, Hoback et al. (2000) 

found that salt is required for 

ovipositing. Neither species oviposited 

in greenhouse soil without it. Allgeier et 

al. (2004) concluded that speciesspecific preferences for salt and soil 

moisture regimes is important to habitat 

partitioning and reduction in 

competition between the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle and other tiger beetles. Hoback et 

al. (2000) discovered that changes in 

salinity and hydrology may alter the 

abundance of prey and cause the loss of 

suitable larval habitat for saline 

wetland-dependent species of tiger 

beetles, including the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. After urban development occurs 

near and around saline wetlands and 

associated streams and alters the 

hydrologic regimes of these habitats, 

restoration and recovery of these habitat 

types will be difficult. This is especially 

true for the specialized barren salt flats 

and saline stream edges that are needed 

by the Salt Creek tiger beetle (J. 

Cochnar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

pers. obs. 2002).

Past and Present Habitat Quality and 

Quantity 

A number of studies have attempted 

to quantify the amount and rate of 

habitat loss for the saline wetlands of 

eastern Nebraska. All of these studies 

confirm the extensive loss of saline 

wetlands, but vary in terms of their 

estimates for the total acres lost due to 

differences in data and methods of 

analysis. In 1991, Farrar and Gersib 

found that only about 490 ha (1,200 ac) 

of saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska 

remained, compared to 7,300 ha (18,000 

ac) in the late 1800s (Murphy 1992). In 

1993 and 1994, a team of biologists from 

various Federal and State agencies 

completed an intensive assessment, 

inventory, and categorization of the 

saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska 

(Gilbert and Stutheit 1994). This 

assessment identified 98 sites that could 

be categorized as Category 1 saline 

wetlands comprising approximately 

1,346 ha (3,327 ac) (Gilbert and Stutheit 

1994). Category 1 saline wetlands 

provide saline wetland functions of high 

value or have the potential to provide 

high value following restoration or 

enhancement (Gilbert and Stutheit 

1994). Category 2 saline wetlands are 

contaminated and degraded with 

limited potential for restoration. 

Category 3 and 4 wetlands are defined 

as freshwater wetlands and freshwater 

vegetation on saline and nonsaline 

hydric soils, respectively (Gilbert and 

Stutheit 1994). LaGrange (2003) further 

examined the analysis completed by 

Gilbert and Stutheit (1994) and divided 

Category 1 saline wetlands into three 

sub-classes: (1) Not highly degraded and 

still functioning—totaling 85 ha (210 ac) 

(6 percent); (2) degraded, but still 

functioning as a saline wetland and 

restorable to full function—totaling 

1,249 ha (3,087 ac) (93 percent); and (3) 

degraded, not functioning as a saline 

wetland, but restorable to full 

function—totaling 12 ha (30 ac) (1 

percent). 

Although it is important to discuss 

the overall loss of saline wetlands, the 

impact of that loss on the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle can only be fully assessed by 

considering the loss of barren salt flat 

and saline stream edge habitats that 

occur within the confines of Category 1 

saline wetlands. We expanded on the 

analyses completed by LaGrange (2003) 

and Gilbert and Stutheit (1994) to 

complete such an assessment. Using a 

Geographic Information System (GIS), 

we did a habitat assessment of the 

remaining barren salt flat and saline 

stream edge habitats existing within the 

remaining Category 1 saline wetlands. 

Using National Hydrography Dataset 

information (http://nhd.usgs.gov) and 

all known locations of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles, we delineated saline stream 

edge habitat (J. Runge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2003). 

Next, we delineated barren salt flat 

habitat through the use of a featureextraction process that would select 

areas containing similar spectral 

signatures of known barren salt flats. 

Finally, we did a qualitative evaluation 

of our GIS analysis by ground-truthing 

select polygons within the barren salt 

flat GIS layer. 

Results from our assessment indicate 

that the total remaining areas of barren 

salt flat and saline stream edge habitat 

that exist within the saline wetlands of 

the Little Salt Creek, Rock Creek 

watersheds, and the remnant Salt Basin 

(i.e., Capital Beach) are approximately 

15, 33, and 1 ha (38, 81, and 3 ac) 

respectively, totaling 49 ha (122 ac). 

These 49 ha (122 ac) represent all the 

barren salt flat and saline stream edge 

habitats that currently remain. In 

consideration of the analysis completed 

by LaGrange (2003), we then conducted 

a spatial analysis to determine the 

amount of habitat currently available for 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle that is not 

highly degraded. The analysis separated 

coded barren salt flats into Category 1 

subclasses identified by LaGrange 

(2003). Our analysis reveals that only 

approximately 6 ha (15 ac) out of the 

total 49 ha (122 ac) of coded salt barrens 

are not highly degraded. It is these 

remaining 6 ha (15 ac) of not highly 

degraded barren salt flats and saline 

stream edges that provide habitat for the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. 

As the quality of saline habitat 

continues to decline through reduction 

in size, encroachment of herbaceous 

species, and modification to hydrology, 

so too does the likelihood that the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle can survive and avoid 

extinction. Most of the habitat 

delineated in our analysis was 

composed of extremely small habitat 

complexes (i.e., less than 0.04 ha (0.09 

ac)), that are unlikely to provide all of 

the necessary life history requirements 

that the Salt Creek tiger beetle needs to 

survive. Further, these small habitats are 

in clusters resembling mosaics, 

separated by herbaceous overstory. This 

spatial dispersion of herbaceous 

overstory precludes the use of these 

small areas by the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle, a species confined to specific 

habitats, and not known to travel 

distances greater than 805 m (2,640 ft) 

(Allgeier et al. 2003) in search of other 

suitable habitat. S. Spomer (pers. comm. 

2002) confirmed that no Salt Creek tiger 

beetles were found in these small 

habitats in the 13 years that surveys 

were conducted. Carter (1989), the 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 

(1999), Ratcliffe and Spomer (2002), 

Spomer and Higley (1993 and 2001), 

Spomer et al. (1997), and Allgeier et al.

(2003) all concluded that the declining 

number of populations of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles is due to the loss of suitable 

saline wetland and stream habitat. 

Urban Development and Road 

Construction 

Commercial and residential urban 

development and road construction are 

the greatest threats to the saline 

wetlands of eastern Nebraska and the 

plant and animal species that depend 

upon these habitats (Gilbert and Stutheit 

1994; Ratcliffe and Spomer 2002). Urban 

expansion of Lincoln and Lancaster 

County has contributed to the decline of 

the saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska 

and associated streams, and potential 

extinction of the endemic species that 

use these areas, such as the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle. From 1970 to 2000, the 

Lincoln’s human population grew by 50 

percent, with a corresponding 50 

percent increase in the area of the City 

(U.S. Department of Transportation 

2002a). For the period of 1990 to 2000, 

Lincoln and Lancaster County 

experienced a 17.2 percent growth in 

population and a 20.2 percent growth in 

housing (U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 

2000). The anticipated future 

population growth rate of Lincoln and 

Lancaster County is 1.5 percent 

annually (City of Lincoln and Lancaster 

County 2002). The population of 

5108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Lincoln is expected to grow by 

approximately 47 percent by 2025 (U.S. 

Department of Transportation 2002a). 

This accelerated population growth rate 

has become evident in the last year, as 

illustrated by urban and infrastructure 

developments (discussed below) that 

threaten the continued existence of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle and its limited 

remaining habitat.

All three extant populations of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles may be threatened 

with extirpation caused by the 

expansion of urban development and 

road construction in Lincoln and 

Lancaster County. A review of 1989 and 

2002 aerial photographs reveals that 

over 50 percent of the area surrounding 

the Little Salt Creek-Roper population (a 

1,300-ha (3,200-ac) area bounded by 

Interstate 80 to the North, Salt Creek to 

the South, North 27th Street to the West, 

and Highway 77 to the East) has been 

developed within the last 5 years. We 

reviewed the 2002 City of Lincoln and 

Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan 

and found that an additional 30 to 40 

percent of the area surrounding the 

Little Salt Creek-Roper population is 

planned for residential and commercial 

development over the next 25 years. 

