[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5119]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 7, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AB66
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Hungerford's Crawling Water Beetle
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the
Hungerford's crawling water beetle (Brychius hungerfordi Spangler) to
be an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act)
of 1973 as amended. The species is a small, rare beetle that lives in
the cool riffles of clean, slightly alkaline streams. The species is
known to occur in only three isolated locations: The East Branch of the
Maple River, Emmet County, Michigan; the East Branch of the Black
River, Montmorency County, Michigan; and the North Saugeen River at
Scone, Bruce County, Ontario. The two Michigan sites are in the
Cheboygan River watershed. This species is threatened by the rarity of
the type locality in association with alteration of its stream habitat
as a result of beaver dam management. Other potential contributing
factors include fisheries management, logging, impoundment, bank
stabilization, stream pollution and general stream degradation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection
during normal business hours at the Division of Endangered Species,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building,
One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Adair, Chief, Division of Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES
above) at 612/725-3276.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Hungerford's crawling water beetle, Brychius hungerfordi, was first
identified by Spangler in 1954 (Spangler 1954). The bettle is a member
of an uncommon genus in the Family Haliplidae and Order Coleoptera. It
can be distinguished from all other beetles as follows (from Wilsmann
and Strand 1990):
Brychius hungerfordi is a small (4.20 mm), distinctive,
yellowish brown beetle with irregular dark markings and longitudinal
stripes on the elytra, each of which is comprised of a series of
fine, closely spaced and darkly pigmented punctures. Males tend to
be smaller than females. In Spangler's (1954) original series,
specimens ranged from 3.70 mm in length and 1.90 mm in width (a
male) to 4.35 mm in length and 2.25 mm in width (a female). Males
are characterized by thickened tarsal segments of the front legs
with small tufts of hair on the first three segments. B. hungerfordi
can be differentiated from all other Haliplidae in Michigan by the
shape of its pronotum, the sides of which are nearly parallel for
the basal \2/3\ (Hilsenhoff and Brigham, 1978) and are widened mid-
laterally.
This small, rare beetle lives in the cool riffles of clean,
slightly alkaline streams. The species is known to occur in only three
isolated locations: The East Branch of the Maple River, Emmet County,
Michigan; the East Branch of the Black River, Montmorency County,
Michigan; and the North Saugeen River at Scone, Bruce County, Ontario.
The two Michigan sites are in the Cheboygan River watershed. The
disjunct distribution of this species suggests that it is a relict from
glacial periods when cool, fast moving streams were more prevalent and
the beetle was more widespread. It is speculated that human activities
such as fish management, logging, beaver control management, dredging,
stream pollution, and general stream degradation have contributed to
the reduction of its habitat (Wilsmann and Strand 1990).
On May 22, 1984, the Service published in the Federal Register (49
FR 21664) its first listing of invertebrate animal species being
considered for listing under the Act (Animal Notice of Review) which
included the Hungerford's crawling water beetle. Hungerford's crawling
water beetle appeared again in the January 6, 1989, Animal Notice of
Review (54 FR 544) as a Category 2 species. Category 2 comprises taxa
for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which the
information necessary to list is lacking. It was again listed as
Category 2 in the November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of Review (56 FR
58804). However, given the research by Wilsmann and Strand (1990), it
should have been listed as a Category 1 at that time. The listing
priority is 2. The research results of Wilsmann and Strand indicate
that the species occurs in only three vulnerable, isolated locations
and should receive protection of the Act. The Service analyzed the
status survey, as well as other information, and determined that the
beetle is facing serious threats and should be protected as an
endangered species.
All of the sites where the beetles have been found are
characterized by moderate to fast stream flow, good stream aeration,
inorganic substrate, and alkaline water conditions. Streams like those
in which B. hungerfordi occur are common in the Great Lakes States.
Although these areas have been extensively surveyed for invertebrates
in the last 30 years, no additional populations have been discovered
(Wilsmann and Strand 1990). Roughley (1989a) surveyed 30 to 40
potential locations in Ontario and 5 sites in Michigan. The survey
resulted in the discovery of the only known B. hungerfordi population
in Canada. White (1989b) surveyed portions of lower and upper Michigan,
Hilsenhoff and Brigham (1978) surveyed Wisconsin, and Wallace (Brigham
1982) surveyed Minnesota and southern Canada without finding any new
populations of B. hungerfordi. Strand (1989) surveyed streams in Emmet,
Cheboygan, Presque Isle, Montmorency, and Otsego counties and found B.
hungerfordi in 15 of 128 sampling stations. Of these, 14 occurred near
the type location in the East Branch of the Maple River and so were
effectively from the same population. The remaining site, in the East
Branch of the Black River, was the only new population that has been
found in the United States since the species was discovered.
