[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35990-36012]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0036]
[MO 92210-0-0008]
RIN 1018-AV47
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Flying
Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered
Throughout Their Ranges
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), for two species of Hawaiian damselflies, the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) on the island of Maui and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (M. pacificum) on the islands of Hawaii,
Maui, and Molokai. This final rule implements the Federal protections
provided by the Act for these species. We also determine that critical
habitat for these two Hawaiian damselflies is prudent, but not
determinable at this time.
DATES: This rule becomes effective July 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone, 808-
792-9400; facsimile, 808-792-9581.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Damselflies are insects in the order Odonata, and are close
relatives of dragonflies, which they resemble in appearance.
Damselflies, however, are slender-bodied and fold their wings parallel
to the body while at rest, which readily distinguishes them from their
dragonfly relatives, which hold their wings out perpendicular to the
body while not in flight.
The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly are unique, endemic insects found only in the Hawaiian
Islands. Historically found on the islands of Hawaii and Maui, the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly has not been seen on the island of
Hawaii for over 80 years. Currently, the species is known only from one
location on Maui. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was historically found
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Kahoolawe and Niihau.
Currently, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is known only from the
islands of Hawaii, Maui and Molokai.
The Hawaiian Islands are well known for several spectacular
evolutionary radiations (the rapid evolution of new species from a
single ancestral type, as a result of adaptation and divergence in
response to new ecological conditions) resulting in unique insect fauna
found nowhere else in the world. One such group, which began its
evolution perhaps as long as 10 million years ago (Jordan et al. 2003,
p. 89), is the narrow-winged Hawaiian damselfly genus Megalagrion. This
genus appears to be most closely related to species of Pseudagrion
elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Zimmerman 1948a, pp. 341, 345). The
Megalagrion species of the Hawaiian Islands have evolved to occupy as
many larval breeding niches (different adaptations and ecological
conditions for breeding and development of larvae, including chemical,
physical, spatial, and temporal factors) as all the rest of the world's
damselfly species combined, and in terms of the number of insular-
endemic (native to only one island) species, are exceeded only by the
radiation of damselfly species of Fiji in the Pacific (Jordan et al.
2003, p. 91).
Native Hawaiians apparently did not differentiate the various
species, but referred to the native damselflies (and dragonflies)
collectively as ``pinao,'' and to the red-colored damselflies
specifically as ``pinao ula.'' There has been no traditional European
use of a common name for species in the genus Megalagrion. In his 1994
taxonomic review of the candidate species of insects of the Hawaiian
Islands, Nishida (1994, pp. 4-7) proposed the name ``Hawaiian
damselflies'' as the common name for species in the genus Megalagrion.
Because this name reflects the restricted distribution of these insects
and is nontechnical, the common name ``Hawaiian damselflies'' is
adopted for general use here, and we use the common names flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to identify the two
species addressed in this final rule.
The general biology of Hawaiian damselflies is typical of other
narrow-winged damselflies (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, pp. 2-7). The
males of most species are territorial, guarding areas of habitat where
females lay eggs (Moore 1983a, p. 89). During copulation, and often
while the female lays eggs, the male grasps the female behind the head
with terminal abdominal appendages to guard the female against rival
males; thus males and females are frequently seen flying in tandem.
Female damselflies lay eggs in submerged aquatic vegetation or in
mats of moss or algae on submerged rocks, and hatching occurs in about
10 days (Williams 1936, pp. 303, 306, 318; Evenhuis et al. 1995, p.
18). In most species of Hawaiian damselflies, the immature larval
stages (naiads) are aquatic, breathing through three flattened
abdominal gills, and are predaceous, feeding on small aquatic
[[Page 35991]]
invertebrates or fish (Williams 1936, p. 303). Naiads may take up to 4
months to mature (Williams 1936, p. 309), after which they crawl out of
the water onto rocks or vegetation to molt into winged adults,
typically remaining close to the aquatic habitat from which they
emerged. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly exhibits this typical aquatic
life history.
In contrast, the naiads of a few species of Hawaiian damselflies
are terrestrial or semiterrestrial, living on wet rock faces or in damp
terrestrial conditions, inhabiting wet leaf litter or moist leaf axils
(the angled juncture of the leaf and stem) of native plants up to
several feet above ground (Zimmerman 1970, p. 33; Simon et al. 1984, p.
13; Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 17). The naiads of these terrestrial
and semiterrestrial species have evolved short, thick, hairy gills and
in many species are unable to swim (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 75).
The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is believed to exhibit this
terrestrial or semiterrestrial naiad life history.
The Hawaiian damselflies are represented by 23 species and 5
subspecies, and are currently found on 6 of the Hawaiian Islands
(Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii). There are more species
of Megalagrion on the geologically older islands (12 species on Kauai)
than on the geologically youngest island (8 species on Hawaii), and
there are more single-island endemic species on the older islands (10
on Kauai) than on the youngest island (none on Hawaii) (Jordan et al.
2003, p. 91). Historically, Megalagrion damselflies were among the most
common and conspicuous native Hawaiian insects. Some species commonly
inhabited water gardens in residential areas, artificial reservoirs,
and watercress farms, and were even abundant in the city of Honolulu,
as noted by early collectors of this group (Perkins 1899, p. 76;
Perkins 1913, p. clxxviii; Williams 1936, p. 304).
Beginning with the extensive stream and wetland conversion,
alteration, and modification, and degradation of native forests through
the 20th century, Hawaii's native damselflies, including the two
species that are the subject of this final listing action, experienced
a tremendous reduction in available habitat. In addition, predation by
a number of nonnative species that have been both intentionally and, in
some cases, inadvertently introduced into the Hawaiian Islands is a
significant and ongoing threat to all native Hawaiian damselflies.
Previous Federal Actions
Both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly were first designated as candidate species on May 22, 1984
(49 FR 21664). Candidate species are those taxa for which the Service
has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to
propose them for listing under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), but
for which the development of a listing regulation has been precluded by
other higher-priority listing activities. The flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly was removed from the candidate list on November 21, 1991 (56
FR 58804), whereas the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly retained its status
as a candidate species. On November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly was added back onto the candidate list. In
the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on February 28, 1996
(61 FR 7595), we announced a revised list of plant and animal taxa that
we regarded as candidates for possible addition to the Lists of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants. This revision also
included a new ranking system, whereby each candidate species was
assigned a Listing Priority Number (LPN) from 1 to 12. Both the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly were
assigned an LPN of 2 on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7595).
On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the
Secretary of the Interior to list 225 species of plants and animals
that were already candidates, including these two Hawaiian damselfly
species, as endangered or threatened under the provisions of the Act.
In our annual CNOR, dated May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), we retained a
listing priority number of 2 for both of these species in accordance
with our listing priority guidance published on September 21, 1983 (48
FR 43098). A listing priority number of 2 reflects threats that are
both imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic
classification of each of these two Hawaiian damselflies as distinct
species. At the time, we determined that publication of a proposed rule
to list these species was precluded by our work on higher priority
listing actions. Since then, we have published our annual findings on
the May 4, 2004, petition (including our findings on these two
candidate species) in the CNORs dated September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756),
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), and December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176).
In fiscal year 2007, we determined that funding was available to
initiate work on listing determinations for these two species. On July
8, 2009, we published a proposed rule to list the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly as endangered (74
FR 32490). We solicited data and comments from the public on the
proposed rule for 60 days, ending September 8, 2009. To allow the
public and interested parties additional time to submit comments on the
proposed rule, we reopened the comment period on November 19, 2009 (74
FR 59956), and accepted comments until December 21, 2009.
Species Information
Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly
The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was first described from
specimens collected in the 1890s in Puna on Hawaii Island by R.C.L.
Perkins (1899, p. 72). Kennedy (1934, pp. 343-345) described what was
believed at the time to be a new species of damselfly based on
specimens from Maui; these were later determined to be synonymous with
the specimens collected by Perkins. The flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly is a comparatively large and elongated species. The males are
blue and black in color and exhibit distinctive, greatly enlarged,
pincer-like cerci (paired appendages on the rearmost segment of the
abdomen used to clasp the female during mating). It is for the males'
elongated abdominal appendages and their resemblance to those found on
earwigs (order Dermaptera) that the species is named. Females are
predominantly brownish in color. The adults measure from 1.8 to 1.9
inches (in) (46 to 50 millimeters (mm)) in length and have a wingspan
of 1.9 to 2.1 in (50 to 53 mm). The wings of both sexes are clear
except for the tips, which are narrowly darkened along the front
margins. Naiads of this species have never been collected or found
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 69), but they are believed to be
terrestrial or semiterrestrial in habit (Kennedy 1934, p. 345; Preston
2007a).
The biology of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is not well
understood, and it is unknown if this species is more likely to be
associated with standing water or flowing water (Kennedy 1934, p. 345;
Polhemus 1994, p. 40). The only confirmed population found in the last
6 years occurs along a single East Maui stream and the adjacent steep,
moist, riparian talus slope (a slope formed by an accumulation of rock
debris), which is densely covered with Dicranopteris
[[Page 35992]]
linearis (uluhe), a native fern. Adults of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly have been observed to perch on vegetation and boulders, and
to fly slowly for short distances above this particular stream within
the one known remaining habitat site. When disturbed, the adults fly
downward within nearby vegetation or between rocks, rather than up and
away as is usually observed with aquatic Hawaiian damselfly species.
Although immature individuals have not been located, based on the
habitat and the behavior of the adults, it is believed that the naiads
may be terrestrial or semiterrestrial, occurring among damp leaflitter
(Kennedy 1934, p. 345) or possibly within moist soil or seeps between
boulders in suitable habitat (Preston 2007a). The highest elevation at
which this species has been recorded is 3,000 feet (ft) (914 meters
(m)), but its close association with uluhe habitat suggests that its
range may extend upward to close to 4,000 ft (1,212 m) (Foote 2007).
Historically, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was known from
the islands of Hawaii and Maui. On Hawaii, it was originally known from
seven or more general localities. The species has not been seen on
Hawaii for over 80 years, although extensive surveys within apparently
suitable habitat in the Kau and Olaa areas were conducted from 1997 to
2008 (Polhemus 2008). On Maui, the flying earwig damselfly was
historically reported from five general locations on the windward side
of the island (Kennedy 1934, p. 345). Since the 1930s, however, the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly has only been observed in a single
area along a particular stream on the windward side of east Maui,
despite surveys from 1993 through 2008 at several of its historically
occupied sites. Although presumed extant, the last observation of the
species was in 2005 (Foote 2008); the species was not observed during
the last survey at this location in 2008. No quantitative estimate of
the size of this remaining population is available.
It is hypothesized that the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly may
now be restricted to what is perhaps suboptimal habitat, where periodic
absences of the species due to drought may be expected and might
explain the lack of observations of the species (Foote 2007). Some
researchers also believe that overcollection of this species by
enthusiasts may have impacted some populations in the past (Polhemus
2008). It is further possible that the individuals observed in this
area are actually part of a larger population that may be located in
the extensive belt of uluhe habitat located upslope, where the habitat
is predominantly native shrubs and matted fern understory (Foote 2007;
Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program (HBMP) 2006). Unsurveyed areas
containing potentially suitable habitat for this species include the
Hana coast of east Maui, and the east rift zone of Kilauea and the Kona
area on the island of Hawaii (Foote 2007).
Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly
The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was first described by McLachlan
(1883, p. 234), based on specimens collected by R.C.L. Perkins from
streams on the islands of Lanai and Maui. This damselfly is a
relatively small, dark-colored species, with adults measuring 1.3 to
1.4 in (34 to 37 mm) in length and having a wingspan of 1.3 to 1.6 in
(33 to 42 mm). Both adult males and females are mostly black in color.
Males exhibit brick-red striping and patterns, while females exhibit
light-green striping and patterns. The only immature individuals of
this species that have been collected were early-instar (an intermoult
stage of development) individuals, and they exhibit flattened, leaf-
like gills (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 83). This species is most
easily distinguished from other Hawaiian damselflies by the extremely
long lower abdominal appendages of the male, which greatly exceed the
length of the upper appendages.
Historically, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was known from lower
elevations (below 2,000 ft (600 m)) on all of the main Hawaiian Islands
except Kahoolawe and Niihau (Perkins 1899, p. 64). This species was
known to breed primarily in lentic (standing water) systems such as
marshes, seepage-fed pools, large ponds at higher elevations, and
small, quiet pools in gulches that have been cut off from the main
stream channel (Moore and Gagne 1982, p. 4; Polhemus and Asquith 1996,
p. 83). The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is no longer found in most
lentic habitats in Hawaii, such as ponds and taro (Colocasia esculenta)
fields, due to predation by nonnative fish that now occur in these
systems (Moore and Gagne 1982, p. 4; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215).