However, given the current rate of 

growth and development surrounding 

this population, this additional area is 

likely to be developed in less time than 

that. In some cases, the local municipal 

development permits for this expansion 

have already been acquired (including 

some floodplain permits from Lincoln) 

(R. Harms, pers. obs. 2002 and 2003). 

Development with the potential to 

adversely impact all three populations 

is underway in areas adjacent to the 

remaining segments of habitat. Recent 

developments have already changed the 

drainage patterns in some areas, 

resulting in the introduction of excess 

freshwater, sediment, and contaminated 

urban runoff to saline habitats occupied 

by the Salt Creek tiger beetle. There are 

also planned highway projects which 

could also adversely impact the species 

due to freshwater runoff increase, 

vegetative encroachment, risks of toxic 

spills and alteration of drainage 

patterns. 

Increased vehicle traffic due to road 

improvements can increase the amount 

of chemically-contaminated runoff from 

vehicles and roadway surfaces flowing 

into Little Salt Creek. Highway runoff 

contains a variety of chemical 

constituents, many of which can be 

harmful to the environment when 

washed from roads by rain and 

snowmelt into adjacent surface waters, 

groundwater, and ecosystems (Bricker 

1999). Contaminated runoff could 

impact the Salt Creek tiger beetle, as it 

can have toxic effects on the beetle and 

its prey base. For the expansion of 

Interstate 80, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and Nebraska 

Department of Roads (NDOR) have 

identified measures that reduce 

concentrations of hazardous and toxic 

contaminants in highway runoff, and a 

contingency plan for accidental spills 

that would threaten two populations of 

Salt Creek tiger beetles (FHWA 2003). 

However, other non-Federal road and 

street projects that will be constructed 

after the Interstate 80 expansion do not 

currently address impacts to the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle from exposure to 

runoff. 

Agriculture 

Agricultural practices in the area may 

also threaten the limited Salt Creek tiger 

beetle habitat and the Upper Little Salt 

Creek-North and Little Salt Creek-Arbor 

Lake populations. Livestock grazing can 

destroy or substantially degrade habitats 

for adult and larval forms of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle, through trampling, 

and thus, destroy Salt Creek tiger beetle 

larvae burrows and the larvae that 

inhabit them. Cattle grazing also can 

compact soil and modify soil hydrology, 

gradually drying out a site and making 

it unsuitable for adults and larvae 

(which prefer moist, muddy sites with 

encrusted salt on soil surfaces). The 

Upper Little Salt Creek-North 

population occurs along a segment of 

Little Salt Creek that flows through a 

pasture, and one of these population 

survey sites may have been negatively 

impacted by cattle grazing (S. Spomer, 

pers. comm. 2002). 

Cultivation also poses a threat to the 

largest remaining population of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles, the Little Salt CreekArbor Lake population. Cultivation can 

increase erosion of sediment and result 

in introduction of pesticides into 

adjacent saline wetlands. This 

population currently is at risk because 

there is no vegetative buffer between 

occupied Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat 

and row cropped areas. Adverse impacts 

to the beetles in this population are 

likely to occur as precipitation events 

and periodic winter and spring thaws 

wash sediment from the cultivated land 

and either cover over larval burrows 

with a thick layer of sediment or 

encourage vegetative encroachment of 

saline stream edges through its 

accumulation. Future use of the 

impacted area by the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle may not occur because it may be 

unsuitable as ovipositing, larval, and 

foraging habitat. When an area of larval 

habitat becomes degraded then 

disappears, so does the species it 

supports (Dunn 1998). Historic and 

anticipated impacts related to flooding 

are discussed later in Factor E of the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section of this rule. 

Stream Channelization, Bank 

Stabilization, and Incisement 

In Nebraska, many river and stream 

systems, including Salt Creek and its 

tributaries, have undergone extensive 

channelization for flood control to 

protect both agricultural and urban 

developments. Channelization of Salt 

Creek from Lincoln to Ashland, 

Nebraska, was done a section at a time 

from 1917 to 1942 by the Corps (Farrar 

and Gersib 1991; Murphy 1992). In the 

1950s, the Corps and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture further modified the area 

when they developed and implemented 

a flood control plan that involved the 

construction of levees, reservoirs, and 

additional channelization of Salt Creek 

(Murphy 1992). Farrar and Gersib (1991) 

found that the greatest alteration of 

saline wetlands in the Little Salt Creek 

and Rock Creek drainages resulted from 

the channelization of Salt Creek. 

Channelization of Salt Creek encouraged 

tributary streams (Little Salt Creek, Oak 

Creek, Rock Creek, and Middle Creek) to 

head-cut, carving deeper into their beds 

to adjust to a change in stream bed 

gradients. Straightening stream channels 

leads to a state of disequilibrium or 

instability, often causing stream 

entrenchment and corresponding 

changes in morphology and stability 

(Rosgen 1996). The lowering of tributary 

streambeds resulted in the degradation 

and loss of saline wetlands by draining 

and lowering the water table and 

diluting the salt concentrations with 

freshwater leading to vegetative 

encroachment (Wingfield et al. 1992). 

In 1992, the largest population of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle, the Little Salt 

Creek-Arbor Lake population, was 

significantly impacted by a stream 

channelization and bank stabilization 

project along Little Salt Creek (Spomer 

and Higley 1993; Farrar 2003). In an 

attempt to control erosion and bank 

sloughing and to prepare for the 

widening of North 27th Street, a portion 

of Little Salt Creek was straightened, 

and its banks were armored with rock 

riprap. These actions destroyed about 

one-half of the remaining prime habitat 

for the Salt Creek tiger beetle along 

Little Salt Creek (Spomer and Higley 

1993; Farrar 2003). Based on surveys 

conducted in 1991 and 1992, the Little 

Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population 

showed a corresponding 55 percent 

decline (from 171 to 94) after the project 

was completed (Spomer and Higley 

1993). In this circumstance, stabilization 

of about half of the bank resulted in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5109

loss of over half of the population of 

Salt Creek tiger beetles. Had the entire 

bank been stabilized, instead of just 

half, the population of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles there likely would have been 

extirpated, or nearly so. It is unclear 

why the population at the site was able 

to recover following such a devastating 

event. It is possible that favorable 

weather conditions, suitable habitat 

within travel distance (distances of less 

than 805 m (2,640 ft)), or other 

unknown factors could have contributed 

to their survival.

The lower portion of Little Salt Creek, 

where the two largest remaining 

populations of Salt Creek tiger beetles 

exist, has been deeply incised by human 

activities, resulting in the creation of 

vertical stream banks measuring 

approximately 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) in 

height (J. Cochnar, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. obs. 2002; R. 

Harms, pers. obs. 2002). We observed 

that bank sloughing is covering saline 

stream edges and reducing the amount 

of suitable habitat for the two largest 

populations of Salt Creek tiger beetles. 

We presume that the Little Salt CreekArbor Lake and Little Salt Creek-Roper 

populations of the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

have been able to survive because these 

two populations exist in areas where 

there is still a functioning saline 

wetland and saline stream complex. 

However, if these two areas evolve into 

stable, vegetated, incised stream systems 

and the wetland habitats continue to 

receive freshwater runoff from 

surrounding urban development, the 

existing suitable habitats for the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle would no longer 

support these two populations and the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle might become 

extinct. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Tiger beetles (genus Cicindela) are 

one of the most sought-after genera of 

beetles by amateur collectors because of 

their unique metallic colors and 

patterns and fascinating habits 

(Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 

1999; 66 FR 50340). Interest in the 

genus Cicindela is reflected in a journal 

entitled Cicindela, which has been 

published quarterly since 1969 and is 

exclusively devoted to this genus. Even 

limited collection pressure on small 

populations of species, such as the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle, can have adverse 

impacts on viability because of the loss 

of genetic variability it causes (Spomer 

and Higley 1993). At present, we do not 

know if the collection of adult Salt 

Creek tiger beetles is a factor 

contributing to its decline. 