The largest population presently occurs in the East Branch of the
Maple River in a pristine portion of stream on the boundary of the
University of Michigan Biological Station. This population is estimated
to include 200 to 500 individuals while the other two populations are
thought to be much smaller (White 1986b, Wilsmann and Strand 1990). The
East Branch of the Maple River is a small stream surrounded by forest
with a partially open canopy so sunlight reaches the water. The stream
is cool (15-20 deg. C) with a relatively fast flowing current (>50 cm
per second) and a substrate of limestone gravel and rock (White 1986b).
The forest is intact, the beaver population is healthy, and their dams
function to stabilize water levels so the riffles below the dams remain
predictable from year to year (Wilsmann and Strand 1990). At the Black
River site, the beetles occur in a moderately fast current in fairly
shallow water. The site in Ontario has been degraded by road
construction and the beetles occur in the riffles below an old
millrace. The swift currents in these locations maintain a mineral
substrate.
White (1986) concluded that the East Branch of the Maple River at
the type locality provides fast-flowing, deep riffles, and Cladophora
attached to larger rocks coupled with a lack of fast-water water-column
predators (i.e., trout). Although some trout exist in the East Branch
of the Maple River, it is speculated that warm summer water
temperatures (>25 deg. C) force the population to remain in Lake
Kathleen except during cooler months of the year. Because adult beetles
must swim to the surface for air, they are vulnerable to predation by
fish, tadpoles and other aquatic insects (Hickman 1931; Wilsmann and
Strand 1990).
The life history of B. hungerfordi is not known. The beetles are
thought to live longer than one year and to overwinter as larvae in the
dense aquatic vegetation at the stream's edge (Wilsmann and Strand
1990). As with other Haliplidae, larvae probably go through three
instar phases and pupate in the moist soil above the water line
(Hickman 1929; White, Brigham, and Doyen 1984). Adults and larvae are
seldom captured together and they appear to inhabit different
microhabitats in the stream. Adults are more apt to be found in
stronger currents, foraging for algae on gravel and stones. Both adults
and larvae are herbivorous but very little is known about their
specific dietary requirements or feeding adaptations (White 1986a,
1986b). Wilsmann and Strand (1990) reported, ``The small size of B.
hungerfordi adults prevented direct observation of food ingestion.
However, it is likely that they scrape food material from rocks by
grasping with their tarsal claws and scraping with their distally
flattened and single notched mandibles which are slightly medially
cupped. This speculation is based on observations of the beetles
crawling from rock to rock, stopping occasionally to grip a rock for
varying lengths of time.''
Compared to other Haliplidae, the adults are strong swimmers and
they obtain oxygen by swimming to the surface or crawling to the water
line at the edge of the stream. Larvae obtain oxygen directly from the
water and are found in association with dense mats of vegetation
(Chara, Nitella, or Cladophora) which offer protection and foraging.
The growth form of this vegetative cover may be more important than the
plant composition (Brigham 1990, pers comm. in Wilsmann and Strand
1990).
There is no evidence that B. hungerfordi has a dispersal flight. No
adults have been found at blacklight stations, and the adults seem
unusually reluctant to fly. This was observed during Wilsmann and
Strand's (1990) survey when B. hungerfordi were removed from the water
for 30 minutes and did not attempt to fly. An unexpected result given
that most other aquatic insects would have attempted to fly after this
period of desiccation. It is possible, therefore, that if this species
disperses by flying, it is during a very brief period of time in the
spring. The primary mode of dispersal appears to be movement within the
stream system.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the March 2, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 12013), all interested
parties were requested to submit factual reports or information that
might contribute to the development of a final rule. Appropriate State
agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting public comment were
published in 6 Michigan newspapers.
Four written comments and three responses via telephone were
received from the following: Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Algonquin Group (Michigan's Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club), Dr.
Wayne Owen of Idaho, Mr. Robert Almquist of Ohio, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, and Isle Royale National Park, Michigan.
