[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3964-3976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1338]



[[Page 3964]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG23


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Endangered Status for 12 Species of Picture-wing Flies From the 
Hawaiian Islands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies--
Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. 
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. 
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia. These species are 
found on one or more of the following Hawaiian Islands: Kaua`i, O`ahu, 
Moloka`i, Mau`i, and Hawai`i. These 12 species face substantial threats 
from one or more of the following: habitat degradation, loss of host 
plants, biological pest control, and predation from alien arthropods. 
Due to the restricted distributions and small populations, three 
species (D. heteroneura, D. mullia, and D. neoclavisetae) are in danger 
of extinction from naturally occurring random events. This proposal, if 
made final, would implement the protection provisions provided by the 
Act for these Hawaiian picture-wings.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by March 
19, 2001. Requests for public hearings must be received by March 5, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.
    (1) You may submit written comments to the Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, P.O. Box 50088, 
Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
    (2) You may send comments by e-mail to [email protected] (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats and other information about 
electronic filing); or
    (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Pacific Islands Office at 
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, at the 
above address (telephone 808/541-3441, facsimile 808/541-2756).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Many of the major ecological zones of the earth are represented in 
Hawai`i, from coral reef systems through rain forests to high alpine 
deserts, in less than 10,800 square kilometers (6,500 square miles) of 
land. The range of topographies creates a great diversity of climates. 
Windward (northeastern) slopes can receive up to 1,000 centimeters (cm) 
(400 inches (in.)) of rain per year, while some leeward coasts that lie 
in the rain shadow of the high volcanoes are classified as deserts, 
receiving as little as 25 cm (10 in.) of rain annually. This 
topographic and climatic regime has given rise to a rich diversity of 
plant communities, including coastal, dryland, montane, subalpine, and 
alpine; dry, mesic, and wet; and herblands, grasslands, shrublands, 
forests, and mixed communities (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). These habitats 
and plant communities in turn support one of the most unique arthropod 
faunas in the world, with an estimated 10,000 endemic species (Howarth 
1990). Unusual characters of the arthropod fauna of Hawai`i include the 
presence of relict species; the absence of social insects, such as ants 
and termites; endemic genera; extremely small geographic ranges; 
adaptation of species to very specific conditions or environments; 
novel ecological shifts; flightlessness; and loss of certain 
antipredator behaviors (Zimmerman 1948, 1970, Simon et al. 1984, 
Howarth 1990).
    Perhaps the most remarkable group of Hawaiian insects, and that 
which most typifies insect evolution in Hawai`i, is the flies in the 
family Drosophilidae (Williamson 1981). To date, 511 species of 
Hawaiian Drosophilidae have been named and described. An additional 
250-300 species are already in the collection at the University of 
Hawai`i and await identification and description, and new species are 
still being discovered from localities not previously sampled. It is 
estimated that as many as 1,000 species may be present in native 
Hawaiian ecosystems (Kaneshiro 1993). The Drosophilidae family in 
Hawai`i represents one of the most remarkable cases of specific 
adaption to local conditions that has been found in any group of 
animals over the entire world (Hardy and Kaneshiro 1981). They are 
distributed throughout the high islands of the Hawaiian archipelago, 
each species displaying not only a highly characteristic trait of being 
found only on a single island, but also extraordinary physical 
diversity and adaptations that show their intimate ecological 
relationship to the native flora (Carson and Yoon 1982).
    Drosophilidae are similar in structure to other flies in that 
adults have three main body parts: a head, thorax, and abdomen. A pair 
of antennae arises from the front of the head, between the eyes. The 
single pair of wings and three pairs of legs are attached to the 
thorax. The abdomen is composed of multiple segments. The general life 
cycle of Hawaiian Drosophilidae is typical of that of most flies: after 
mating, females lay eggs from which larvae (immature stage) hatch; as 
larvae grow they molt (shed their skin) through three successive stages 
(instars); when fully grown, the larvae change into pupae (a resting 
form) in which they metamorphose and emerge as adults.
    The Hawaiian Drosophilidae have also developed and adapted 
ecologically to a tremendous diversity of ecosystems ranging from 
desert-like habitats where the soil is powdery dry, to rain forests 
with lush, tree-fern jungles, and in swampland perpetually shadowed by 
rain clouds and with vegetation burdened with dripping, moss-laden 
branches. While the larval stages of most species are saprophytic 
(feeding on decaying vegetation, such as rotting leaves, bark, flowers, 
and fruits), some have become highly specialized, being carnivorous on 
egg masses of spiders, or feeding on green algae growing underwater on 
boulders in streams. As a group, the Hawaiian Drosophilidae appear to 
be widespread and can be found in most of the natural communities in 
Hawai`i.
    Unlike most Hawaiian insects that remain obscure, typically known 
only from their original taxonomic descriptions, most aspects of 
Hawaiian Drosophilidae biology have been researched, including their 
internal and external morphology, behavior, ecology, physiology, 
biochemistry, the banding sequence of giant chromosomes, as well as 
detailed analyses of the structure of the DNA molecules. More than 80 
research scientists and over 350 undergraduates, graduate students, and 
post-doctoral fellows have participated in research on the Hawaiian 
Drosophilidae, resulting in over 600 scientific publications on the 
biology of these flies. The Hawaiian Drosophilidae