The Service and NGPC are funding 

studies of the Salt Creek tiger beetle to 

improve the understanding of its 

biology and habitat requirements. This 

research will ultimately contribute to 

the conservation of the species. 

Transplanting larvae of other species of 

rare tiger beetles has been conducted 

elsewhere by removing larvae from one 

site and introducing them to another 

unoccupied site. For example, the 

federally threatened C. dorsalis dorsalis 

has been successfully reintroduced on 

the sandy beaches of the Sandy Hook 

National Seashore in New Jersey using 

this technique (B. Knisley, RandolphMacon College, pers. comm. 2003; A. 

Scherer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

pers. comm. 2003). Leon Higley (pers. 

comm. 2001) states that Salt Creek tiger 

beetles will need to be introduced into 

unoccupied suitable habitats through 

the rearing and translocation of captive 

larvae. Captive rearing of Salt Creek 

tiger beetle larvae for introduction into 

suitable saline habitats is under way 

through Service- and NGPC-funded 

UNL studies (Allgeier et al. 2003). 

Development of these procedures 

requires the capture and removal of a 

small number of adult Salt Creek tiger 

beetles from their habitat and placement 

in a laboratory setting. The removal of 

a small number of adults will slightly 

reduce a population, but if successful, 

such a program will preserve and 

enhance the genetic variability of the 

species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Insufficient information is available to 

determine if the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

is susceptible to diseases that could 

threaten its survival. However, the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle is affected by several 

predacious and parasitic species that are 

commonly observed in its habitat. 

Spiders (Salticidae and Lycosidae), 

predatory bugs (Reduviidae), beetles 

(Histeridae and Cantharidae), birds, 

shrews (Soricidae), raccoons (Procyon 

lotor), lizards (Lacertilia sp.), toads 

(Bufonidae), robber flies (Asilidae), ants 

(Formicidae), and dragonflies 

(Anisoptera sp.) all prey on the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle (Lavigne 1972; Nagano 

1982; Pearson 1988). A robber fly was 

observed preying on a Salt Creek tiger 

beetle it had caught in flight and pulled 

to the ground (Spomer and Higley 

2001). Ants can overwhelm, kill, and 

devour larvae confined to their burrows 

(Spomer and Higley 2001). Larger 

species of tiger beetles (C. circumpicta) 

have been known to prey on smallersized tiger beetles (C. togata), especially 

those species that occupy similar 

habitats (Hoback et al. 2001). Both C. 

togata and C. circumpicta are found in 

the same habitats as the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle and both may prey upon it (S. 

Spomer, pers. comm. 2002). Parasitic 

wasps (Chalcididae and Tiphiidae) can 

sting the larvae, resulting in paralysis, 

then lay eggs which hatch and feed on 

the larvae (Spomer and Higley 2001). 

Bee flies (Bombylidae) hover over larval 

burrows and flip eggs into the entrances 

(S. Spomer, pers. comm. 2002). After the 

eggs hatch, the bee fly maggots attach 

themselves to the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

larvae and feed on them.

Predators and parasites play 

important roles in the natural dynamics 

of populations and ecosystems. 

Predators and parasitoids of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle evolved in 

conjunction with the beetle and would 

not normally pose a severe threat to its 

survival. However, predation and 

parasitism of adults and larvae may 

account for significant mortality of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle because of the 

small size of the remaining populations, 

limited distribution, reduced habitat, 

and close proximity of the two largest 

populations (L. Higley, pers. comm. 

2002). Hoback et al. (2001) indicated 

that reduced saline habitats, coupled 

with a limited prey source, may result 

in predation by C. circumpicta and C. 

togata on the Salt Creek tiger beetle. 

Such predation by other tiger beetles 

may be a threat to the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. However, at this time it is 

unknown whether the magnitude of 

predation and parasitism on the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle is a threat to its 

survival. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Overview 

Federal, State, and local laws, 

regulations, and policies have not been 

sufficient to prevent past and ongoing 

losses of Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms that 

provide some, but not adequate, 

protection for the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

include—Federally implemented 

regulatory mechanisms such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and section 404 of the CWA; 

State implemented regulatory 

mechanisms such as the Nebraska State 

Water Quality Standards (as required by 

section 401 of the CWA) and the 

Nebraska Nongame and Endangered 

Species Conservation Act (NESCA); and 

local conservation planning efforts such 

as the City of Lincoln and Lancaster 

County Comprehensive Plan, the Little 

Salt Creek Valley Planning Cooperative 

Agreement cosponsored by the Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) and NGPC, and a 

local conservation plan for the 

5110 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

protection of the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

proposed by Lincoln (but not yet 

developed). 

Federally Implemented Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

While NEPA and CWA are important 

environmental protection statutes, 

neither provides specific protection to 

candidate species. NEPA is a procedural 

statute that requires full consideration 

and disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of a project. It does not require 

protection of particular species or its 

habitat, nor does it require the selection 

of a particular course of action. 

Under section 404 of the CWA, the 

Corps does not regulate wetland 

drainages that do not result in a 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States or sediment 

inputs originating from upland sources. 

The effects of such activities could have 

substantial adverse impacts on saline 

wetlands and associated streams used 

by larval and adult forms of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle. Additionally, the 

Corps’ Regulatory Program in Nebraska 

has limited regulatory authority over 

road and urban development projects 

that have destroyed or further degraded 

habitats for the Salt Creek tiger beetle. 

Since the late 1800s, over 90 percent of 

the historical saline wetlands of eastern 

Nebraska have been lost or highly 

degraded due to such projects (Murphy 

1992), which have led to corresponding 

losses of Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat, 

including barren salt flats, saline stream 

edges, and seeps. 

Below is a discussion of permitted 

activities and prescribed mitigation 

authorized by the Corps under section 

404 of the CWA. In 1990, Lincoln 

purchased 23 ha (58 ac) of a portion of 

the saline wetland known as Arbor Lake 

and turned over its management to 

NGPC. This acquisition and protection 

in perpetuity served as mitigation for a 

Department of the Army permit that 

authorized the destruction of 7 ha (17 

ac) of saline wetlands for the expansion 

of two streets. This mitigation resulted 

in the acquisition of a portion of the 

habitat that harbors the Little Salt CreekArbor Lake Population of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles. Since 1995, permits have 

been authorized for projects that 

impacted approximately 11 ha (27 ac) of 

eastern Nebraska Category 1 saline 

wetlands (U.S. Department of 

Transportation 2002a and b). As 

required by these permits, project 

proponents offered to mitigate (restore 

and preserve) approximately 108 ha 

(266 ac) of Category 1 saline wetlands 

(U.S. Department of Transportation 

2002a and b). Although mitigation did 

not specifically target the 49 ha (122 ac) 

of Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat (i.e., 

barren salt flats and saline stream 

edges), one such mitigation project had 

the potential to benefit the beetle in this 

area. However, the project, known as the 

Whitehead Mitigation Site, has provided 

minimal benefit to Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. Since its completion over 8 years 

ago, this site has been surveyed 

annually for Salt Creek tiger beetles. 

One individual Salt Creek tiger beetle 

was found during the first year of 

monitoring, but none have been found 

in the last 7 years (Spomer et al. 1999, 

2001, 2002, and 2004; and Allgeier et al.

2003). The area is unlikely to provide 

habitat for the Salt Creek tiger beetle in 

the near future as site observations show 

signs of vegetative encroachment, and 

the site appears too wet for beetle use. 