Comments supporting the proposal were received from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Algonquin Group Michigan's Mackinac
Chapter of the Sierra Club, Dr. Wayne, Owen of Idaho, and Mr. Robert
Almquist of Ohio. Three comments provided thoughts about the species
but did not take a position on the listing.#
The primary issue raised was the need to obtain additional
information regarding the species' distribution, life history, and
threats to afford adequate protection and management. The information
is necessary to clarify and/or substantiate the threats stated in the
proposed rule as sources responsible for the species' decline.
Specifically stating the role of fish management, beaver dam removal
and dredging as primary threats for the decline of the species was
speculative, based on incomplete data and not substantiated by the
references cited. If managed appropriately, some of the threats may be
beneficial to the continued existence and management of B. hungerfordi
and its habitat.
The Service recognizes the need for further surveys and studies on
the life history, distribution and ecology of the species. The Service
considered all comments received and has incorporated them into this
final rule as appropriate.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all available
information, the Service has determined that the Hungerford's crawling
water beetle Brychius hungerfordi should be classified as an endangered
species. Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. 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). These factors and their
application to Hungerford's crawling water beetle (B. hungerfordi
Spangler) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Although natural succession in the type locality is not completely
understood, it appears, that human activities in or near the habitat
can speed up succession and subsequent loss of the Hungerford's
crawling water beetle. For example, removal of existing beaver dams
upstream from B. hungerfordi populations poses as significant threat to
the beetle. The downstream side of beaver dams serve as a riffle and
aeration site because they retain sediments and organic material, raise
water temperatures, and modify nutrient cycling, decomposition
dynamics, and riparian zone structure and composition. The highest
density locations of B. hungerfordi are below beaver dams or
immediately below structures that provide similar conditions to those
found downstream from beaver impoundments (Wilsmann and Strand 1990).
Potential threats that may result in modification of the species
habitat include certain fish management activities such as removal or
introduction of fish, stream side logging and heavy siltation resulting
from logging, impoundment, bank stabilization with structures creating
an artificial shoreline, stream pollution, and general stream
degradation. In Michigan, one site already has been impounded
downstream by a dam, and the Ontario site has been impounded upstream
(Roughley 1989b). The Service recognizes that further research and
surveys are required since much is not known about the distribution,
ecology and the effects of the potential threats on the species.
Given the rapid rate of recreational development and the demands
for fish, wildlife, and forest management in northern Michigan, unknown
populations of B. hungerfordi could easily be extirpated before they
are discovered, increasing the need to protect existing populations.
Because only three small populations of this species are known to
exist, loss of even a few individuals could extirpate the species from
some locations (Wilsmann and Strand 1990) and thus severely affect the
continued existence of the species.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources issued a permit
allowing the construction of an experimental stream facility on the
East Branch of the Maple River. The applicant amended the initial
proposal such that the location was moved to an area where the beetles
are not known to occur on the Maple River.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Recent research efforts have involved mostly capture and release
rather than collecting, and the few collections that have been made are
housed in appropriate museum collections. The species will continue to
draw scientific interest and collection should be regulated. However,
because of the species' rarity, there is the possibility that amateur
scientific collections could occur.
C. Disease or Predation
Little is known about these factors, but there are no indications
at this time that they may be contributing to the decline of B.
hungerfordi.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
B. hungerfordi is currently listed as endangered under Michigan's
Endangered Species Act (P.A. 203 of 1974, as amended). Any taking of
this species, including harassment, is unlawful without a permit. The
Michigan Department of Natural Resources also implements section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. This section allows Michigan to regulate placement
of fill material in waters of the United States. The Montmorency County
site, including a mile of upstream and downstream buffer, is in a State
forest but is not protected from fish management activities. The
aforementioned legislation allows significant regulatory oversight on a
wide variety of activities that should prevent taking of this species
and habitat loss and alteration. The Emmet County site is in mixed
ownership and is not protected. The Canadian population is not
protected and the land surrounding it is in mixed ownership. The
Federal Endangered Species Act would offer additional protection to
this species by increasing the protection for the two Michigan sites,
encouraging habitat protection for the species on private lands, and
influencing impoundment development which very likely would involve
Federal funds.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The existence of only three populations of B. hungerfordi increases
the potential for extinction from stochasitc events. The limited gene
pool may depress reproductive vigor, or a single human-caused or
natural environmental disturbance, disease, or predation could destroy
an entire population and a significant percentage of the known
individuals of the species.
