Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Hungerford's Crawling Water Beetle

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