However, benefits may be realized 

through associated functions of the area 

(i.e., water purification and retention of 

excess stormwater). Thus, aside from 

the Arbor Lake area acquisition, 

preservation and restoration of Category 

1 saline wetlands have provided 

minimal habitat benefits to the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle. 

A Supreme Court ruling in 2001 

limited Federal authority under the 

CWA to regulate certain isolated 

wetlands (Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159) 

(SWANCC). In particular, SWANCC 

eliminated CWA jurisdiction over 

‘‘isolated waters that are intrastate and 

non-navigable, where the sole basis for 

asserting CWA jurisdiction is the actual 

or potential use of the waters as habitat 

for migratory birds that cross state lines 

in their migrations’’ (68 FR 1996). As 

described in a Joint Memorandum 

issued on January 15, 2003 (68 FR 

1995), the Corps and Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) will not assert 

jurisdiction over such isolated waters, if 

the sole basis for jurisdiction is any of 

the factors listed in the ‘‘Migratory Bird 

Rule’’ (51 FR 41217). Additionally, the 

Joint Memorandum stated that Corps 

and EPA field staff should seek formal 

project-specific Headquarters approval 

prior to asserting jurisdiction over these 

waters on other grounds. Some of the 

wetland habitats occupied by the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle are now considered to 

be isolated and not subject to protection 

under the CWA. In a February 9, 2001, 

letter addressed to a potential applicant 

for a Department of the Army permit, 

the Corps explained that their property 

was determined to be an isolated 

wetland and, thus, the Corps could not 

assert jurisdiction over it due to the 

Supreme Court ruling. In Nebraska, the 

Corps will not regulate any wetland that 

is determined to be isolated unless it 

can be proven that there is some kind 

of commerce use (e.g., a public boat 

ramp on the wetland) aside from 

migratory bird use or a surface 

connection. The property of interest to 

the potential applicant contained a 

Category 1 saline wetland with a barren 

salt flat, and historically, the area was 

part of the Salt Basin wetland. The 

property owner constructed an 

apartment complex, which destroyed 

the saline wetland and barren salt flats. 

Although a survey of this saline wetland 

revealed that no Salt Creek tiger beetles 

were present prior to construction, this 

saline wetland once had the potential as 

a possible recolonization site for the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle. 

Stream channelization and certain 

bank stabilization projects are regulated 

by the Corps under section 404 of the 

CWA, but this regulatory mechanism 

has proven ineffective in preventing 

impacts to stream habitats used by the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. As described 

above in Factor A, in 1992, along Little 

Salt Creek, about half of the remaining 

habitat for the largest population of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle was lost after the 

completion of a Corps-permitted stream 

bank stabilization and channelization 

project. This authorization resulted in 

activities that destroyed about one-half 

of the remaining prime habitat for the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle along Little Salt 

Creek (Spomer and Higley 1993; Farrar 

2003).

Many of the saline wetlands that 

provide habitat for the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle are associated with the floodplain 

of adjacent streams. Stream 

channelization and bank stabilization 

projects conducted for flood control 

have caused channel incision and have 

necessitated additional bank 

stabilization projects further 

downstream or in feeder tributaries. 

Since the Salt Creek tiger beetle was 

listed as endangered by the State in 

2000, the Corps has considered it in its 

public interest evaluation for permits 

(M. Rabbe, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, pers. comm. 2001). However, 

the Corps’ evaluation has resulted in 

only limited benefits to the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle because construction 

activities in upland areas surrounding 

aquatic habitats are not within the 

Corps’ jurisdiction. Many projects 

qualify for a general permit (i.e., 

Nationwide Permit 13 (bank 

stabilization)) that does not need to be 

individually reviewed by the Corps. 

Further, some landowners, in an 

attempt to avoid obtaining an Army 

permit and the Federal oversight that 

goes with it, windrow piles of concrete 

riprap along the high bank of the stream 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5111

in anticipation that once the streambank 

erodes far enough landward, the riprap 

will fall in on its own and stabilize the 

bank. In such cases, the Corps cannot 

exercise regulatory jurisdiction over 

windrowed riprap until there is a 

discharge below the ordinary high water 

mark, and even then, only if that 

discharge threatens the navigability of a 

stream or is prohibited for use as a fill 

material (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Guidance Letter MRO 96–11, 

June 17, 1997). Both regulated and 

unregulated bank stabilization activities 

occur on Little Salt Creek and have 

adversely affected Salt Creek tiger beetle 

habitat. 

State Implemented Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Under section 401 of the CWA, NDEQ 

issues a Water Quality Certification 

(WQC) whenever a Department of the 

Army permit is authorized by the Corps. 

Issuance of a Nebraska WQC for a 

Department of the Army permit also is 

necessary to meet Nebraska State Water 

Quality Standards. Such standards are 

not aligned with quantitative biological 

criteria, and thus projects may still have 

negative impacts on saline wetlands of 

eastern Nebraska and associated streams 

that provide habitats needed to meet life 

requirements of both larval and adult 

Salt Creek tiger beetles. Nebraska Water 

Quality Standards do recognize all 

wetlands in the State as ‘‘waters of the 

State,’’ including isolated wetlands that 

are no longer under Federal jurisdiction 

as a result of SWANCC vs. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. As the State does 

not have a permit program for 

authorizing activities in wetlands, only 

after an impact to a non-Federal isolated 

wetland has occurred can the NDEQ 

take action (i.e., an enforcement action). 

After-the-fact enforcement actions under 

the State’s Water Quality Standards are 

unlikely to offset adverse impacts that 

have already occurred to the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle in isolated saline wetlands, 

given their highly specific habitat 

requirements and low numbers. 

On March 17, 2000, the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle was listed as endangered 

under the NESCA by NGPC. The NESCA 

prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of listed species. 

‘‘Take’’ is defined as a means to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, collect, or attempt to 

engage in such conduct. The NESCA 

also protects the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

by authorizing State agencies to carry 

out programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species and 

by taking such actions necessary to 

ensure that actions authorized, funded, 

or carried out by the State do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such endangered or threatened species 

or result in the destruction or 

modification of habitat for such species 

(NESCA section 37–807 (3)). The 

NESCA requires all State agencies to 

consult with NGPC to ensure that 

jeopardy is avoided. However, the 

NESCA does not authorize NGPC to 

review Federal actions or to consult 

with Federal agencies for impacts that 

may affect State-listed species such as 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle. In addition, 

although NESCA allows NGPC to 

identify critical habitat for State-listed 

species, implementing regulations that 

would allow such designations were 

never developed. 

Local Conservation Planning 

In a joint effort to plan long term for 

the development of the Lincoln and 

Lancaster County, officials have 

approved the Lincoln and Lancaster 

County Comprehensive Plan. The 

approved Comprehensive Plan proposes 

that development not occur along Little 

Salt Creek and north of Lincoln’s city 

limits. As part of the Comprehensive 

Plan, Lincoln also has placed a 150-m 

(500-ft) wide buffer around Little Salt 

Creek and its adjacent saline wetlands 

until a determination can be made 

through research whether the buffer is 

needed to protect the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. However, for development 

projects within the City limits, the 

buffer does not apply, including areas 

around the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

and Little Salt Creek-Roper populations. 

In addition, comments by 

representatives of Lincoln during an 

April 30, 2002, meeting with the Service 

indicated that the Comprehensive Plan 

is a guide for the growth and 

development of Lincoln and Lancaster 

County and can provide no assurances 

beyond the elected terms of those 

officials instrumental in its 

development. The Comprehensive Plan 

is the first step in developing city and 

county ordinances, but it is not a 

regulatory mechanism that can be relied 

upon to provide regulatory assurances. 