Both Michigan sites are in the Cheboygan watershed and could
potentially be affected by any changes upstream in the watershed such
as in Van Creek, the upper portion of the East Branch of the Maple
River, Town Line Creek, Foch Lakes Flooding Creek, Rattlesnake Creek,
and the upper portion of the East Branch of the Black River. Changes
could include agricultural pesticide pollution, siltation, or stream
bed modification. Because two of the three known populations occur
immediately downstream from a roadway, accidental events, such as
chemical spills, pose a threat (Wilsmann and Strand 1990). The
cumulative effects of road salt runoff also poses a threat to this
species.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this species in determining to make this rule
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list B.
hungerfordi as endangered. Only three relatively small populations of
this species are known to exist and these populations occur on sites
threatened with habitat loss or destruction. In addition, all of these
populations are in need of long-term management.
Critical habitat is not being proposed at this time for the reasons
discussed below.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special
management considerations or protection, and (ii) The specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary propose critical
habitat at the time the species is proposed to be endangered or
threatened. The Service finds that designation of critical habitat for
Hungerford's crawling water beetle is not presently determinable. The
Service's regulations (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. As discussed under Factor A in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species, the information on the biology of the
Hungerford's crawling water beetle is lacking to permit specific
identification of its critical habitat.
The Service will initiate a concerted effort to obtain the
information needed to determine critical habitat for Hungerford's
crawling water beetle. Designation of critical habitat must be
completed within two years of the date of this rule, unless the
designation is not prudent. A proposed rule for critical habitat
designation must be published in the Federal Register, and the
notification process and public comment provisions parallel those for a
species listing. In addition, the Service will evaluate the economic
and other relevant impacts of the critical habitat designation, as
required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
It should be emphasized that critical habitat designation does not
necessarily affect all Federal activities. Where appropriate, the
impacts will be addressed during consultation with the Service as
required by section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended.
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
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in
part, below.
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 being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
informally with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and
17.31 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that
apply to all endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, 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 to attempt any of these), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any listed
species. It, also, is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. In some instances, permits
may be issued for a specified time to relieve undue economic hardship
that would be suffered if such relief were not available.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
Brigham, W.U. 1982. Aquatic Coleoptera, pp 10.1-10.136. In: Brigham,
R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Grilka, eds. Aquatic insects and
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquat. Ent.,
Mahomet, IL.
Hickman, J.R. 1929. Life-histories of Michigan Haliplidae
(Coleoptera). Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, Letters 11:399-424.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. and W.U. Brigham. 1978. Crawling water beetles of
Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 11(1):11-
22.
Roughley, R.E. 1989a. Brychius hungerfordi Spangler (Coleoptera:
Haliplidae), a new record from Canada with notes about habitat.
Submitted to the Coleopterists' Bulletin, 5 pp.
Roughley, R.E. 1989b. Letter to L.A. Wilsmann, Michigan Natural
Features Inventory, dated December 5, 1989.
Spangler, P.J. 1954. A new species of water beetle from Michigan
(Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Entomol. News 65:113-117.
Strand, R.M. 1989. The status of Brychius hungerfordi (Coleoptera:
Haliplidae) in northern Michigan. Report to The Nature Conservancy,
21pp.
U.S.F.W.S. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
animal notice of review. Federal Register 54(4):554-579.
White, D.S. 1986a. The status of Brychius hungerfordi and Stenelmis
douglasensis. A proposal to The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Field
Office Small Grants Program; 11 pp.
White, D.S. 1986n. The status of Brychius hungerfordi and Stenelmis
douglasensis in Michigan. A report to The Nature Conservancy,
Michigan Field Office Small Grants Program; 8 pp.
White, D.S., and W.U. Brigham, and J.R. Doyen. 1984. Aquatic
Coleoptera, pp. 361-437. In: R.W. Merritt and K.W.
Cummins, eds. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa; 722 pp.
Wilsmann, L.A. and R.M. Strand. 1990. A status survey of Brychius
hungerfordi (Coleoptera: Haliplidae).
Author
The primary author of this final rule is Carlita Shumate (see
ADDRESSES section), 612/725-3276.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, set forth below.
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under Insects, to the list of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------- population
where Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Beetle, Hungerford's Brychuis hungerfordi U.S.A. (MI), Canada NA E 533 NA NA
crawling water.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: February 9, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-5119 Filed 3-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