Observations have confirmed that the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is now
restricted almost exclusively to seepage-fed pools along overflow
channels in the terminal reaches of perennial streams, usually in areas
surrounded by thick vegetation (Moore and Gagne 1982, pp. 3-4; Polhemus
1994, p. 54; Englund 1999, p. 236; Englund et al. 2007, p. 216;
Polhemus 2007, p. 238). Adults usually do not stray far from the
vicinity of the breeding pools, perching on bordering vegetation and
flying only short distances when disturbed (Polhemus and Asquith 1996,
p. 83). This species is rarely seen along main stream channels, and its
ability to disperse long distances over land or water is suspected to
be poor compared to other Hawaiian damselflies (Jordan et al. 2007, p.
254).
The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is now believed to be extirpated
from the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Lanai (Polhemus and Asquith 1996,
p. 83). On the island of Oahu, due to its occupation of particularly
vulnerable habitat within sidepools of lowland streams, the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly was rare by the 1890s and appears to have been
extirpated from this island by 1910 (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p.
494). It is unknown when the Kauai and Lanai populations of the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly disappeared. Until 1998, it was believed that the
species was extirpated from the island of Hawaii. That year, one
population was discovered within a small stream located just above, but
isolated from, Maili Stream, which is known to be occupied by nonnative
fish (Englund 1998, pp. 15-16). On Maui and Molokai, fewer than six
populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly could be located by the
1970s (Harwood 1976, pp. 251-253; Gagne 1980, pp. 119, 125; Moore and
Gagne 1982, p. 1). The conservation of this species was identified as a
priority by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (Moore 1982, p. 209).
The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is currently found in at least seven
streams on Molokai and may possibly be extant in other unsurveyed
streams on Molokai's northern coast that have not been invaded by
nonnative fish (Englund 2008). On the island of Maui, the species is
currently known from 14 streams. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is no
longer found along the entire reaches of these Maui streams, but only
in restricted areas along each stream where steep terrain prevents
access by nonnative fish, which inhabit degraded, lower stream reaches
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 13; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215). The
species is known from a single population on the island of Hawaii, last
observed in 1998.
No quantitative estimates of the size of the extant populations are
available. Howarth (1991, p. 490) described the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly as the most common and most widespread of the native
damselfly species at the end of the 19th century, and yet a decline in
this species was observed as early as
[[Page 35993]]
1905 due to the effects of nonnative fish introduced for control of
mosquitoes.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our proposed rule published on July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32490), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by September 8, 2009. We also contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published on the
islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. On November 19, 2009 (74 FR
59956), we reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days,
ending December 21, 2009.
We received a total of five written comments and no requests for
public hearings. Three comments were from State of Hawaii agencies and
two were from the same nongovernmental organization. We received three
comments supporting the listing of the two Hawaiian damselflies. Two
comments neither supported nor opposed the listings, and one of these
comments provided additional information on the two damselflies. We
also requested peer review from potential peer reviewers.
Peer Review Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the two Hawaiian damselflies and their habitat, biological needs, and
threats. We received no written comments from any of the seven peer
reviewers, although several offered their opinion that the two Hawaiian
damselfly species meet the definition of an endangered species (A.
Asquith, Hawaii Sea Grant, pers. comm. 2009; F. Howarth, Bishop Museum,
pers. comm. 2009; K. Magnacca, University of Hawaii at Hilo, pers.
comm. 2009; D. Polhemus, State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources,
pers. comm. 2009; D. Preston, Bishop Museum, pers. comm. 2009).
Comments from the State of Hawaii
The State of Hawaii's State Historic Preservation Division
concurred that no historic properties would be affected by the listing
of the two Hawaiian damselflies (McMahon 2009, pers. comm.). The
State's Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) and Office of
Hawaiian Affairs supported listing the two damselflies as endangered
(Conry 2009, pers. comm.; Namu'o 2009, pers. comm.).
Public Comments
(1) Comment: One commenter stated that there appears to be little,
if any, empirical data indicating water diversions have any potential
impact on the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Our response: While we acknowledge that the larval stage of the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly has never been observed within stream
water, repeated observations of the adults along the stream adjacent to
its only known population site on east Maui indicate a strong
biological association of an unknown nature with flowing stream water.
This association is likely related to the species' natural history and
may include the need for sufficient space or a stream setting for
mating adults and territorial behavior of males. Additionally, the
species' larval habitat is undoubtedly dependent on localized area
hydrology. For example, should a stream experience either reduced flow
or complete dewatering for an extended period of time, it is expected
that the impact to surrounding soils and associated vegetation,
including the uluhe ferns that are believed to be the species' likely
larval-stage habitat, will be soil desiccation and concomitant
prolonged vegetation dieback, resulting in degraded habitat conditions
for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
(2) Comment: One commenter stated the reduction or modification of
water flow in a stream should not be identified as an activity that
could potentially result in violation of section 9 of the Act
pertaining to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Our response: As discussed in the previous response (see Comment
1), we believe there is a strong association with stream water flow and
the species' life history requirements. Stream flow is likely essential
to the adult damselfly's breeding requirements and is also essential to
maintaining localized soil hydrology necessary for persistence of uluhe
ferns, which are known foraging and mating sites for the adults and may
provide habitat for the larval stage. Therefore, any permanent or
prolonged reduction or modification of stream flow in a stream utilized
by this species may result in a violation of section 9 of the Act.
(3) Comment: One commenter stated that distribution of both species
is not fully known and recommended that the Service conduct additional
surveys for both species prior to proceeding with listing.
Our response: In preparing both the proposed and final rules for
these species, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data
available, including technical reports, published journal articles, and
numerous other documents, including unpublished reports and surveys. In
addition, we consulted with several species experts. We based our
listing determination for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on the best available information regarding
the species' current known population status, the known condition of
their habitat, and the current factors affecting the species, along
with ongoing conservation efforts, as described in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species (below) in this final rule. The Act
neither provides for, nor requires, additional research effort prior to
a listing decision. We acknowledge that uncertainties exist; however,
under section 4 of the Act, we must make a listing determination based
on the best scientific and commercial available at the time of our
determination.
(4) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our analysis that stream
diversions for agriculture have reduced stream habitat available to the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, and currently pose a threat to this
species.
Our response: Historically, the impacts of the plantation-era
sugarcane irrigation system reduced stream habitat available to this
species. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was once among the most
commonly observed aquatic insects in the islands (Zimmerman 1948, p.
377). Because this species breeds in lentic habitats or stream terminal
reaches, which experienced significant modification for agriculture
beginning as early as the 19th century, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
was extirpated from many of its historical habitat sites (Polhemus
2007, p. 236). By the 1930s, water diversions had been developed on all
of the main Hawaiian Islands, and by 1978, the stream flow in over one-
half of all of the 366 perennial streams in Hawaii had been altered in
some manner (Brasher 2003, p. 1055). All or most of the low or average
flow of the stream was, and often still is, diverted into fields or
reservoirs, leaving many stream channels completely dry (Takasaki et
al. 1969, pp. 27-28; Harris et al. 1993, p. 12; Wilcox 1996, p. 56).
With the nearly complete cessation of this industry in the Hawaiian
Islands, it is unlikely that new irrigation-related water diversion
activities will be initiated in the remaining streams that currently
provide habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. However, most of
the historical water diversions remain in
[[Page 35994]]
place. The historical loss of stream habitat, resulting in the present
curtailment of habitat available to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly,
combined with the threat of predation by nonnative fish in the
remaining stream habitat, continues to restrict and reduce the amount
of habitat potentially available to this species. Should some of this
water be returned to stream systems, the amount of habitat available to
this species may increase if the water return were to be implemented
carefully to prevent the spread of nonnative fish species upstream.
(5) Comment: One commenter noted the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly,
although historically known from lower elevations, is now known to have
established successfully breeding populations at higher elevations
above existing stream diversions.
Our response: Prior to the establishment of widespread stream
diversions, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was considered one of the
most abundant and frequently observed insects in Hawaii and was known
from all of the main Hawaiian Islands, except Kahoolawe and Niihau.
Previously known from suitable portions of many streams and water
bodies from sea level to some higher elevation sites (Zimmerman 1948,
p. 377), the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is now extirpated from at least
18 known population sites on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Oahu,
Maui, and Molokai. Diversions changed the amount and flow rate of water
within many lower stream sections, because the diversions either
reduced the amount of water flow at the point of diversion, or captured
all stream water (as they were designed to do) during times of drier
weather or drought. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is currently found
in approximately 22 streams on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and
Molokai, across a variety of elevations. All known populations are
located within streams or bodies of water free of nonnative, predatory
fish. We lack sufficient information to determine whether all stream
reaches occupied by this damselfly species are now above manmade
diversions, but we know the species is largely absent from areas below
manmade diversions.
(6) Comment: One commenter stated that the current known range of
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly appears to be broader than the species'
known range at the time it became a candidate for listing.
Our response: We acknowledged in our proposed rule that at the time
we determined we had sufficient information on file to support a
proposal to list the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (1984), and elevated it
to candidate status, it had been extirpated from Kauai, Oahu, and
Lanai, and was also considered extirpated from the island of Hawaii.
Subsequently in 1998, a single population was discovered on an isolated
portion of a Hilo stream on the island of Hawaii. However, since then,
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly has not been reobserved on Kauai, Lanai,
or Oahu, and remains only on Molokai and Maui, and one location on
Hawaii Island. We do not consider the discovery of a single population
on the island of Hawaii to represent a significant broadening of the
range of the species.
(7) Comment: One commenter observed that water diversions may
enhance the damselflies' chances for survival by isolating them from
predatory, nonnative fish species.
Our response: We agree that existing diversions on some streams
function as a manmade barrier and prevent the egress of nonnative,
predatory fish into currently isolated, upstream damselfly habitat
sites. However, existing diversions also alter the historical amount
and flow rate of water within many lower stream sections because the
diversions either reduce the amount of water flow at the point of
diversion or capture all stream water during times of drier weather or
drought. Therefore, the net impact of stream diversions in the Hawaiian
Islands has been and continues to be an overall reduction in the amount
of suitable stream habitat available to both the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
(8) Comment: One commenter noted that the recently mandated interim
in-stream flow standards (IIFS) established by the Commission for Water
Resource Management (CWRM) for 10 east Maui streams diverted by the
East Maui Irrigation Company (EMI) may either benefit existing
damselfly populations or allow entry of nonnative fish species into
currently fish-isolated damselfly habitat. The commenter further stated
that the proposed rule incorrectly identifies the 1988 IIFS as current
while newer standards have been mandated.
Our response: We agree that the potential release of additional
water into streams that are currently being diverted is a complex
issue, and that the outcome may be beneficial to damselflies or may
increase the threat from nonnative predatory fish. As of the date of
publication of this final rule, it is our understanding that the
recently proposed IIFS have yet to be approved and implemented by the
CWRM, and we therefore recognize the 1988 standards as current. Because
the new standards have not yet been implemented, we are unable to
determine their effectiveness in enhancing damselfly habitat.
Should the proposed IIFS be approved as the new standard, we will
strongly support a collaborative conservation effort between our
agency; the State; the CWRM; and affected landowners, leaseholders, and
other entities, to analyze the potential return of water flow into
currently diverted streams on a case-by-case basis, to ensure the
protection of the Pacific Hawaiian and the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselflies and their stream or stream-associated habitat.
(9) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our assessment that the
damselflies were threatened by inadequate regulatory protections. The
commenter stated that the State Water Code requires that the economic
benefits of stream water removal be balanced against in-stream
benefits, including benefits to aquatic fish and wildlife. The
commenter further stated that the CWRM's IIFS standards provide
adequate protection for aquatic wildlife, and the CWRM has, in the
past, given considerable deference to in-stream benefits over stream
water removal in setting IIFS.
Our response: We believe that the CWRM's stated requirements to
provide protection for aquatic wildlife are insufficiently specific to
adequately protect the damselflies or their habitat. The CWRM's IIFS
standards do not include provisions that address the needs of the
species. Additionally, we lack specific examples of past CWRM deference
to in-stream benefits, and are thus unable to determine whether CWRM's
IIFS standards have specifically benefited these damselflies.