In 2000, the TNC and NGPC organized 

the Little Salt Creek Valley Planning 

Cooperative. In acknowledgment of the 

importance of private interests in the 

Cooperative, the purpose of this effort 

was to organize stakeholders, mainly 

private landowners, in the Little Salt 

Creek watershed into a coalition to 

preserve and protect eastern Nebraska 

saline wetlands and associated 

watershed streams in the northern third 

of Lancaster County. After 18 months of 

unsuccessful negotiations, this 

conservation effort was dissolved.

In 2003, Lincoln, Lancaster County, 

Lower Platte South Natural Resources 

District, TNC, and NGPC formed the 

Saline Wetland Conservation 

Partnership (SWCP). The SWCP has 

developed a plan that focuses on the 

conservation of saline wetlands in 

Lancaster and Saunders Counties. 

Although not specifically focused on the 

protection and management of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle, the SWCP’s efforts 

will benefit the species. One of the 

strategies of the SWCP’s plan is to 

protect saline wetlands using existing 

Federal, State, and local laws. Another 

strategy is to use existing grant programs 

to acquire saline wetlands either 

through simple fee title or conservation 

easements. To date, the SWCP has 

acquired 5 parcels of land containing 

saline wetlands. Due to the high value 

of land, and shortage of Federal, State, 

and local government agency funds, 

protection of Salt Creek tiger beetle 

habitat through acquisition is expected 

to be limited. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Overview 

Because the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

occurs at only three known locations 

and in such small numbers, the 

remaining populations of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles are highly susceptible to 

extinction as a result of naturally 

occurring stochastic environmental or 

demographic events. Such events may 

include heavy rain storms and severe 

flooding which flood out and scour 

larvae away, dilute salinity, and result 

in sediment deposition; accidental 

spillage of hazardous materials due to a 

nearby, up-slope traffic accident; or 

runoff containing a recently applied 

insecticide flowing into habitats 

occupied by the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

along Little Salt Creek. Gilpin (1987) 

recognized a direct association between 

increased extinction rates of a species 

and reduced habitat areas, distances 

between populations, and small 

population size. Further, random 

demographic effects and loss of genetic 

variability may result in individuals and 

populations being less able to cope with 

environmental change, which could 

result in the loss of one or both of the 

two largest populations of Salt Creek 

tiger beetles. 

In addition, populations of wetlanddependent species that are isolated and 

small in size are vulnerable to 

extinction by chance demographic 

events, disease, inbreeding, or natural 

events such as changing water levels, 

succession of wetland vegetation, and 

habitat destruction (Gibbs 1993). Based 

on 2004 population surveys and a 

review of USGS topographic maps 

5112 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

showing population distributions, 99 

percent of the remaining Salt Creek tiger 

beetles are located within a 1.6-km (1-

mi) radius of the Interstate 80 and North 

27th Street Interchange and ongoing 

residential and commercial 

development. Based on the information 

we have reviewed, we surmise that 

further degradation or loss of suitable 

habitats and the increased distance 

between areas of suitable habitat will 

further reduce the likelihood that Salt 

Creek tiger beetles will be able to move 

and recolonize other sites and establish 

additional populations. If so, as existing 

occupied habitats become degraded, and 

these areas become smaller and smaller, 

existing populations of Salt Creek tiger 

beetles may become extirpated. 

Floods and Droughts 

The extirpation of a local population 

of Salt Creek tiger beetles has occurred 

due to a naturally occurring flood event. 

Although Salt Creek tiger beetle larvae 

are able to withstand submersion for 

prolonged periods (possibly up to 2 

weeks) (Hoback et al. 1998; L. Higley, 

pers. comm. 2001), flooding results in 

soil erosion of larval burrow sites and 

washes larvae downstream. Flooding 

also results in the deposition of 

sediments from adjacent agricultural 

lands into larval and adult habitats. In 

the mid-1980s, floodwaters carried large 

loads of sediment from adjacent 

cropfields and deposited it into the 

saline wetlands associated with Rock 

Creek in northern Lancaster and 

southern Saunders Counties (M. Fritz, 

pers. comm. 2003). This flood event 

covered barren salt flats used by Salt 

Creek tiger beetles in the Jack Sinn 

WMA population. The mid-1980s flood 

resulted in the loss of Salt Creek tiger 

beetle larvae because of the depth of 

sediment deposited. The larvae were 

unable to remove the 8 to 10 cm (3 to 

4 in) of sediment deposited because 

they extract excess soil material out and 

away from a burrow and not inward (M. 

Fritz, pers. comm. 2003). The mid-1980s 

flood also changed the vegetation of the 

area. After the flood event, a thick 

herbaceous overstory composed of reed 

canarygrass and cattail infested the area, 

making it unsuitable for the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle. In 1993, back-to-back 50-

year rain events inundated the entire 

area, including saline wetlands and Salt 

Creek tiger beetle habitats of the Jack 

Sinn WMA population (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1996). 

Surveys of the Jack Sinn WMA 

population have only found two 

individuals since 1993 and, as already 

mentioned, the Jack Sinn WMA 

population is considered to be 

extirpated. 

Extirpation of either the Little Salt 

Creek-Arbor Lake population or Little 

Salt Creek-Roper population of Salt 

Creek tiger beetle, or both, is highly 

likely to occur if the Little Salt Creek 

drainage experiences an event similar to 

the 1993 Rock Creek drainage flood. 

Flooding, even after a normal rainfall, is 

likely to occur at a higher frequency and 

volume due to the increased storm 

water runoff from developments and 

channelization of tributaries. 

Drought also may have impacted prey 

populations, leading to higher mortality 

rates of the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

(Spomer and Higley 2001). Dry 

conditions result in the loss of moist 

saline seep habitat used as larval, 

ovipositing, and foraging habitat by the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. Drought also can 

change the abundance and diversity of 

prey items used by adult and larval Salt 

Creek tiger beetles. In Nebraska, 2002 

was the third driest year on record (i.e.,

115 years) (Nebraska’s Climate 

Assessment and Response Committee 

2003) and June 2002 was the driest 

month on record (University of 

Nebraska 2003). June is the month when 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle is most active. 

L. Higley (pers. comm. 2003) predicts 

that if the drought that Nebraska has 

experienced over the past couple of 

years continues, the remaining Salt 

Creek tiger beetle populations will 

decline in number of individuals due to 

the lack of prey available to the beetle 

and its larvae.

Pesticides 

Corn, soybean, and sorghum fields 

dominate the Little Salt Creek 

watershed, and insecticides are applied 

annually to these fields. Insecticides 

that enter occupied habitats of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle through runoff have 

the potential for direct impact or 

indirect impact through modification of 

prey availability. There have been no 

studies to evaluate pesticide exposure 

and adverse effects to Salt Creek tiger 

beetles; however, research on ground 

beetles (family Carabidae) suggests 

pesticide exposure may place the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle at risk from decreased 

survival and reproduction. 

Dietary and topical exposure of 

ground beetles (Harpalus 

pennsylvanicus) in Kentucky turfgrass 

plots to a carbamate insecticide 

(bediocarb) and a chloro-nicotinyl 

insecticide (imidacloprid) resulted in 

lethal and sublethal effects (Kunkel et 

al. 2001). The carbamate insecticide 

resulted in a high incidence of 

mortality, whereas exposure to the 

chloro-nicotinyl insecticide resulted in 

neurotoxic effects, including paralysis, 

impaired walking, and excessive 

grooming. Beetles recovered from the 

sublethal effects in the laboratory; 

however, field observations indicated 

that intoxicated beetles were highly 

vulnerable to predation (Kunkel et al.

2001). Bendiocarb and imidacloprid 

have been used for insect control in 

corn (Extoxnet 1996). Other carbamate 

pesticides recommended for use in corn, 

soybean, and sorghum production in 

Nebraska include carbofuran, 

methomyl, thiodicarb, trimethacarb, and 

carbaryl (Wright et al. 1994; Hunt 2003). 

Organophosphate and pyrethroid 

insecticide effects to ground beetles also 

have been evaluated. Thacker et al.

(1995) found that microapplicators in 

laboratory-based topical bioassays 

greatly underestimated the toxicity of 

the chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate) 

and deltamethrin (a pyrethroid) 

pesticides. Whole field experiments in 

England designed to study the effects of 

pesticides on nontarget invertebrates 

reported that chlorpyrifos and fonofos, 

both organophosphate pesticides, affect 

the activity of ground beetles and 

seemed to result from direct toxicity 

rather than a depleted prey base (Luff et 

al. 1990). Organophosphate and 

pyrethroid pesticides recommended for 

use on corn, soybean, and sorghum 

crops in Nebraska include chlorpyrifos, 

malathion, methyl parathion, 

dimethoate, ethoprop, fonofos, phorate, 

terbufos, tefluthrin, tralomethrin, 

permethrin, esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, 

zeta-cypermethrin, and lambdacyhalothrin (Wright et al. 1994; Hunt 

2003). 

Salt Creek tiger beetles also may be 

exposed to pesticides applied to control 

mosquitoes, grasshoppers, and pests in 

residential yards and gardens. Nagano 

(1982) referred to a report of an entire 

population of tiger beetles (C. 

haemorrhagica and C. pusilla) in the 

State of Washington being eradicated by 

pesticides. The disappearance of the 

tiger beetle C. marginata in New 

Hampshire also was believed to be the 

result of insecticide spraying to control 

salt marsh mosquitoes (Dunn 1978, as 

cited by Nagano 1982). Insecticides 

applied annually to lawns and 

landscaping plants at residential and 

commercial developments near Little 

Salt Creek have the potential to enter 

the creek and impact the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle and its prey base. A local 

government has proposed for the last 

two years to apply pesticide for the 

control of mosquitos along Little Salt 

Creek where the Little Salt Creek-Roper 

population exists. 

Artificial Lights 

Artificial lights along streets and 

highways in Lincoln, particularly 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5113

mercury vapor lamps, also may 

contribute to population losses of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle, as such lights 

have been implicated in population 

losses of nocturnal insects elsewhere 

(Pyle et al. 1981). Adult tiger beetles of 

many species are regularly attracted to 

lights at night, which may be associated 

with nocturnal dispersal (Pearson 1988). 

Larochelle (1977) documented 122 

species and subspecies of Cicindelidae 

found at night light sources. Tiger beetle 

species that were attracted to light 

sources at night include C. togata, C. 

fulgida, and C. circumpicta (Willis 

1970). The subspecies, C. n. knausi, the 

closest insect relative to the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle, also is attracted to artificial 

light sources at night (Willis 1970). 

Allgeier et al. (2003) found that Salt 

Creek tiger beetles are attracted to 

artificial light in the following order of 

preference—black light; mercury vapor; 

incandescent; fluorescent; and sodium 

vapor (Allgeier et al. 2003). The 2003 

mark/recapture study of the Little Salt 

Creek-Arbor Lake population shows that 

Salt Creek tiger beetles move a distance 

of at least of 460 m (1,509 ft) (Allgeier 

et al. 2003). Allgeier et al. (2003) also 

found that female Salt Creek tiger 

beetles oviposition at night and that 

outdoor light sources may reduce 

reproduction. It is thought that fewer 

eggs are deposited if artificial light 

sources draw females away from their 

breeding habitat. Allgeier et al. (2003) 

recommended an 805-m (2,640-ft) (0.8-

km (0.5-mi)) buffer zone to protect all 

existing Salt Creek tiger beetle 

populations from possible outdoor light 

sources.

Movement away from habitat to 

lighted areas, such as areas surrounding 

major transportation routes (e.g., 

Interstate 80) and associated residential, 

commercial, and industrial 

developments may increase energy 

expenditure, reduce reproductive 

success, and ultimately impact the 

survival of the two largest populations 

of Salt Creek tiger beetles (L. Higley, 

pers. comm. 2002). Distances between 

outdoor light sources within 

commercial and residential 

developments and the Little Salt CreekRoper and Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

populations are less than the 805-m 

(2,640-ft) (0.8-km (0.5-mi)) buffer 

recommended by Allgeier et al. (2003) 

(J. Cochnar, pers. obs. 2002). 

Electric insect light traps are possibly 

a greater threat to the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle than lights illuminating urban 

streets, houses, parking lots, and 

commercial buildings. Electric insect 

light traps use ultraviolet light to attract 

flying insects toward an electrified 

metal grid where they are destroyed 

(Frick and Tallamy 1996). Another type 

of trap that uses black light, a form of 

ultraviolet light, has a sticky paper 

backing where the insects are caught 

and die. Electrical insect light traps 

have been used extensively since the 

middle 1900s for research and 

surveillance in disease prevention, and 

control of indoor and outdoor insects in 

homes and agricultural and industrial 

operations (Urban and Broce 1999). 

Mosquitoes (Culicidae), horse and deer 

flies (Tabanidae), house flies 

(Muscidae), and biting midges 

(Ceratopogonidae) are the most 

commonly targeted species of biting 

insects. However, during the summer of 

1994 at 6 sample sites, Frick and 

Tallamy (1996) found 13,789 insects 

that were electrocuted by electric insect 

light traps. Of these, 6,670 insects (48.4 

percent) were nontarget and nonharmful 

aquatic insects from nearby rivers and 

streams. Additionally, Frick and 

Tallamy (1996) identified that 1,868 of 

these insects (13.5 percent) were 

predators and parasites of the targeted, 

harmful insects. 

Black-light or ultraviolet based insect 

traps could become an ever increasing 

threat as residential and commercial 

development continues to encroach 

upon the two largest populations of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles. 

Conclusion of Status Evaluation 

In making this proposed rule 

determination, we carefully assessed the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding past, 

present, and future threats faced by the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. The immediate 

concerns for the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

are associated with the extremely small, 

fluctuating populations, the number of 

which has declined by 50 percent since 

surveys began in 1991, and habitat 

degradation, destruction, and 

fragmentation. The Salt Creek tiger 

beetle is currently restricted to three 

populations on approximately 6 ha (15 

ac) of not highly degraded barren salt 

flat and saline stream edge habitats 

contained within the eastern Nebraska 

saline wetlands and associated saline 

streams (i.e., Little Salt Creek). Ninetynine percent of all remaining Salt Creek 

tiger beetles are located approximately 

1.6 km (1 mi) apart, making them 

especially susceptible to extirpation 

from a single catastrophic event. They 

also are located within a 1.2-km (0.7-mi) 

radius of the Interstate 80 and North 

27th Street Interchange and the 

associated growth and development that 

is underway. 

As discussed in Factor A of the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section of this rule, there are a 

number of immediate threats that can be 

attributed to urban and agricultural 

development projects that threaten the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle with extinction. 

Ongoing residential and commercial 

developments may threaten all 

remaining populations of the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle with extirpation. These 

developments can cause changes to 

hydrologic regimes, resulting in 

freshwater inflows and sediment runoff, 

which in turn reduces salinity 

concentrations and encourages 

vegetation invasion into previously 

unvegetated saline habitats. Proposed 

projects, such as road expansion 

projects, also pose threats to the two 

largest remaining populations of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle. 

Other immediate threats to the habitat 

of the Salt Creek tiger beetle are 

sediment erosion from adjacent 

agricultural fields and urban 

development construction sites; 

livestock grazing (trampling of larvae 

burrows); changes in saline stream 

morphology; and drainage of saline 

wetlands due to the incisement of 

associated streams.