(10) Comment: One commenter explained that several of the State's
existing hydroelectric plants do not operate directly on streams but
are located some distance away and are powered by water diverted from
streams.
Our response: In this final rule, we have clarified that water is
diverted to power hydroelectric facilities regardless of their
location.
(11) Comment: One commenter noted that some of the hydroelectric
projects identified as proposed may be developed without diverting
additional water from streams.
Our response: We have modified the appropriate section of this
final rule to clarify that in some cases, for some of the State's
proposed hydroelectric facilities, no additional water might be
diverted beyond what is currently removed for agriculture or other
[[Page 35995]]
purposes. However, the threats to the damselflies below the point of
diversion within a given stream remain the same due to the existing
diversion, and we believe that any additional increased water diversion
for hydroelectric power could possibly impact damselfly populations.
(12) Comment: One commenter noted that water currently being
diverted from streams to generate power for some hydroelectric projects
is often returned downstream within the same stream system. Therefore,
the potential to impact damselfly habitat will vary depending on
location of the diversion and location of damselfly habitat within the
respective stream system.
Our response: We have modified the appropriate section of this
final rule to clarify that, in some streams, water diverted for the
generation of power is returned to the same stream system. However, the
threats to the damselflies below the point of diversion remain, and may
depend upon the difference (if any) of the volume and quality of water
returned and the point at which the water is returned to the stream
system. The commenter did not provide specific examples or elaborate
upon specific streams.
(13) Comment: One commenter clarified that the Hawaii Stream
Assessment (HSA) (CWRM 1990) identifies 28, not 38, sites that have
potential to be developed for hydropower. The commenter further noted
that these sites have not been proposed for development, but rather
that the sites have been identified as economically developable for
hydroelectric use. Populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are
located upon three of these streams identified only as potentially
economically developable for hydroelectric use.
Our response: We have modified the appropriate section of this
final rule to correct the information that 28, not 38, sites have been
identified as potentially economically developable for hydroelectric
use and that three of the streams harboring Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
populations are not proposed for development but rather are identified
as only potentially developable.
(14) Comment: One commenter observed that the HSA identifies 10
sites where hydropower developments have been proposed, several of
which overlap with sites identified as potentially developable (see
Comment 13). The commenter further noted that the list of 10 sites
actually proposed for hydroelectric development does not include
streams known to be occupied by the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly;
therefore, future hydropower development is unlikely to impact this
species. However, one proposed site does include the only known
population of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Our response: We have modified the appropriate section of this
final rule to clarify that some of the 10 sites proposed for
development in the HSA overlap with those sites identified as
economically developable, and that none of the 10 proposed sites
includes streams with Pacific Hawaiian damselfly populations. We have
added the information regarding the proposed hydroelectric development
on the stream site associated with the only known location of the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly to our threats analysis (see Factor
A).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. These five listing factors are: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination.
The threats to the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
species are summarized according to the five listing factors in Table
1, and discussed in detail below.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE FLYING EARWING HAWAIIAN DAMSELFLY AND PACIFIC HAWAIIAN DAMSELFLY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES
-------------------------------------------------
5 FACTORS CATEGORY THREATS Flying Earwig Hawaiian Pacific Hawaiian
Damselfly Damselfly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR A Agriculture/urban X X
development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream alteration P X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat modification by X --
pigs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat modification by X X
nonnative plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stochastic events X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change P P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR B Overcollection P --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR C Predation A, BF (P) A, B, F, BF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR D Inadequate habitat X X
protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequate protection X X
from nonnative aquatic
species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR E Limited populations X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = ants
[[Page 35996]]
B = backswimmers
F = fish
BF = bullfrogs
P = potential threat
X = known threat
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Freshwater habitats used by the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian
damselflies on all of the main Hawaiian Islands are severely altered
and degraded because of past and present land and water management
practices, including: agriculture and urban development; development of
groundwater, perched aquifer (aquifer sitting above main water table),
and surface water resources; and the deliberate and accidental
introductions of nonnative animals (Harris et al. 1993, pp. 12-13;
Meier et al. 1993, pp. 181-183).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Urban
Development
Although there has not been a comprehensive, site-by-site
assessment of wetland loss in Hawaii (Erikson and Puttock 2006, p. 40),
Dahl (1990, p. 7) estimated that at least 12 percent of lowland to
upper-elevation wetlands in Hawaii had been converted to non-wetland
habitat by the 1980s. If only coastal plain (below 1,000 ft (305 m)
elevation) wetlands are considered, it is estimated that 30 percent
have been converted for agricultural and urban development (Kosaka
l990, p. 1). These marshlands and wetlands provided habitat for several
damselfly species, including the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
By the 1930s, water diversions had been developed on all of the
main Hawaiian Islands, and by 1978, the stream flow in over one-half of
all of the 366 perennial streams in Hawaii had been altered in some
manner (Brasher 2003, p. 1055). All or most of the low or average flow
of the stream was, and often still is, diverted into fields or
reservoirs, leaving many stream channels completely dry (Takasaki et
al. 1969, pp. 27-28; Harris et al. 1993, p. 12; Wilcox 1996, p. 56).
The historical destruction and modification of habitat continues to
impact the two Hawaiian damselflies, by restricting them to curtailed
or isolated habitat areas that are often degraded in quality (for
example, by the presence of predatory nonnative fishes). The present
curtailment of the habitat or range of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly due to past habitat
destruction or modification in turn limits population size,
distribution, and connectivity, resulting in an increased probability
of local extirpation or even extinction of the two Hawaiian damselfly
species.
Although extensive filling of freshwater wetlands is rarely
permitted today, loss of riparian or wetland habitats utilized by the
Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies, such as smaller areas
of moist slopes, emergent vegetation, and narrow strips of freshwater
seeps within anchialine pool complexes (landlocked bodies of water with
a subterranean connection to the ocean), still occurs. In addition,
marshes have been, and continue to be, slowly filled and converted to
meadow habitat due to increased sedimentation resulting from increased
storm water runoff from upslope development, the accumulation of
uncontrolled growth of invasive vegetation, and blockage of downslope
drainage (Wilson Okamoto & Associates, Inc. 1993, pp. 3-4 to 3-5).
The effects of future conversion of wetland and other aquatic
habitat for agriculture and urban development are immediate and
significant for the following reason: As noted above, an estimated 30
percent of all coastal plain wetlands in Hawaii have already been lost
to agriculture and urban development, while the loss of lowland
freshwater habitat in Hawaii already approaches 80 to 90 percent
(Kosaka 1990, p. 1). Lacking the aquatic habitat features that the
damselflies require for essential life history needs, such as marshes,
ponds, and sidepools along streams (Pacific Hawaiian damselfly) and
riparian habitat (flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly), these modified
areas no longer support populations of these two Hawaiian damselflies.
Agriculture and urban development have thus contributed to the present
curtailment of the habitat of these two Hawaiian damselflies, and we
have no indication that this threat is likely to be significantly
ameliorated in the foreseeable future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Stream Diversion
Stream modifications began with the early Hawaiians, who diverted
water to irrigate taro. However, unlike modern stream diversions which
often completely dewater streams all year around, early diversions
often took no more than half the stream flow, and typically were
periodic to occasionally flood taro ponds at different times through
the year, rather than continuously flood them (Handy and Handy 1972,
pp. 58-59). The advent of plantation sugarcane cultivation led to far
more extensive stream diversions, with the first diversion built in
1856 on Kauai (Wilcox 1996, p. 54). These systems were designed to tap
water at upper elevations (above 984 ft (300 m)) by means of a concrete
weir in the stream (Wilcox 1996, p. 54). All or most of the low or
average flow of the stream was, and often still is, diverted into
fields or reservoirs, leaving many stream channels completely dry
(Takasaki et al. 1969, pp. 27-28; Harris et al. 1993, p. 12; Wilcox
1996, p. 56).
As noted above, by the 1930s, water diversions had been developed
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and by 1978, the stream flow in
over one-half of all of the 366 perennial streams in Hawaii had been
altered in some manner (Brasher 2003, p. 1055). Some stream diversion
systems are extensive, such as the Waiahole Ditch, which diverts water
from 37 streams within the range of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on
the windward side of Oahu to the dry plains on the leeward side of the
island via a tunnel cut through the Koolau mountain range (Stearns and
Vaksvik 1935, pp. 399-403). On west Maui, as of 1978, over 49 miles
(mi) (78 kilometers (km)) of stream habitat in 12 streams had been lost
due to diversions, and all of the 17 perennial streams on west Maui are
dewatered to some extent (Maciolek 1979, p. 605). This loss of stream
habitat may have contributed to the extirpation of the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly population on west Maui. Given the affiliation of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly with riparian habitats, this loss of stream
habitat may also potentially account for its absence on west Maui. Most
lower-elevation stream segments on west Maui are now completely dry,
except during storm-influenced flows (Maciolek 1979, p. 605).
The maintenance of natural hydrology is closely tied to the life
history requirements of the Hawaiian damselflies, as the presence of
standing or running water is essential to reproduction of the two
species. In addition to providing breeding habitat for the adults, the
aquatic larval stage of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is entirely
dependent on water, and the maintenance of local soil hydrology is
necessary for the persistence of uluhe
[[Page 35997]]
ferns, which provide habitat for the larval stage of the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly. The reduced flow or complete dewatering of streams
thus results in the destruction or degradation of habitat conditions
for both the Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies. The
extensive diversion of streams on Maui island-wide has reduced the
amount of stream habitat available to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly,
and potentially to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly as well.
In addition to diverting water for agriculture and domestic water
supply, streams in Hawaii have also been diverted for use in
hydroelectric power. In some cases, the water used for power generation
is already being diverted for another use; in other cases the water is
returned to the stream of origin. There are a total of 18 active
hydroelectric plants operating on Hawaiian streams on the islands of
Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui, only one of which is located on a stream where
a historical population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was known on
Kauai (Waimea). Another 28 sites have been identified as feasible for
hydroelectric development on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and
Molokai (Hawaii Stream Assessment 1990, pp. xxi, 96-97). Three of the
sites identified as developable include current populations of the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. A total of 10 streams have actually been
proposed for development, with some overlap between the 28 streams
identified as feasible. Notably, the stream adjacent to the single
current remaining population site for the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly on Maui is included among those proposed for hydroelectric
development. Any additional diversion of stream flow for use in
hydroelectric power could contribute to further loss of stream habitat
for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and for the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly.
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Dewatering of Aquifers
In addition to the diversion of stream water and the resultant
downstream dewatering, many streams in Hawaii have experienced reduced
or zero surface flow as a result of the dewatering of their source
aquifers. Often these aquifers, which previously fed the streams, were
tapped by tunneling or the injudicious placement of wells (Stearns and
Vaksvik 1935, pp. 386-434; Stearns 1985, pp. 291-305). These
groundwater sources were captured for both domestic and agricultural
use and in some areas have completely depleted nearby stream and spring
flows. For example, the Waikolu Stream on Molokai has reduced flow due
in part to groundwater withdrawal (Brasher 2003, p. 1,056), which may
have reduced stream habitat available to the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly. Likewise, on Maui, streams in the west Maui Mountains that
flow into the Lahaina District are fed by groundwater leaking from
breached high-elevation dikes. Downstream of the dike compartments,
stream diversions are designed to capture all of the low stream flow,
causing the streams downstream to be frequently dry (U.S. Geological
Survey 2008a, p. 1), likely impacting available habitat for the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly, and potentially for the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly, in the Honolua and Honokohau streams.
The island of Lanai lies within the rain shadow of the west Maui
Mountains, which reach 5,788 ft (1,764 m) in elevation. Lower in
elevation than Maui, annual rainfall on Lanai's summit is 30 to 40 in
(760 to 1,015 mm), but is much less over the rest of the island
(University of Hawaii Department of Geography 1998, p. 13). Flows of
almost every spring and seep on Lanai have been diverted (Stearns 1940,
pp. 73-74, 85, 88, 95). Surface waters in streams have also been
diverted by tunnels in stream beds. Historically, Maunalei Stream was
the only perennial stream on Lanai, and Hawaiians constructed taro loi
(ponds for cultivation of taro) in the lower portions of this stream
system. In 1911, a tunnel was constructed at 1,100 ft (330 m) elevation
that undercuts the stream bed, diverting both the surface and
subsurface flows and dewatering the stream from this point to its mouth
(Stearns 1940, pp. 86-88). The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, which
depends on stream habitat, was historically known from Lanai but is no
longer extant on this island. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was most
likely impacted by the dewatering of this stream because it was the
only permanent stream on Lanai prior to its dewatering. This example of
the negative impact of dewatering leads us to conclude that dewatering
poses a threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly on the remaining islands where the species persist.