The Salt Creek tiger beetle also is 

vulnerable to chance environmental or 

demographic events (e.g., flood, 

drought, disease, and pesticides). As 

discussed in Factor E, extirpation of the 

Jack Sinn WMA population of Salt 

Creek tiger beetles occurred because of 

such an event. The combination of the 

two largest populations, their close 

proximity to each other, and restricted, 

specialized, and diminishing aquatic 

habitats, makes the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle highly susceptible to extirpation 

or extinction from its entire range. Since 

the two largest populations are located 

so close together, any chance 

environmental catastrophe or 

demographic event that causes a 

population to be extirpated would 

significantly increase the likelihood of 

the extinction of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. 

In addition to the protections that 

would be afforded to the species by 

listing, the low population numbers and 

close proximity of the populations 

indicate that survival of the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle will likely depend upon 

establishing additional populations in 

suitable habitats at other locations 

through a captive rearing program, to 

the extent that random demographic 

events or environmental catastrophes no 

longer pose an immediate threat to the 

beetle. Since the number of Salt Creek 

tiger beetle populations has declined to 

just three, and these are subject to 

numerous immediate, ongoing, and 

future threats as described above, we 

have determined that the Salt Creek 

5114 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

tiger beetle is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range (section 3(6) 

of the Act) and, therefore, meets the 

Act’s definition of endangered. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species, and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection, and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, upon a 

determination by the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

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

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, the 

Secretary designate critical habitat at the 

time the species is determined to be 

endangered or threatened. In the near 

future we will publish a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle. We expect to have a 

final decision on critical habitat when 

we make our final decision on listing in 

2005. 

Available Conservation Measures

Listing will require consultation with 

the Service under section 7 of the Act 

for any actions that may affect the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle on lands and for 

activities under Federal jurisdiction, 

State plans developed pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, scientific 

investigations and efforts to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle pursuant to section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, and habitat 

conservation plans developed for nonFederal lands and activities pursuant to 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In 

anticipation of the Service listing the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle, in a letter dated 

February 28, 2003, the NGPC notified 

the Service that it was planning to 

develop a Regional Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP) for the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. As part of the HCP proposal, 

Lincoln, Lancaster County Board of 

Commissioners, Lower Platte South 

Natural Resources District, NDOR, UNL, 

and TNC all provided letters of support 

to NGPC. The NGPC identified the need 

for the Regional HCP to provide longterm protection of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle and its habitats in the eastern 

Nebraska saline wetlands and associated 

streams and provide regulatory certainty 

for the citizens of Lancaster and 

Saunders Counties. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer 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 

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

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such a 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 affect 

the Salt Creek tiger beetle and may 

require consultation with the Service 

include, but are not limited to, those 

within the jurisdiction of the Service, 

Corps, EPA, FHWA, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Federal Housing Administration 

(FHA), Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), and Farm Service 

Agency (FSA). 

Federal agencies expected to be 

involved with the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

or its habitat include the Corps and 

EPA, due to their permit and 

enforcement authority under section 

404 of the CWA. In addition, EPA will 

be involved through provisions of 

section 402 of the CWA. The FHWA has 

authority and funding responsibilities 

for highway construction projects that 

could have impacts on habitat both 

formerly and presently occupied by the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle. The HUD and 

FHA may provide grants for urban 

development, in particular, installation 

of utilities. Planned locations of such 

utility installation and associated 

development will likely be affected by 

listing of the Salt Creek tiger beetle. The 

FAA has jurisdiction over the Lincoln 

Municipal Airport, an area formerly 

occupied by the Salt Creek tiger beetle 

that may still provide suitable habitat 

near Capital Beach in northern Lincoln. 

The NRCS and FSA administer 

numerous new and reauthorized 

programs under The Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2004 (2004 

Farm Bill). Although the majority of 

2004 Farm Bill programs should have 

beneficial effects for the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle, certain conservation practices 

implemented under the various 

programs, which would alter the 

hydrological regime of eastern Nebraska 

saline wetlands and associated stream 

habitats, requires a determination of 

potential effects on the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle. 

The Act sets forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife species. The 

prohibitions make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take, import or export, 

transport in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

endangered species. Under section 3(19) 

of the Act, the term ‘‘take’’ includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Pursuant to 50 CFR 17.3, the Service 

further defines ‘‘harass’’ as actions that 

create the likelihood of injury to listed 

species to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavior 

patterns which include, but are not 

limited to breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. In addition, under this 

regulation, the Service defines ‘‘harm’’

to include significant habitat 

modification or destruction that results 

in the death or injury to listed species 

by significantly impairing behavior 

patterns such as breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. It also is 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 listed species. Such 

permits are available for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the Salt Creek tiger beetle, or 

for incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. 

As published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272), it is the 

Service’s policy, to identify, to the 

maximum extent practical at the time a 

species is listed, those activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation of section 9 of the Act. The 

intent of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effect of listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

a species’ range, and to assist the public 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5115

in identifying measures needed to 

protect the species. For the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle, activities that we believe are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, provided these activities are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations and permit 

requirements, include: 

(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, 

including interstate transport and 

import into or export from the United 

States, of dead Salt Creek tiger beetles 

that were collected prior to the date of 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register;

(2) Any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by a Federal agency that may 

affect the Salt Creek tiger beetle, when 

the action is conducted in accordance 

with the consultation requirements for 

listed species pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act; 

(3) Any action carried out for 

scientific research or to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle that is conducted in 

accordance with the conditions of a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit; and, 

(4) Any incidental take of the Salt 

Creek tiger beetle resulting from an 

otherwise lawful activity conducted in 

accordance with the conditions of an 

incidental take permit issued under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Activities involving the Salt Creek 

tiger beetle (including all of its 

metamorphic or life stages) that the 

Service believes likely would be 

considered a violation of section 9, 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Harassing, harming, pursuing, 

hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, 

trapping, capturing, or collecting, or 

attempting any of these activities, of the 

Salt Creek tiger beetle without a permit, 

except in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State fish and wildlife 

conservation laws and regulations; 

(2) Possessing, selling, delivering, 

carrying, transporting, or shipping 

illegally taken Salt Creek tiger beetles or 

any body part thereof; 

(3) Interstate and foreign commerce 

(commerce across State and 

international boundaries) and import/

export (as discussed earlier in this 

section) without appropriate permits; 

(4) Use of pesticides/herbicides that 

results in take of the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle; 

(5) Release of biological control agents 

that attack any life stage of this taxon; 

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic 

chemicals, silts, or other pollutants into, 

or other alteration of the quality of 

waters supporting Salt Creek tiger 

beetles that results in take of the 

species; and, 

(7) Activities (e.g., land leveling/

clearing, grading, discing, soil 

compaction, soil removal, dredging, 

excavation, deposition of dredged or fill 

material, erosion and deposition of 

sediment/soil, stream alteration or 

channelization, stream bank 

stabilization, alteration of stream or 

wetland hydrology and chemistry, 

grazing or trampling by livestock, 

minerals extraction or processing, 

residential, commercial, or industrial 

developments, utilities development, 

off-road vehicle use, road construction, 

or water development and 

impoundment) that result in the death 

or injury of eggs, larvae, sub-adult, or 

adult Salt Creek tiger beetles, or modify 

Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat in such a 

way that it kills or injures Salt Creek 

tiger beetles by adversely affecting their 

essential behavioral patterns including 

breeding, foraging, sheltering, or other 

life functions. Otherwise lawful 

activities that incidentally take Salt 

Creek tiger beetles, but have no Federal 

nexus, will require a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities will constitute a violation of 

section 9 should be directed to the Field 

Supervisor of the Ecological Services 

Field Office, Grand Island, Nebraska 

(see ADDRESSES). 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife species 

under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits are at 50 

CFR 17.22. For endangered species, you 

may obtain permits for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. You may 

request copies of the regulations 

regarding listed wildlife from, and 

address questions about prohibitions 

and permits to, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Endangered Species Permits, P.O. Box 

25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, 

Colorado 80225–0486 (telephone: 303/

236–7400; facsimile: 303/236–0027).