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Vertical Wells
Surface flow of streams has also been affected by vertical wells
drilled in the past, because the basal aquifer (lowest groundwater
layer) and alluvial caprock (sediment-deposited harder rock layer)
through which the lower sections of streams flow can be pierced and
hydraulically connected by wells (Stearns 1940, p. 88). This allows
water in aquifers normally feeding the stream to be diverted elsewhere
underground. Dewatering of the streams by tunneling and earlier, less-
informed well placement near or in streams was a significant cause of
habitat loss, and these effects continue today. Historically, for
example, there was sufficient surface flow in Makaha and Nanakuli
streams on Oahu to support taro loi in their lower reaches, but this
flow disappeared subsequent to construction of vertical wells upstream
(Devick 1995, p. 1). The inadvertent dewatering of streams through the
piercing of their aquifers (which are normally separated from adjacent
water-bearing layers by an impermeable layer), by tunneling or through
placement of vertical wells, caused the loss of Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly habitat, and contributed to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly's
extirpation on the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Lanai (Polhemus and
Asquith 1996, pp. 23-24). Such activities also reduced the extent of
stream habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on the islands of
Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii. Most lower-elevation stream segments on west
Maui and leeward east Maui are now completely dry, except during storm-
influenced flows (Maciolek 1979, p. 605). The flow of nearly every seep
and spring on Lanai has been captured or bored with wells (Stearns
1940, pp. 73-74, 85, 88, 95). The inadvertent drying of streams from
earlier, uninformed well placement and other activities has contributed
to the decline of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly by reducing its
habitat on all of the islands from which it was historically known. It
should be noted that the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was once among the
most commonly observed aquatic insects in the islands (Howarth 1991, p.
40). The dewatering of streams on Maui and Hawaii may also have
impacted habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Although the State of Hawaii's Commission on Water Resource
Management is now more cognizant of the effects that groundwater
removal has on streams via injudicious placement of wells, the
Commission still routinely reviews new permit applications for wells
(Hardy 2009, p. 1). Thus, the potential for additional well-drilling
continues to be a threat (see further discussion under Factor D, The
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below), and the ongoing
effects of previously constructed vertical wells continue to be an
ongoing threat to the Hawaiian dragonflies.
[[Page 35998]]
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Channelization
In addition to the destruction of most of the stream habitat of the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly,
much of the remaining stream habitat has been, and continues to be,
seriously degraded throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Stream degradation
has been particularly severe on the island of Oahu where, by 1978, 58
percent of all the perennial streams had been channelized (lined,
partially lined, or altered) to control flooding (Brasher 2003, p.
1055; Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 24), and 89 percent of the total
length of these streams had been channelized (Parrish et al. 1984, p.
83). The channelization of streams creates artificial, wide-bottomed
stream beds and often results in removal of riparian vegetation,
increased substrate homogeneity, increased temporal water velocity
(increased water flow speed during times of higher precipitation,
including minor and major flooding), increased illumination, and higher
water temperatures (Parrish et al. 1984, p. 83; Brasher 2003, p. 1052).
Natural streams meander and are lined with rocks, trees, and natural
debris, and during times of flooding, jump their banks. Channelized
streams are straightened and often lack natural obstructions, and
during times of higher precipitation or flooding, facilitate a higher
water flow velocity. Hawaiian damselflies are largely absent from
channelized portions of streams (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 24). In
contrast, undisturbed Hawaiian stream systems exhibit a greater amount
of riffle habitat, canopy closure, higher consistent flow velocity, and
lower water temperatures that are characteristic of streams to which
the Hawaiian damselflies, in general, are adapted (Brasher 2003, pp.
1054-1057).
Channelization of streams has not been restricted to lower stream
reaches. For example, there is extensive channelization of the Kalihi
Stream, on the island of Oahu, above 1,000-ft (300-m) elevation.
Extensive stream channelization has contributed to the extirpation of
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on Oahu (Englund 1999, p. 236; Polhemus
2008, pp. 45-46).
Stream diversion, channelization, and dewatering represent
significant and immediate threats to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly for
the following reasons: (1) They reduce the amount and distribution of
stream habitat available to this species; (2) they reduce stream flow,
leaving lower elevation stream segments completely dry except during
storms, or leaving many streams completely dry year-round, thus
reducing or eliminating stream habitat; and (3) they indirectly lead to
an increase in water temperature that leads to the loss of Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly naiads due to direct physiological stress. Because
the probability of species extinction increases when ranges are
restricted, habitat decreases, and population numbers decline, the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is particularly vulnerable to extinction due
to such changes in its stream habitats.
In addition, stream diversion, dewatering, and vertical wells have
the potential to negatively impact, and in some cases may have
impacted, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. Stream flow is
essential to the adult flying earwig damselfly's breeding requirements
and is also essential to maintaining localized soil hydrology necessary
for persistence of uluhe ferns, which are known foraging and mating
sites for the adults and may provide habitat for the larval stage.
Should the species' population site stream experience either reduced
flow or complete dewatering for an extended period of time, it is
expected that the impact to surrounding soils and associated
vegetation, including the uluhe ferns that are believed to be the
species' likely larval-stage habitat, will be soil desiccation and
prolonged vegetation dieback, respectively.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Feral Pigs
One of the primary threats to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
is the ongoing destruction and degradation of its riparian habitat by
nonnative animals, particularly feral pigs (Sus scrofa) (Polhemus and
Asquith 1996, p. 22; Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 42). Pigs of Asian
descent were first introduced to Hawaii by the Polynesian ancestors of
Hawaiians around 400 A.D. (Kirch 1982, pp. 3-4). Western immigrants,
beginning with Captain Cook in 1778, repeatedly introduced European
strains (Tomich 1986, pp. 120-121). The pigs escaped domestication and
successfully invaded all areas, including wet and mesic forests and
grasslands, on all of the main Hawaiian Islands.
High pig densities and expansion of their distribution have caused
indisputable widespread damage to native vegetation on the Hawaiian
Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). Feral pigs create open areas
within forest habitat by digging up, eating, and trampling native plant
species (Stone 1985, p. 263). These open areas become fertile ground
for nonnative plant seeds spread through the excrement of the pigs and
by transport in their hair (Stone 1985, p. 263). In nitrogen-poor
soils, feral pig excrement increases nutrient availability, enhancing
establishment of nonnative weeds that are more adapted to richer soils
than are native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65). In this manner,
largely nonnative forests replace native forest habitat (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 65). In addition, feral pigs will root and dig for plant
tubers and worms in wetlands, including marshes, on all of the main
Hawaiian Islands (Erikson and Puttock 2006, p. 42).
In a study conducted in the 1980s on feral pig populations in
Kipahulu Valley on Maui, the deleterious effects of feral pig rooting
on native forest ecosystems was documented (Diong 1982, pp. 150, 160-
167). Rooting by feral pigs was observed to be related to the search
for earthworms, with rooting depths averaging 8 in (20 cm), and rooting
was found to greatly disrupt the leaf litter and topsoil layers, and
contribute to erosion and changes in ground topography. The feeding
habits of pigs were observed to create seed beds, enabling the
establishment and spread of invasive weedy species such as Clidemia
hirta (Koster's curse). The study concluded that all aspects of the
feeding habits of pigs are damaging to the structure and function of
the Hawaiian forest ecosystem (Diong 1982, pp. 160-167).
It is likely that pigs similarly impact the native vegetation used
for perching by adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies. On Maui,
feral pigs inhabit the uluhe-dominated riparian habitat of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly. Through their rooting and digging
activities, they have significantly degraded and destroyed the habitat
of the adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly (Foote 2008, p. 1).
In addition to creating conditions that enable the spread of
nonnative plant species, Mountainspring (1986, p. 98) surmised that
rooting by pigs depresses insect populations that depend upon the
ground layer at some life stage or that exhibit diel (day and night)
movements. As a result, it is likely that the presumed habitat (seeps
or damp leaf litter) of the naiads of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly is negatively impacted by feral pig activity, including the
uprooting and denuding of native vegetation (Foote 2008, p. 1; Polhemus
2008, p. 48).
Feral pigs are managed as a game animal for public hunting in the
more accessible regions of the east Maui watershed (Jokiel 2008, p. 1).
This management makes it likely that feral
[[Page 35999]]
pigs will continue to exist on Maui, and thus likely that pigs will
continue to destroy and degrade habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly on the island of Maui.
The effects from introduced feral pigs are immediate and ongoing
because pigs currently occur in the uluhe-dominated riparian habitat of
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. The threat of habitat destruction
or modification from feral pigs is significant for the following
reasons: (1) Trampling and grazing directly impact the vegetation used
by adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies for perching and by the
terrestrial or semiterrestrial naiads; (2) increased soil disturbance
leads to mechanical damage to plants used by adults for perching and by
the terrestrial or semiterrestrial naiads; (3) creation of open,
disturbed areas, conducive to weedy plant invasion and establishment of
alien plants from dispersed fruits and seeds, results over time in the
conversion of a community dominated by native vegetation to one
dominated by nonnative vegetation (leading to all of the negative
impacts associated with nonnative plants, detailed below); and (4)
increased watershed erosion and sedimentation upstream may degrade
adult breeding habitat for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. These
threats are expected to continue or increase without control or
elimination of pig populations in these habitats.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
The invasion of nonnative plants, including Clidemia hirta
(Koster's curse), further contributes to the degradation of Hawaii's
native forests, including the riparian habitat of the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly on Maui (Foote 2008, p. 1). Clidemia hirta is the
most serious nonnative plant invader within the uluhe-dominated
riparian habitat where the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly occurs on
Maui and where it formerly occurred on the island of Hawaii (Foote
2008, p. 1). A noxious shrub first cultivated in Wahiawa on Oahu before
1941, this plant is now found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands
(Wagner et al. 1985, p. 41). Clidemia hirta forms a dense understory,
shading out native plants and hindering their regeneration; it is
considered a major nonnative plant threat in wet forest areas because
it inhibits and eventually replaces native plants (Wagner et al. 1985,
p. 41; Smith 1989, p. 64). Invasive nonnatives such as C. hirta are
capable of modifying the natural environment at the microhabitat level
by altering light availability and soil-water regimes, and may
eventually replace the native plant community (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35). As C. hirta can outcompete the native
uluhe fern, this invasive nonnative species poses a threat by altering
and degrading the native plant community utilized by the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly.
Presently, the most significant threat to natural ponds and marshes
in Hawaii is the nonnative species Urochloa mutica (California grass).
This sprawling perennial grass is likely from Africa (Erickson and
Puttock 2006, p. 270). It was first noted on Oahu in 1924 and now
occurs on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (O'Connor 1999, p. 1,504),
where it is considered an aggressive invasive weed of marshes and
wetlands (Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 270). Found from sea level to
3,610 ft (1,100 m) in elevation (Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 270),
this plant forms dense, monotypic stands that can completely eliminate
any open water by layering trailing stems (Smith 1985, p. 186).
Marshlands eventually convert to meadowland when invaded by U. mutica
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 23). At Kawainui Marsh, the most
extensive marsh system remaining on Oahu, control of U. mutica to
prevent conversion of the marsh to meadowland is an ongoing management
activity (Wilson, Okamoto and Associates, Inc. 1993, pp. 3-4; Hawaii
Ecosystems at Risk (HEAR) 2008, p. 1). The preferred habitat of the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (primarily lowland, stagnant water, large
ponds, and small pools) on all of the Hawaiian Islands has likely
declined and continues to decline due to the spread of U. mutica
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 23).
In conclusion, nonnative plants represent a significant and
immediate and ongoing threat to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
through habitat destruction and modification for the following reasons:
(1) They adversely impact microhabitat by modifying the availability of
light; (2) they alter soil-water regimes; (3) they modify nutrient
cycling processes; and (4) they outcompete, and possibly directly
inhibit the growth of, native plant species; ultimately, native-
dominated plant communities are converted to nonnative plant
communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35).
This conversion negatively impacts and threatens the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly, which depends upon native plant species,
particularly uluhe, for essential life history needs. In addition,
conversion of habitat from marshlands to meadowlands caused by the
encroachment of the nonnative Urochloa mutica threatens the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly. These threats are expected to continue or increase
without control or elimination of invasive nonnative plants in these
habitats.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes, Landslides, and
Drought
Stochastic (random, naturally occurring) events, such as
hurricanes, landslides, and drought, alter or degrade the habitat of
Hawaiian damselflies directly by modifying and destroying native
riparian, wetland, and stream habitats (e.g., rocks and debris falling
in a stream, by mechanical damage to riparian and wetland vegetation),
and by indirectly by creating disturbed areas conducive to invasion by
nonnative plants that outcompete the native plants used by damselflies
for perching. We presume these events also alter microclimatic
conditions (e.g., opening the tree canopy, leading to an increase in
streamwater temperature; increasing stream sedimentation) so that the
habitat no longer supports damselfly populations. Both the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may also
be affected by temporary habitat loss (e.g., desiccation of streams,
die-off of uluhe) associated with droughts, which are not uncommon on
the Hawaiian Islands. With populations that have already been severely
reduced in both abundance and geographic distribution, and particularly
in the case of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, with only one
known population, even such a temporary loss of habitat can have a
severe negative impact on the species.
Natural disasters such as hurricanes and drought, and local, random
environmental events (such as landslides), represent a significant
threat to native riparian, wetland, and stream habitat and the two
damselfly species addressed in this final rule. These types of events
are known to cause significant habitat damage (Polhemus 1993, p. 86).
Because the two species addressed in this final rule now persist in low
numbers or occur in restricted ranges, they are more vulnerable to
these events and less resilient to such habitat disturbances.
Hurricanes, drought, and landslides, even though unpredictable as to
exact timing, have been and are expected to continue to be threats to
the Hawaiian damselflies. Therefore, they pose immediate and ongoing
threats to the two damselfly species and their habitat.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
Currently available information on global climate change is not
sufficiently
[[Page 36000]]
precise to predict detailed changes in the habitats and ecosystems upon
which these species rely. Consequently, the exact nature of the impacts
of climate change on the aquatic and riparian habitats of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, are
unknown. However, increasing temperatures and altered patterns of
precipitation may affect aquatic habitats through reduced stream flow,
evaporation of standing water, increased streamwater temperature, and
the loss of native riparian and wetland plants that comprise the
habitat in which these two species occur (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-
612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and
14,248).
Oki (2004, p. 4) noted long-term evidence of decreased
precipitation and stream flow in the Hawaiian Islands, based upon
evidence collected by stream gauging stations. This long-term drying
trend, coupled with existing ditch diversions and periodic El
Ni[ntilde]o-caused drying events, has created a pattern of severe and
persistent stream dewatering events (Polhemus 2008, p. 52). Future
changes in precipitation and the forecast of those changes are highly
uncertain because they depend, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La
Ni[ntilde]a weather cycle (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system
in the tropical Pacific having important global consequences for
weather and climate) might change (Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan
1998, pp. 2-10).
The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly may be especially vulnerable to extinction due to anticipated
environmental change that may result from global climate change.
Environmental changes that may affect these species are expected to
include habitat loss or alteration and changes in disturbance regimes
(e.g., storms and hurricanes), in addition to direct physiological
stress caused by increased streamwater temperatures to which the native
Hawaiian damselfly fauna are not adapted. The probability of a species
going extinct as a result of these factors increases when its range is
restricted, habitat decreases, and population numbers decline
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 8). Both of these
damselfly species have limited environmental tolerance ranges,
restricted habitat requirements, small population size, and a low
number of individuals. Therefore, we would expect these species to be
particularly vulnerable to projected environmental impacts that may
result from changes in climate, and subsequent impacts to their aquatic
and riparian habitats (e.g., Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et
al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and 14,248). We
believe changes in environmental conditions that may result from
climate change will likely impact these two species and, according to
current climate projections, we do not anticipate a reduction in this
threat any time in the near future; however, the magnitude of this
potential threat cannot be determined at this time.
Summary of Factor A
The effects of past, present, and potential future destruction,
modification, and degradation of native riparian, wetland, and stream
habitats threaten the continued existence of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, which depend on these
habitats throughout their respective ranges. These effects have been or
continue to be caused by: Agriculture and urban development; stream
diversion, well-drilling, channelization, and dewatering; introduced
feral pigs; introduced plants; and hurricanes, landslides, and drought.
The ongoing and likely increasing effects of global climate change,
while currently unquantifiable, are also likely to adversely impact,
directly or indirectly, the habitat of these two species.
Agriculture and urban development, to date, have caused the loss of
30 percent of Hawaii's coastal plain wetlands and 80 to 90 percent of
lowland freshwater habitat in Hawaii. Extensive stream diversions and
the ongoing dewatering of remaining wetland habitats continue to
degrade the quality of Pacific Hawaiian damselfly habitat and its
capability to support viable populations of this species and may also
negatively affect the habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Ongoing habitat destruction and degradation caused by feral pigs in
remaining tracts of uluhe-dominated riparian habitat promote the
establishment and spread of nonnative plants which, in turn, lower or
destroy the capability of the habitat to support viable populations of
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. The invasive nonnative grass
Urochloa mutica threatens to destroy the habitat of the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly through conversion of marshlands to meadowlands.
The above threats have caused the extirpation of many flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly populations; as a
result, their current ranges are very restricted. The combination of
restricted range, limited habitat quantity and quality, and low
population size makes each of these species especially vulnerable to
extinction. Thus we consider the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the habitat and range of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to pose an
immediate and significant threat to these species.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Individuals from what may be the single remaining population of the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly were collected by amateur collectors
as recently as the mid-1990s (Polhemus 2008, pp. 14-15). Although it is
not known how many individuals were collected at that time, Polhemus
(2008, pp. 14-15) inferred that this collection resulted in a
noticeable decrease in the population size. Furthermore, if there is
only one population of the species left, the decreased reproduction
that would result from the removal of potential breeding adults would
have a significant negative impact on the species.
There is a market for damselflies that may serve as an incentive to
collect them. There are internet websites that offer damselfly
specimens or parts (e.g., wings) for sale. In addition, the internet
abounds with ``how to'' guides for collecting and preserving damselfly
specimens (e.g., Abbott 2000, pp. 1-3; van der Heijden 2005). After
butterflies and large beetles, dragonflies and damselflies are probably
the most frequently collected insects in the world (Polhemus 2008, pp.
14-15). A rare specimen such as the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
may be particularly attractive to potential collectors (Polhemus 2008,
pp. 14-15)). Based on the history of collection of the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly, the market for damselfly specimens or parts, and
the vulnerability of this small population to the negative impacts of
any collection, we consider the potential overutilization of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly to pose an immediate and significant threat
to this species.
Unlike the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, which is restricted to
one remaining population site and which is known to have previously
been of interest to odonata enthusiasts (collectors of insects in the
order Odonata, including damselflies) (Polhemus 2008, pp. 14-15), we do
not believe overcollection is currently a threat to the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly, because it is comparatively more widespread across
several population sites on three islands and we are
[[Page 36001]]
unaware of hobbyist collection of this species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The geographic isolation of the Hawaiian Islands restricted the
number of original successful colonizing arthropods and resulted in the
development of Hawaii's unusual fauna. Only 15 percent of the known
families of insects are represented by native Hawaiian species (Howarth
1990, p. 11). Some groups of insects that often dominate continental
arthropod fauna, including social Hymenoptera (e.g., ants and wasps),
were absent during the evolution of Hawaii's unique arthropod fauna.
Commercial shipping and air cargo, as well as biological introductions
to Hawaii, have resulted in the establishment of over 3,372 species of
nonnative insects (Howarth 1990, p. 18; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 52),
with an estimated continuing establishment rate of 20 to 30 new species
per year (Beardsley 1962, p. 101; Beardsley 1979, p. 36; Staples and
Cowie 2001, p. 52).
Nonnative arthropod predators and parasites have also been
intentionally imported and released by individuals and governmental
agencies for biological control of insect pests. Between 1890 and 1985,
243 nonnative species were introduced, sometimes with the specific
intent of reducing populations of native Hawaiian insects (Funasaki et
al. 1988, p. 105; Lai 1988, pp. 186-187). Nonnative arthropods, whether
purposefully or accidentally introduced, pose a serious threat to
Hawaii's native insects, including the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, through direct predation (Howarth
and Medeiros 1989, pp. 82-83; Howarth and Ramsay 1991, pp. 81-84;
Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 54-57).
In addition to the problems posed by nonnative arthropods, the
establishment of various nonnative fish, frogs, and toads that act as
predators on native Hawaiian damselflies has also had a serious
negative impact on the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly, as discussed below.
Predation by Nonnative Ants
Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod fauna, and
the native species of the islands evolved in the absence of predation
pressure from ants. Ants can be particularly destructive predators
because of their high densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness,
and broad range of diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 17-18). The threat of ant
predation on the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly is amplified by the fact that most ant species have
winged reproductive adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and can quickly
establish new colonies in suitable habitats (Staples and Cowie 2001, p.
55). These attributes allow some ants to destroy otherwise
geographically isolated populations of native arthropods (Nafus 1993,
pp. 19, 22-23).
At least 47 species of ants are known to be established in the
Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii Ants 2008, pp. 1-11), and at least 4
particularly aggressive species have severely impacted the native
insect fauna, likely including native damselflies (Zimmerman 1948b, p.
173; Reimer et al. 1990, pp. 40-43; HEAR database 2005, pp. 1-2): The
big-headed ant (Pheidole megacephala), the long-legged ant (also known
as the yellow crazy ant) (Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis papuana
(no common name), and Solenopsis geminata (no common name). Numerous
other species of ants are recognized as threats to Hawaii's native
invertebrates, with a trend of new species of ants being established
every few years (Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 53). Due to their
preference for drier habitat sites, ants are less likely to occur in
high densities in the riparian and aquatic habitat currently occupied
by the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly. However, some species of ants (e.g., the long-legged ant and
Solenopsis papuana) have increased their range into these areas.
The presence of ants in nearly all of the lower elevation habitat
sites historically occupied by the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may preclude the future recolonization
of these areas by these two species. Damselfly naiads may be
particularly susceptible to ant predation when they crawl out of the
water or seek a terrestrial location for their metamorphosis into the
adult stage. Likewise, newly emerged adult damselflies are susceptible
to predation until their wings have sufficiently hardened to permit
flight, or when the adults are simply resting on vegetation at night
(Polhemus 2008, p. 59).
The long-legged ant appeared in Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on
Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). It inhabits
low to mid-elevation (less than 2,000 ft (600 m)) rocky areas of
moderate rainfall (less than 100 in (250 cm) annually) (Reimer et al.
1990, p. 42). Direct observations indicate that Hawaiian arthropods are
susceptible to predation by this species. Hardy (1979, p. 34)
documented the apparent eradication of native insects within the
Kipahulu area on Maui after this area was invaded by the long-legged
ant. Although only cursory observations exist, long-legged ants are
thought to be a threat to populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
in mesic areas within its elevation range due to their particularly
aggressive nature and large colony sizes (Foote 2008, p. 1).
Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has
invaded intact mesic to wet forest from sea level to over 2,000-ft
(600-m) elevation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still
expanding its range (Reimer 1993, p. 14). Gillespie and Reimer (1993,
p. 30) found a negative correlation between native spider diversity and
areas invaded by this ant species. It is likely, based on our knowledge
of the expanding range of this invasive ant, its aggressive nature, and
dense populations (Reimer 1993, p. 14), that it may threaten
populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly in mesic areas up to
2,000-ft (600-m) elevation as well (Foote 2008, p. 1).
The rarity or disappearance of native damselfly species, including
the two species in this final rule, from historical observation sites
over the past 100 years, is likely due to a variety of factors. There
is no documentation that conclusively ties the decrease in damselfly
observations to the establishment of nonnative ants in low to montane,
and mesic to wet, habitats on the Hawaiian Islands. However, we do have
evidence that introduced ants prey on Hawaiian damselflies. In 1998,
during a survey of an Oahu stream, researchers observed predation by
ants upon another damselfly species, the orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly
(Megalagrion xanthomelas) (Englund 2008, pp. 56-57). The presence of
nonnative ants in these habitats and parallel decline of damselfly
observations in these habitats suggest that nonnative ants may have
played a role in the decline of some populations of the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
In summary, observations and reports have documented that ants are
particularly destructive predators because of their high densities,
broad range of diet, and ability to establish new colonies in otherwise
geographically isolated locations, because the reproductive adult ants
are able to fly. Damselfly naiads are particularly vulnerable to ant
predation when they crawl out of water or seek a terrestrial location
for metamorphosis into adults, and newly emerged adults are susceptible
to predation until they
[[Page 36002]]
can fly. In particular, the long-legged ant and Solenopsis papuana are
two aggressive species reported from sea level to 2,000-ft (610-m)
elevation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands. Since their range
overlaps that of both the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
species, we consider these introduced ants to pose an immediate and
significant threat to both damselfly species. Unless these aggressive
nonnative ant predators are eliminated or controlled, we expect this
threat to continue or increase.