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods, as listed above in 

ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by 

e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII 

file format and avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption. Please 

include Attn: [RIN 1018–AE59]’’ 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 

Nebraska Field Office (telephone: 308/

382–6468). Please note that this e-mail 

address will be closed out at the 

termination of the public comment 

period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking– record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. Anonymous comments will 

not be considered. 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. 

We will take into consideration your 

comments and any additional 

information received on this taxon 

when making a final determination 

regarding this proposal. The final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal based upon the information we 

receive. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will solicit the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

and independent specialists for peer 

review of this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

listing decisions are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send these peer 

reviewers copies of this proposed rule 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. We will invite 

these peer reviewers to comment, 

during the public comment period, on 

the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

listing of this species. We will 

summarize the opinions of these 

reviewers in the final decision 

document, and we will consider their 

5116 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

input as part of our process of making 

a final decision on the proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. You may request a public 

hearing on this proposed rule. Your 

request for a hearing must be made in 

writing and filed at least 15 days prior 

to the close of the public comment 

period. Address your request to the 

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section). We 

will schedule at least one public hearing 

on this proposal, if requested, and 

announce the date, time, and place of 

any hearings in the Federal Register and 

local newspapers at least 15 days prior 

to the first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposal? 

(2) Does the proposal contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

its clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposal (groupings and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? What else 

could we do to make the proposal easier 

to understand? Send a copy of any 

comments that concern how we could 

make this rule easier to understand to: 

Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 

of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

You may also e-mail the comments to 

this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This rule is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that an 

environmental assessment and 

environmental impact statement, as 

defined under the authority of NEPA, 

need not be prepared in connection 

with regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act, as amended. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information other than 

those already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of 

Management and Budget clearance 

number 1018–0094, which expires on 

July 31, 2004. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number. For 

additional information concerning 

permit and associated requirements for 

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 

and 17.22. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rule is available upon request from 

the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Grand Island, 

Nebraska (see ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are John F. Cochnar and Robert R. 

Harms, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Grand Island, Nebraska (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and record 

keeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows:

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h), add the following, in 

alphabetical order under INSECTS, to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

INSECTS

*******

Beetle, Salt Creek 

tiger.

Cicindela nevadica 

lincolniana.

U.S.A. (NE) ............... NA E NA NA 

*******

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5117

Dated: January 10, 2005. 

Marshall P. Jones, 

Acting Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1669 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT95 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Exclusion of U.S. CaptiveBred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, 

and Dama Gazelle From Certain 

Prohibitions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of a draft environmental 

assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

amend the regulations promulgated 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 

or Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to add 

a new subsection to govern certain 

activities with U.S. captive-bred 

populations of three antelope species 

that have been proposed for listing as 

endangered, should they become listed. 

These specimens are the scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax 

(Addax nasomaculatus), and dama 

gazelle (Gazella dama). For U.S. 

captive-bred live specimens, embryos, 

gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of 

these three species, this proposed rule 

would authorize certain otherwise 

prohibited activities that enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

International trade in specimens of 

these species will continue to require 

permits under the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). We have prepared a draft 

Environmental Assessment of the 

impact of this proposed rule under 

regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Service seeks data and 

comments from the public on this 

proposed rule and the draft 

Environmental Assessment.

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule and the draft 

Environmental Assessment must be 

submitted by April 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments and 

information by mail to the Chief, 

Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA 

22203; or by fax to 703–358–2276; or by 

e-mail to ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.

Comments and supporting information 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

at the above address. You may also 

obtain copies of the November 5, 1991, 

proposed rule; July 24, 2003, proposed 

rule and notice to re-open the comment 

period; November 26, 2003, proposed 

rule and notice to re-open the comment 

period (68 FR 66395); and a copy of the 

draft Environmental Assessment from 

the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Historically, the scimitar-horned oryx 

(Oryx dammah), addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle 

(Gazella dama) occupied the same 

general region of North Africa. The 

primary reason for the decline of all 

three antelope species in their native 

range is desertification, coupled with 

severe droughts, which has dramatically 

reduced available habitat. The growth of 

permanent farming in their native range 

has brought additional pressures, such 

as human habitat disturbance and 

competition from domestic livestock, 

which have restricted these antelopes to 

marginal habitat. Additional pressures 

from the civil wars in Chad and the 

Sudan have resulted in increased 

military activity, construction, and 

uncontrolled hunting. 

Of the three antelope species, the 

scimitar-horned oryx is the most 

threatened with extinction. By the mid1980s, it was estimated that only a few 

hundred were left in the wild, with the 

only viable populations known to be in 

Chad. However, no sightings of this 

species in the wild have been reported 

since the late 1980s, and the 2003 Red 

List of Threatened Species shows that 

the status of the scimitar-horned oryx is 

‘‘extinct in the wild’’ (World 

Conservation Union [IUCN] 2003). 

Captive-bred specimens of this antelope 

have been placed into large fenced areas 

for breeding in Tunisia. Once animals 

are reintroduced, continuous natural 

breeding is anticipated so that wild 

populations will be re-established. 

It is believed that the addax was 

extirpated from Tunisia during the 

1930s, and the last animals were killed 

in Libya and Algeria in 1966 and 1970, 

respectively. Remnant populations may 

still exist in the remote desert areas of 

Chad, Niger, and Mali, with occasional 

movements into Libya and Algeria 

during times of good rainfall. In the 

IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group’s 

Global Survey of Antelopes, the addax is 

considered to be ‘‘regionally extinct’’

(Mallon and Kingswood 2001). The 

addax is listed as critically endangered 

in the 2003 Red List of Threatened 

Species and probably numbers fewer 

than 250 in the wild (IUCN 2003). 

The dama gazelle is able to utilize 

both semi-desert and desert habitats, 

and is smaller than the scimitar-horned 

oryx or addax. Of the three antelope 

species, the dama gazelle is the least 

susceptible to pressures from humans 

and livestock. The original source of its 

decline was uncontrolled hunting; 

however, habitat loss through human 

settlement and livestock grazing, in 

addition to civil unrest, has more 

recently contributed to the decline. It is 

estimated that only small numbers 

survive in most of the eight countries 

within its historical range. The dama 

gazelle has declined rapidly over the 

last 20 years, with recent estimates of 

fewer than 700 in the wild. Noble (2003) 

estimates that the wild population of 

addra gazelle (G. dama ruficollis) is less 

than 200 specimens, the wild 

population of dama gazelle (G. dama 

dama) is about 500 specimens, and the 

mhorr gazelle (G. dama mhorr) is 

extinct in the wild. It was previously 

extinct in Senegal, but has since been 

reintroduced, and in 1997, at least 25 

animals existed there as part of a semicaptive breeding program (IUCN 2003). 

The IUCN lists all subspecies of dama 

gazelles as endangered. 

For further information regarding 

background biological information, 

factors affecting the species, and 

conservation measures available to 

scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama 

gazelle, please refer to the November 5, 

1991, and July 24, 2003, Federal 

Register documents discussed below. 

Previous Federal Action

A proposed rule to list all three 

species as endangered under 50 CFR 

17.11(h) was published on November 5, 

1991 (56 FR 56491). We re-opened the 

comment period to request current 

information and comments from the 

public regarding the proposed rule on 

July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43706), and 

November 26, 2003 (68 FR 66395). 

Stakeholders and interested parties, 

including the public, governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, and the range countries of the 

species, were requested to submit 

comments or information. We received 

32 responses by the end of the comment 

period, including multiple comments 

from some stakeholders. In accordance 

with the Interagency Cooperative Policy 

for Peer Review in Endangered Species 

Act Activities published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), we selected three 

appropriate independent specialists to