Predation by Nonnative Backswimmers
Backswimmers, so called because they swim upside down, are aquatic
``true bugs'' (Heteroptera). Backswimmers are voracious predators and
frequently feed on prey much larger than themselves, such as tadpoles,
small fish, and other aquatic insects, including damselfly naiads
(Heads 1985, p. 559; Heads 1986, p. 369). Backswimmers are not native
to Hawaii, but several species have been introduced. Notonecta indica
(no common name) was first collected on Oahu in the mid-1980s and is
presently known from Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. Species of Notonecta are
known to prey on damselfly naiads and the mere presence of this
predator in the water can cause naiads to reduce foraging (which can
reduce naiad growth, development, and survival) (Heads 1985, p. 559;
Heads 1986, p. 369). While there is no documentation that conclusively
ties the decrease in damselfly observations to the establishment of
nonnative backswimmers in Hawaiian streams and other aquatic habitat,
the presence of backswimmers in these habitats, the documented
predation of backswimmers on the naiads of other damselfly species, and
the concurrent decline of damselfly observations in some areas suggest
that these nonnative aquatic insects may have played a role in the
decline of some damselfly populations, including those of the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly.
We consider predation by nonnative backswimmers to pose a
significant and immediate threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly,
because this species has an aquatic naiad life stage. In addition, the
presence of these predators in damselfly aquatic habitat causes naiads
to reduce foraging, which in turn reduces their growth, development,
and survival. Backswimmers are reported on all of the main Hawaiian
Islands except Kahoolawe. Without elimination or control of nonnative
backswimmers, we expect this threat to continue or increase over time.
Predation by Nonnative Fish
Predation by nonnative fish is a significant threat to Hawaiian
damselfly species with aquatic life stages, such as the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly. The aquatic naiads tend to rest and feed near or on
the surface of the water, or on rocks where they are exposed and
vulnerable to predation by nonnative fish. Hawaii has only five native
freshwater fish species, comprised of gobies (Gobiidae) and sleepers
(Eleotridae), that occur on all of the major islands. Because these
native fish are benthic (bottom) feeders (Kido et al. 1993, pp. 43-44;
Ego 1956, p. 24; Englund 1999, pp. 236-237), Hawaii's stream-dwelling
damselfly species probably experienced limited natural predation
pressure due to their avoidance of benthic areas in preference for
shallow side channels, sidepools, and higher velocity riffles and seeps
(Englund 1999, pp. 236-237). While fish predation has been an important
factor in the evolution of behavior in damselfly naiads in continental
systems (Johnson 1991, pp. 8), it is speculated that Hawaii's stream-
dwelling damselflies adapted behaviors to avoid the benthic feeding
habits of native fish species. Additionally, some species of
damselflies, including some of the native Hawaiian species, are not
adapted to cohabitate with some fish species, and are found only in
bodies of water without fish (Henrikson 1988, p. 179; McPeek 1990a, p.
83). The naiads of the aquatic Pacific Hawaiian damselfly tend to
occupy more exposed positions and engage in conspicuous foraging
behavior, thereby increasing their susceptibility to fish predation
(Englund 1999, p. 232), unlike damselflies that coevolved with
predaceous fish (Macan 1977, p. 48; McPeek 1990b, p. 1,714). In
laboratory studies, Englund (1999, p. 232) found that naiads of the
orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
invariably were eaten due to their behavior of swimming to the water
surface when exposed to two nonnative freshwater fish. In the same
study, naiads of nonnative damselfly species avoided predation by the
same fish species by remaining still and avoiding surface waters
(Englund 1999, p. 232).
Over 70 species of nonnative fish have been introduced into
Hawaiian freshwater habitats (Devick 1991, p. 190; Englund 1999, p.
226; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 32; Brasher 2003, p. 1,054; Englund
2004, p.27; Englund et al. 2007, p. 232); at least 53 species are now
established in the freshwater habitats of Hawaii (Freshwater Fishes of
Hawaii 2008, p. 1). The initial introduction of nonnative fish to
Hawaii began with the release of food stock species by Asian immigrants
at the turn of the 20th century; however, the impact of these first
introductions to Hawaiian damselflies cannot be assessed because they
predated the initial collection of damselflies in Hawaii (Perkins 1899,
pp. 64-76).
In 1905, three species of fish within the Poeciliidae family,
including the mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) and the sailfin molly
(Poecilia latipinna), were introduced for biological control of
mosquitoes (Van Dine 1907, p. 9; Englund 1999, p. 225; Brasher 2003, p.
1054). In 1922, several additional species were introduced for mosquito
control, including the green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri), the
moonfish (Xiphophorus maculatus), and the guppy (Poecilia reticulata).
By 1935, some Oahu damselfly species, including the orangeblack
Hawaiian damselfly, were becoming less common, and fish introduced for
mosquito control were the suspected cause of their decline (Williams
1936, p. 313; Zimmerman 1948b, p. 341). The literature clearly
indicates that the extirpation of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from
the majority of its historical habitat sites on the main Hawaiian
Islands is the result of predation by nonnative fish (Moore and Gagne
1982, p. 4; Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 502; Englund 1999, pp. 235-
237; Brasher 2003, p. 1,055; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215; Polhemus
2007, pp. 238-239). From 1946 through 1961, several additional
nonnative fish were introduced for the purpose of controlling nonnative
aquatic plants, and for angling (Brasher 2003, p. 1,054). In the early
1980s, several additional species of nonnative fish began appearing in
stream systems, likely originating from the aquarium fish trade (Devick
1991, p. 189; Brasher 2003, p. 1,054). By 1990, there were an
additional 14 species of nonnative fish established in waters on
Hawaii, Maui, and Molokai. By 2008, there were at least 17 nonnative
freshwater fish established on one or more of these islands, including
several aggressive predators and habitat-altering species such as the
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and cichlids (Tilapia sp.)
(Devick 1991, pp. 191-192; FishBase 2008).
The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is currently found only in portions
of stream systems without nonnative fish (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997,
pp. 493-494; Englund 1999, p. 228; Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al.
2007, p. 215). There is a strong correlation between
[[Page 36003]]
the absence of nonnative fish species and the presence of Hawaiian
damselflies in streams on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (Englund
1999, p. 225; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215), suggesting that the
damselflies cannot coexist with nonnative fish. The distribution of
some Hawaiian damselfly species is now reduced to stream reaches less
than 312 ft (95 m) in length where invasive fish species do not occur
(Englund 1999, p. 229; Englund 2004, p. 27). In 2007, a Statewide
survey including 15 streams on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Molokai
found the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was not observed in streams
where the introduced Mexican molly (Poecilia mexicana) was present
(Englund et al. 2007, pp. 214-216, 228). On Oahu, researchers found
that the Oahu-endemic Hawaiian damselflies only occupied habitat sites
without nonnative fish. For two of these species, a geologic or manmade
barrier (e.g., waterfalls, steep gradient, dry stream midreaches, or
constructed diversions) appears to prevent access by the nonnative fish
species. For this reason, researchers have recommended that
geologically isolated sites inaccessible to nonnative fishes, such as
isolated anchialine ponds, high-gradient streams interrupted by manmade
diversions, and streams entering the coast as waterfalls, be used as
restoration sites for damselflies on all of the Hawaiian Islands
(Englund 2004, p. 27).
Of the two damselfly species considered in this final rule, the
aquatic Pacific Hawaiian damselfly appears to have had the greatest
range contraction due to predation by nonnative fish (Englund 1999, p.
235; Polhemus 2007, p. 234, 238-240). Once found on all of the main
Hawaiian Islands, it is now found only on Molokai, Maui, and one stream
on the island of Hawaii below 2,000 ft (600 m) in elevation; all are in
stream reaches free of nonnative fish. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
was extirpated from Oahu by 1910 (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 502),
although Englund (1999, p. 235) found that Oahu still has abundant and
otherwise suitable lowland and coastal water habitat to support this
species. However, this aquatic habitat is infested with nonnative fish,
with some nonnative species occurring up to 1,300-ft (400-m) elevation.
In contrast, Englund (1999, p. 236) found that even at sea level,
artificial wetlands (resulting from taro cultivation) on the island of
Molokai can support populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
because nonnative fish are absent.
Even the geographically isolated stream headwaters and other
aquatic habitats where the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly remains extant
are not secure from the threat of predation by introduced fish species.
There are many documented cases of people moving nonnative fish from
one area to another (Brock 1995, pp. 3-4; Englund 1999, p. 237). Once
nonnative fish species are introduced to aquatic habitats previously
free of nonnative fish, they often become permanently established
(Englund and Filbert 1999, p. 151; Englund 1999, pp. 232-233; Englund
et al. 2007). An example of facilitated fish movement occurred in 2000,
when an uninformed maintenance worker introduced Tilapia sp. into pools
located on the grounds of Tripler Hospital that were maintained for the
benefit of the remaining Oahu population of the orangeblack Hawaiian
damselfly (Englund 2000).
The continued introduction and establishment of new species of
predatory nonnative fish in Hawaiian waters, and the possible movement
of these nonnative species to new streams and other aquatic habitat, is
an immediate and significant threat to the survival of the aquatic
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Unless nonnative predatory fish are
eradicated or effectively controlled in the habitats utilized by the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, we have no reason to believe that there
will be any significant reduction in this threat at any time in the
near future. The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is not known to be
threatened by predation from nonnative fish species, due to the
apparent absence of the larval stage within stream habitats.
Predation by Introduced Frogs and Toads
Currently, there are three species of introduced aquatic amphibians
known in the Hawaiian Islands: The North American bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), the cane toad (Bufo marinus), and the Japanese wrinkled
frog (Rana rugosa). The bullfrog is native to the eastern United States
and the Great Plains region (Moyle 1973, p. 18; Bury and Whelan 1985 in
Earlham College 2002, p. 10), and was first introduced into Hawaii in
1899 (Bryan 1931, p. 63) to help control insects, specifically the
nonnative Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica), a significant pest of
ornamental plants (Bryan 1931, p. 62). Bullfrogs were first released
and quickly became established in the Hilo region on the island of
Hawaii (Bryan 1931, p. 63). Bullfrogs have demonstrated great success
in establishing new populations wherever they have been introduced
(Moyle 1973, p. 19), and now occur on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai,
Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (U.S. Geological Survey 2008b, p. 8).
This species is flexible in both habitat and food requirements (Bury
and Whelan 1985 in Earlham College 2002, p. 11), and can utilize any
water source within its temperature range (60 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) (16 to 24 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) (DesertUSA 2008).
Introduced to areas outside its native range, the bullfrog's primary
impact is typically the elimination of native frog species (Moyle 1973,
p. 21). In Hawaii, where there are no native frogs, the bullfrog has
not been definitively implicated in the extirpation of any particular
native aquatic invertebrate species, but Englund et al. (2007, pp. 215,
219) found a strong correlation between the presence of bullfrogs and
the absence of Hawaiian damselflies in their 2006 study of streams on
all of the main Hawaiian Islands. As the bullfrog prefers habitats with
dense vegetation and relatively calm water (Moyle 1973, p. 19; Bury and
Whelan 1985 in Earlham College 2002, p. 9), it is likely of particular
threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly because this species also
prefers calm water habitat that is surrounded by dense vegetation.
Capable of breeding within small pools of water, bullfrogs are also a
potential threat to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly within its
uluhe-covered, steep, riparian, and moist talus-slope habitat on Maui.
Because the effects of possible predation by the cane toad and the
Japanese wrinkled frog on the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are unknown at this time, the magnitude or
significance of this potential threat cannot be determined.
We consider predation by bullfrogs to pose a significant and
immediate threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, since Englund et
al. (2007, pp. 215, 219) found a strong correlation between the
presence of predatory nonnative bullfrogs and the absence of Hawaiian
damselflies, and the preferred habitat of the bullfrog overlaps with
that of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Within its riparian habitat,
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly may also be threatened by the
bullfrog, which is capable of breeding within small pools of water. In
the absence of the elimination or control of nonnative bullfrogs, we
expect that this threat will continue or increase in the future.
Summary of Factor C
Predation by nonnative animal species (ants, backswimmers, fish,
and bullfrogs) poses an immediate and significant threat to the Pacific
and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies
[[Page 36004]]
throughout their ranges for the following reasons:
Damselfly naiads are vulnerable to predation by ants, and the
ranges of both the Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies
overlap that of particularly aggressive, nonnative, predatory ant
species that currently occur from sea level to 2,000 ft (610 m)
elevation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands. We consider both the
Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies to be threatened by
predation by these nonnative ants.
Nonnative backswimmers prey on damselfly naiads in streams and
other aquatic habitat, and are considered a threat to the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly since this species has an aquatic naiad life stage.
In addition, the presence of backswimmers inhibits the foraging
behavior of damselfly naiads, with negative consequences for
development and survival. Backswimmers are reported on all of the main
Hawaiian Islands except Kahoolawe.
The absence of Hawaiian damselflies, including the aquatic
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, in streams and other aquatic habitat on the
main Hawaiian Islands, is strongly correlated with the presence of
predatory nonnative fish as documented in numerous observations and
reports (Englund 1999, p. 237; Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al.
2007, p. 215), thereby suggesting that nonnative predatory fishes
eliminated native Hawaiian damselflies from these aquatic habitats.
There are over 51 species of nonnative fishes established in freshwater
habitats on the Hawaiian Islands from sea level to over 3,800-ft
(1,152-m) elevation (Devick 1991, p. 190; Staples and Cowie 2001, p.
32; Brasher 2003, p. 1054; Englund 1999, p. 226; Englund and Polhemus
2001; Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al. 2007, p. 232). Predation by
nonnative fishes is considered to pose a significant and immediate
threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
Englund et al. (2007, pp. 215, 219) found a strong correlation
between the presence of nonnative bullfrogs and the absence of Hawaiian
damselflies. Bullfrogs are reported on all of the main Hawaiian
Islands, except Kahoolawe and Niihau. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is
likely threatened by bullfrogs, due to their shared preference for
similar habitat, and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly may also be
threatened within its riparian habitat by the bullfrog, which is
capable of breeding within small pools of water.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Inadequate Habitat Protection
Currently, there are no Federal, State, or local laws, treaties, or
regulations that specifically conserve or protect the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from the threats
described in this final rule. The State of Hawaii considers all natural
flowing surface water (streams, springs, and seeps) as State property
(Hawaii Revised Statutes 174c 1987), and the Hawaii Department of Land
and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Aquatic Resources has
management responsibility for the aquatic organisms in these waters
(Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated, 1988, Title 12; 1992 Cumulative
Supplement). Thus, damselfly populations associated with streams,
seeps, and springs are under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii,
regardless of the ownership of the property across which the stream
flows. This includes all populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
The State of Hawaii manages the use of surface and groundwater
resources through the Commission on Water Resource Management (Water
Commission), as mandated by the 1987 State Water Code (State Water
Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 174C-71, 174C-81-87, and 174C-
9195, and Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13,
Chapters 168 and 169). In the State Water Code, there are no formal
requirements that project proponents or the Water Commission protect
the habitats of fish and wildlife prior to issuance of a permit to
modify surface or groundwater resources.
As noted above in Factor A, the Water Commission is now more
cognizant of the effects that groundwater removal has on streams via
injudicious placement of wells. The Commission routinely reviews new
permit applications for wells (Hardy 2009, p. 1). All requests for new
wells require a drilling permit, and, in some cases, a use permit is
additionally required, depending upon the intended allocation and
anticipated amount of water to be pumped from the well. Water
Management Areas have been designated over much of Oahu and in some
areas on other neighboring islands. Within these areas, a use permit
for a new well is also required, which automatically triggers a greater
review of the potential impacts. Any request for a permit to drill a
well within proximity of streams or dike rock located at the headwaters
of streams automatically triggers additional review (Hardy 2009).
Permits to drill wells near streams or within dike complexes are now
unlikely to be granted because a new well would require the amendment
of in-stream flow standards for the impacted stream. However, such
amendments are sometimes approved. One example is the long-contested
case involving the Waiahole Ditch on the island of Oahu (Hawaii
Department of Agriculture 2002, p. 3). In that case, the Commission
supports the removal of several million gallons of water daily from
windward Oahu streams (Hawaii Department of Agriculture 2002). Although
a regulatory process is in place that can potentially address the
effects of new requests for groundwater removal on streams, this
process includes provisions for amendments that would result in adverse
effects to groundwater that supports streamside habitat for the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly, and potentially for the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly.
The maintenance of instream flow, which is needed to protect the
habitat of damselflies and other aquatic wildlife, is regulated by the
establishment of standards on a stream-by-stream basis (State Water
Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 174C-71, and Administrative Rules
of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169). Currently, the interim
instream flow standards represent the existing flow conditions in
streams in the State (as of June 15, 1988, for Molokai, Hawaii, Kauai
and east Maui; and October 19, 1988, for west Maui and leeward Oahu)
(Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169-
44-49). However, the State Water Code does not provide permanent or
minimal instream flow standards for the protection of aquatic wildlife.
Instead, modification of instream flow standards and stream channels
can be undertaken at any time by the Water Commission or via public
petitions to revise flow standards or modify stream channels in a
specified stream (Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title
13, Chapter 169-36). Additionally, the Water Commission must consider
economic benefits gained from out-of-stream water uses, but is not
required to balance these benefits against instream benefits or impacts
to aquatic fish and wildlife. Consequently, any stabilization of stream
flow for the protection of any native Hawaiian damselfly species
habitat is subject to modification at a future date.
[[Page 36005]]
The natural value of Hawaii's stream systems has been recognized
under the State of Hawaii Instream Use Protection Program
(Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169-
20(2)). In the Hawaii Stream Assessment Report (1990), prepared in
coordination with the National Park Service, the State Water Commission
identified high-quality rivers or streams, or portions of rivers or
streams, that may be placed within the Federal Wild and Scenic River
system. This report recommended that streams meeting certain criteria
be protected from further development. However, there is no formal or
institutional mechanism within the State's Water Code to designate and
set aside these streams, or to identify and protect stream habitat for
Hawaiian damselflies. Furthermore, the setting of instream flow
standards sufficient to conserve Hawaiian damselflies is currently not
a condition that would be considered or included in a Hawaii Department
of Agriculture individual permit (DLNR, Commission on Water Resource
Management 2006, p. 2).
Existing Federal regulatory mechanisms that may protect Hawaiian
damselflies and their habitat are also inadequate. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) has very limited jurisdiction in Hawaii.
Hawaii's streams are isolated on individual islands and run quickly
down steep volcanic slopes. There are no interstate rivers in Hawaii,
few if any streams crossing Federal land, and no Federal dams. Many of
Hawaii's streams are generally intermittent, or if perennial, not
navigable. Thus, licensing of hydroelectric projects in Hawaii
generally does not come under the purview of FERC, although hydropower
developers in Hawaii may voluntarily seek licensing under FERC.
In contrast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has some
regulatory control over modifications of freshwater streams in the
United States, yet may assert discretion relative to jurisdictional
determinations depending on the surface water connection of the stream
to a tangible water of the United States. If the Corps finds the stream
to be jurisdictional, certain activities such as road crossings for
streams and bank stabilization can be subject to a streamlined
permitting process (33 CFR 330). This process, called the nationwide
permits program, can involve only limited public review if impacts are
anticipated to be minimal, both individually and cumulatively.
The Service and the Hawaii DLNR have 15 days to provide substantive
site-specific comments prior to the issuance of a nationwide permit.
Given the complexity of the impacts on Hawaiian damselflies from stream
modifications and surface water diversions, the remoteness of project
sites, and the types of studies necessary to determine project impacts
and mitigation, this limited comment period does not allow time for an
adequate assessment of impacts. This regulation is inadequate to
protect the damselflies because the Corps is under no obligation to
modify the project based upon comments received.
However, if the stream is jurisdictional and impacts are expected
to exceed the thresholds for a nationwide permit, the Corps can issue
individual permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.). These permits are subject to public review, and must
comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines
and public comment requirements under the Clean Water Act. Compensatory
mitigation may also be required to offset lost stream functions.
However, in issuing these permits, the Corps does not establish
instream flow standards as a matter of policy. The Corps normally
considers that the public interest for instream flow is represented by
the State water allocation rights or preferences (U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers' Regulatory Guidance Letter No 85-6), and project
alternatives that supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair the State
water quantity allocations are not normally addressed as alternatives
during permit review.
In cases where the Corps district engineer does propose to impose
instream flow standards on an individual permit, this flow standard
must reflect a substantial national interest. Additionally, if this
instream flow standard is in conflict with a State water quantity
allocation, then it must be reviewed and approved by the Office of the
Chief Engineer in Washington, D.C. (Regulatory Guidance Letter No 85-
6).
One population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly occurs in Palikea
Stream on Maui, which flows through Haleakala National Park. On
Molokai, populations of this damselfly species occur at the mouth of
Pelekunu Stream, which flows through a preserve managed by The Nature
Conservancy, and in lower Waikolu Stream, which flows through Kalaupapa
National Historic Park. However, the landowners do not own the water
rights to any of the streams, and thus cannot fully manage the
conservation of any of these damselfly populations.
Because there are currently no Federal, State, or local laws or
treaties or regulations that adequately conserve or protect habitat of
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly
from the threats described in this final rule, and the regulations
currently in place are inadequate to maintain stream and riparian
habitats and protect the two damselfly species from stream
modifications and surface water diversions, all of these threats remain
immediate and significant. The habitat of both species continues to be
reduced, degraded, and altered by past and present manmade alterations
to streams and riparian zones.
Inadequate Protection from Introduction of Nonnative Species
As discussed above (see Factor C. Disease or Predation), predation
by nonnative species (fish, insects, and bullfrogs) is one of the most
significant threats to the survival of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
Based on historical and current rates of aquatic species
introductions (both purposeful and accidental), existing State and
Federal regulatory mechanisms are not adequately preventing the spread
of nonnative species between islands and watersheds in Hawaii. The
Hawaii Department of Agriculture has administrative rules in place that
address importation of nonnative species and establish a permit process
for such activities (Hawaii Administrative Rules sec. 4-71). The
Division of Aquatic Resources within the Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources (HDLNR) has authority to seize, confiscate, or
destroy as a public nuisance, any fish or other aquatic life found in
any waters of the State and whose importation is prohibited or
restricted under rules of the Department of Agriculture (Section 187A-
2(4 H.R.S. sec. 187A-6.5)). Although State and Federal regulations are
now firmly in place to prevent the unauthorized entry of nonnative
aquatic species into the State of Hawaii, movement of species between
islands and from one watershed to the next remains problematic even
while prohibited (HDAR 2003, pp. 2/12 - 2/14). For example, while
unauthorized movement of an aquatic species from one watershed to the
next may be prohibited, there simply is not enough government funding
to adequately enforce such regulation or to provide for sufficient
inspection services and monitoring, although this priority need is
recognized (Cravalho 2009, p. 1). Furthermore, due to the complexity of
the pathways of invasion by aquatic species (i.e., intentional,
inadvertent,
[[Page 36006]]
and by forces of nature), many components contributing to the problem
may be better addressed through greater public outreach and education
(Montgomery 2009, p. 1).
On the basis of the above information, we find that existing
regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from the threat of
established nonnative species (particularly fish and insect species)
spreading between islands and watersheds, where they may prey upon or
directly compete with the two damselfly species for food and space.
Because current Federal, State, and local laws and treaties and
regulations are inadequate to prevent the spread of nonnative aquatic
animals between islands and watersheds, the impacts from these
introduced threats remain immediate and significant. From habitat-
altering, nonnative plant species to predation or competition caused by
introduced frogs, nonnative fish, and insect species, the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly are
immediately and significantly threatened by former and new plant and
animal introductions within the damselflies' remaining habitat.
Summary of Factor D
The aquatic habitat of the flying earwig and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselflies is under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, which
also has management responsibility for aquatic organisms. However, the
State Water Code has no regulatory mechanism in place to protect these
species or their habitat. The State Water Code does not currently
provide for permanent or minimum instream flow standards for the
protection of aquatic ecosystems upon which these damselfly species
depend, and does not contain a regulatory mechanism for identifying and
protecting damselfly habitat under a Wild and Scenic River designation.
To date, administration of the Clean Water Act permitting program
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not provided substantive
protection of damselfly habitat, including any requirements for
retention of adequate instream flows.
Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not adequately
regulating the spread of nonnative animal species between islands and
watersheds. Predation by nonnative animal species poses a major ongoing
threat to the flying earwig and the Pacific Hawaiian damselflies.
Because existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to maintain
aquatic habitat for the damselflies and to regulate the spread of
nonnative species, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is
considered to be a significant and immediate threat.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
Small Numbers of Populations and Individuals
Species that are endemic to single islands or known from few,
widely dispersed locations are inherently more vulnerable to extinction
than widespread species because of the higher risks from genetic
bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change, and
localized catastrophes such as hurricanes, landslides, and drought
(Lande 1988, p. 1,455; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988,
p. 757). These problems are further magnified when populations are few
and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process
described as an ``extinction vortex'' by Gilpin and Soul[acute]e (1986,
pp. 24-25). Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level
of genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental
changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence
(Soul[acute]e 1987, pp. 4-7). The problems associated with small
population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or
natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions
with other threats, such as those discussed above (Factors A-C).
Historically, the two damselfly species were more widespread,
present on several Hawaiian islands. An important benefit of this
greater historical range, especially the fact they were on several
islands from which they are now extirpated, resulted in an advantage of
redundancy: Additional populations separated by some distance likely
allowed some populations to be spared the impacts of localized or more
discrete catastrophic events, such as narrow-track hurricanes or mud
slides. However, this advantage of redundancy has been lost with the
great reduction in the damselflies' ranges.
Jordan et al. (2007, p. 247) showed in their genetic and
comparative phylogeography analysis (study of historical processes
responsible for genetic divergence within a species) of four
Megalagrion species that the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may be more
susceptible to problems linked to low genetic diversity compared to
other Hawaiian damselfly species. Both Maui and Molokai populations of
this species were analyzed, and results suggested that the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly may not disperse well across both land and water,
which may have led to the low genetic diversity observed in the two
populations sampled. The authors proposed that populations of the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly be monitored and managed to help understand
the conservation needs of this species and the threat of population
bottlenecks (Jordan et al. 2007, p. 258). This study did not include an
analysis of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. However, given that
this species may now be reduced to a single population, the potential
loss of genetic diversity and threat of inbreeding depression is a
concern for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly as well.
The small number of remaining populations of the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly (now possibly reduced to a single remaining
population) puts this species at significant risk of extinction from
stochastic events, such as hurricanes, landslides, or prolonged drought
(Jones et al. 1984, p. 209). For example, Polhemus (1993, p. 87)
documented the extirpation of a related damselfly species, Megalagrion
vagabundum, from the entire Hanakapiai Stream system on Kauai as a
result of the impacts from Hurricane Iniki in 1992. Such stochastic
events thus pose the threat of immediate extinction of a species with a
very small and geographically restricted distribution, as in the case
of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Summary of Factor E
The threat to the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian damselflies
from limited numbers of populations and individuals is significant and
immediate for the following reasons:
Each of these species is subject to potentially reduced
reproductive vigor due to inbreeding depression, particularly the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, which is now apparently restricted to
one population;
Each of these species is subject to reduced levels of genetic
variability that may diminish their capacity to adapt and respond to
environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of their long-
term persistence;
[[Page 36007]]
The potential benefits of redundancy resulting from the wider
historical distribution of the species, in which some populations might
survive stochastic events that impact other populations of the
damselflies, has been lost as a result of the extreme reduction in the
ranges of the two species;
As there may be only one remaining population of the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly that occurs in a relatively restricted
geographic location, a single catastrophic event, such as a hurricane
or landslide, could result in the extinction of the species. Likewise,
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, with several small, widely dispersed
populations, would be vulnerable to the extirpation of remaining
populations; and
Species with few populations and a small number of
individuals, such as the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly, are less resilient to threats that might otherwise
have a relatively minor impact on a larger population. For example, the
reduced availability of breeding habitat or an increase in predation of
naiads, which might be absorbed in a relatively large population, could
result in a significant decrease in survivorship or reproduction of a
relatively small, isolated population. The small population size of
these two species thus magnifies the severity of the impact of the
other threats discussed in this final rule.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly. We find that both of these species face immediate and
significant threats throughout their ranges:
Both the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly face threats from past, present, and potential
future destruction, modification, and curtailment of their habitats,
primarily from: Agriculture and urban development; stream diversion,
well-drilling, channelization, and dewatering; feral pigs and nonnative
plants; and from stochastic events like hurricanes, landslides, and
drought. The changing environmental conditions that may result from
climate change (particularly rising temperatures) are also likely to
threaten these two damselfly species (compounded because of the two
species' small population sizes and limited distributions), although
currently there is limited information on the exact nature of these
impacts (see discussion under Factor A).
The only known population of the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly is immediately and significantly threatened by potential
recreational collection (see Factor B).
Both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly are subject to an immediate and significant threat
of predation by nonnative insects (ants) and bullfrogs. The Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly is also similarly threatened by backswimmers and
nonnative fish (see Factor C).
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g.,
inadequate protection of stream habitat and inadequate protection from
the introduction of nonnative species) poses a threat to both species
of Hawaiian damselfly, as discussed under Factor D above.
Both of these species face an immediate and significant threat
from extinction due to factors associated with small numbers of
populations and individuals as discussed under Factor E above.
All of the above threats are exacerbated by the inherent
vulnerability of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly to extinction from stochastic events at any time
because of their endemism (indigenousness), small numbers of
individuals and populations, and restricted habitats.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that each of these two species
endemic to Hawaii is presently in danger of extinction throughout its
entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats described above. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we are listing the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly as endangered in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Each of the two endemic damselfly
species designated as endangered in this final rule is highly
restricted in its range, and the threats to its survival occur
throughout its range and are not restricted to any particular
significant portion of that range. Therefore, we assessed the status of
each species throughout its entire range. Accordingly, our assessment
and final determination apply to each species throughout its entire
range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies, and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted,
[[Page 36008]]
and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also
establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts
and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks.
Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernment organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available from our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Implementation of recovery actions generally benefits from the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.
Upon listing, funding for recovery actions will be available from a
variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and
cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community,
and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, under section 6 of the
Act, the State of Hawaii is eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the protection and recovery of the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Additionally, we invite you to submit any
new information on these species whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
ADDRESSES).
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(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 a listed species or
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 consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are
not limited to: Army Corps of Engineers involvement in projects, such
as the construction of roads, bridges, and dredging projects, subject
to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-authorized discharges under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); U.S.
Department of Agriculture involvement in the release or permitting of
the release of biological control agents under the Federal Plant Pest
Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj); military training and related activity
carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense; and projects by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Highways Administration, and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt any of these), import, export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship
any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions
apply to our agents and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise-prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species. A permit must be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable 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 a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the two damselflies, such as the introduction of competing
nonnative insects or predatory fish to the State of Hawaii;
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of these species;
(4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any
stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any
body of water in which the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are known to occur; and
(5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any
waters in which the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly are known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests for copies
of the regulations concerning listed animals and general inquiries
regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-2063; facsimile 503-231-
6243).
Upon listing under the Act, the State of Hawaii's Endangered
Species Act (HRS, Sect. 195D-4(a)) is automatically invoked, which
would also prohibit take of these species and encourage conservation by
State government agencies. Further, the State may enter into agreements
with Federal agencies
[[Page 36009]]
to administer and manage any area required for the conservation,
management, enhancement, or protection of endangered species (HRS,
Sect. 195D-5(c)). Funds for these activities could be made available
under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States). Thus, the
Federal protection afforded to these species by listing them as
endangered species will be reinforced and supplemented by protection
under State law.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species; and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protections; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary of the
Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the government or public access to private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal
action agency's and landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
must contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may
require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species). Under the
Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed only
when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and
provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, if available; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation
plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the
regulatory protections afforded by section 9 prohibitions and the
section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the
best available scientific information at the time of the agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made
on the basis of the best available information at the time of
designation will not control the direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts warrants otherwise.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations
(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of
[[Page 36010]]
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, then we would determine that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent. We find that the
designation of critical habitat for the two damselfly species addressed
in this rule will benefit them by: (1) Triggering consultation under
section 7 of the Act for Federal actions where consultation would not
otherwise occur because, for example, the affected area has become
unoccupied by the species or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing
conservation efforts on the most essential habitat features and areas;
(3) providing educational benefits about the species to State or County
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing
inadvertent harm to the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. On the
island of Maui, one population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly occurs
in a stream that flows through Haleakala National Park, and on the
island of Molokai, one population of this species occurs in the lower
section of a stream that flows through Kalaupapa National Historical
Park. The National Park Service regulations and Federal laws protect
native animals in National Parks from harassment or destruction.
Nevertheless, lands that may be designated as critical habitat in the
future for this species may be subject to Federal actions that trigger
the section 7 consultation requirement, such as the granting of Federal
monies for conservation projects or the need for Federal permits for
projects, such as the construction and maintenance of aqueducts and
bridges subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.).
There may also be some educational or informational benefits from
the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the
notification of landowners, land managers, and the general public of
the importance of protecting the habitat of these species.
Critical habitat may play a role in protecting habitat for future
reintroductions of a species as well. For example, although the flying
earwig Hawaiian damselfly formerly inhabited areas that are not
currently occupied by the species, if those currently unoccupied areas
are determined to be essential to the survival and recovery of the
species, they may be proposed for designation of critical habitat. This
would alert the public that these areas are important for the future
recovery of the species, as well as invoke the protection of these
areas under section 7 of the Act with regard to any possible Federal
actions in that area.
These aspects of critical habitat designation would potentially
benefit the conservation of both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Although collection has been
identified as a threat to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, we
believe that collection poses a potential threat to this rare species
regardless of the designation of critical habitat. Therefore, since we
have determined that the identification of critical habitat will not
increase the degree of threats to these species and because the
designation may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for both the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied by the species at
the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species that may require special management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical or biological features essential
to the species' conservation to be the primary constituent elements
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the
conservation of the species. The primary constituent elements include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing (or development) of
offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We are currently unable to identify the physical and biological
features that are considered essential to the conservation of either
damselfly species, because necessary information is not available at
this time. Key features of the life histories of these damselfly
species, such as longevity, larval stage requirements, and fecundity,
remain unknown. The aquatic and associated upland habitats where the
populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are found have been
modified and altered by development and agriculture; stream diversions,
channelization, and dewatering; and nonnative plants. In addition,
introduced ants, backswimmers, bullfrogs, and predatory nonnative fish
have altered and degraded the habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian
damselfly. Likewise, the uluhe-dominated, moist talus-slope habitats
where populations of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly once occurred
have been modified and altered by agriculture; stream diversions,
channelization, and dewatering; and the presence of feral pigs,
nonnative plants, and introduced ants and bullfrogs. Historically, both
of these damselfly species were much more widespread and occurred in
habitats found on several different islands. Because over a century has
elapsed since these species were observed in an unaltered environment,
the optimal natural conditions that provide the biological or
ecological requisites of these species are not known. As described
above, we can surmise that habitat degradation from a variety of
factors and predation by a number of nonnative species has contributed
to the decline of these species; however, we do not know the physical
or biological features that are essential for either of the two
damselflies addressed in this final rule. As we are unable to identify
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
these species, we are unable to identify areas that contain these
features.
Although we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat is
[[Page 36011]]
prudent for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly, the biological needs of these species are not
sufficiently well known to permit identification of the physical and
biological features that may be essential for the conservation of the
species, or those areas essential to the conservation of the species.
Therefore, we find that critical habitat for the flying earwig Hawaiian
damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is not determinable at
this time. Over the next year, we intend to continue gathering
information regarding the essential life history requirements of the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to
facilitate identification of essential features and areas. We also will
evaluate the needs of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly within the ecological context of the broader
ecosystems in which they occur, similar to the approach that we
recently used in our designation of critical habitat for 47 species
endemic to the island of Kauai (April 13, 2010; 75 FR 18959), and will
consider the utility of using this approach for these damselfly species
as well.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Damselfly, flying
earwig Hawaiian'' and ``Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian'' in alphabetical
order under Insects to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------ population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damselfly, flying earwig Megalagrion U.S.A. (HI) NA E 271 NA NA
Hawaiian nesiotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian Megalagrion U.S.A. (HI) NA E 271 NA NA
pacificum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36012]]
* * * * *
Dated: June 11, 2010
Jeffrey L. Underwood,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-15237 Filed 6-23- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S