[[Page 3965]]

is arguably the most intensively studied group of all terrestrial 
Hawaiian organisms.
    Research on Hawaiian Drosophilidae has resulted in the development 
and testing of new theories of evolutionary biology (Bradley et al. 
1991, Carson 1971, 1982a, Kaneshiro 1976, 1980, 1987, 1989). Ideas on 
the development of species and island evolution developed from studies 
on Hawaiian Drosophilidae are now referenced in most modern textbooks 
of biology and evolution (e.g., Ridley 1993). These flies have also 
been the subject of numerous television programs produced by the BBC 
(British Broadcasting Corporation), NOVA, National Geographic Society, 
and other educational film makers. The BBC, in conjunction with the 
Open University in England, has also produced several programs focused 
on the research of the Hawaiian Drosophilidae, and these programs are 
being used in educational courses about evolution.
    The Hawaiian Drosophila Project at the University of Hawai`i has 
coordinated and cooperated in most of the research on the Hawaiian 
Drosophilidae. It has also maintained extensive collection records of 
these species. These records form the basis for much of the data used 
to develop this proposed rulemaking. Three decades of collection work 
are maintained in permanent files of the Hawaiian Drosophila Project 
within the University of Hawai`i's Center for Conservation Research and 
Training. Also, collection notes of the individual researchers on the 
project contain extensive records of host plant associations of most of 
these species. Understanding the host plant association is important 
due to the fact that all of these flies appear to be closely linked 
with one or more particular host plant species. These host plant 
species provide necessary habitat requirements for the flies, including 
shelter, food, and areas for courtship. The host plants, and suitable 
habitat for the host plants, are absolutely essential for the flies' 
survival and recovery.
    Biologists have observed a general decline of the Hawaiian 
Drosophilidae along with other components of the native ecosystem. As 
noted by Spieth (1980), during the early part of the century, the 
Tantalus area behind the city of Honolulu was the major spot for 
collecting Drosophila species. By 1963, the majority of the native 
Drosophila species in this area had been exterminated, apparently due 
to intrusion of exotic vegetation and predation by ants. Quantitative 
sampling since 1971 has demonstrated dramatic declines in the abundance 
of some species and in other cases local extirpations (Foote and Carson 
1995). A review of the data collected by the Hawai`i Drosophila Project 
and assessment of the threats to remaining populations suggests that at 
least 12 species of these flies are presently threatened with 
extinction.
    All 12 species in this proposed rulemaking belong to the species 
group commonly known as the picture-wings Drosophila. This group 
consists of 106 known species, most of which are large with elaborate 
markings on otherwise clear wings of both sexes, the pattern of which 
varies among species (Hardy and Kaneshiro 1981, Carson 1992). The 
picture-wing Drosophila have been referred to as the ``birds of 
paradise'' of the insect world because of the males' extremely 
elaborate and spectacular courtship displays and territorial defense 
behavior. Males occupy territories that serve as mating arenas to which 
receptive females are attracted for mating. The males fight among 
themselves for the best territories and establish a dominance hierarchy 
like some birds and mammals. Native Hawaiians apparently did not 
differentiate among the different species, but referred to flies 
collectively as nalo. Recognizing that some or all of these species may 
belong in the genus Idiomyia (Grimaldi 1990), we accept the most recent 
taxonomic description of the Hawaiian taxa as Drosophila (Nishida 1994) 
and will refer to the species in this proposed rule collectively as 
``Hawaiian picture-winged Drosophila,'' or ``Hawaiian picture-wings.'' 
There has also been no traditional Hawaiian or European use of common 
names for individual species of Hawaiian picture-wings.
    Each species of Hawaiian picture-wing in this proposed rulemaking 
is found only on a single island, and each breeds only in a single or a 
few related species of plants (see Table 1).

                                            Table 1.--Summary of Island Distribution of the Proposed Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Species                    Kaua`i               O`ahu             Moloka`i            Mau`i             Hawai`i         Primary host plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila aglaia..............    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............  Urera glabra (opuhe)
Drosophila differens...........    ................    current.........    ...............    ...............  Clermontia spp.
                                                                                                                (`oha wai).
Drosophila hemipeza............    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............  Urera spp. (opuhe) and
                                                                                                                                   Lobelia spp. (oha)
Drosophila heteroneura.........    ................    ................    ...............    ...............  current..........  Clermontia spp.,
                                                                                                                                   Delissea spp., and
                                                                                                                                   Cheirodendron spp.
                                                                                                                                   (olapa)
Drosophila montgomeryi.........    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............  Urera Ka`ala e (opuhe)
Drosophila mulli...............    ................    ................    ...............    ...............  current..........  Pritchardia beccariana
                                                                                                                                   (loulu)
Drosophila musaphilia..........  current...........    ................    ...............    ...............    ...............  Acacia koa (koa)
Drosophila neoclavisetae.......    ................    ................    ...............  current..........    ...............  Cyanea spp. (haha)
Drosophila obatai..............    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............  Pleomele forbesii
                                                                                                                                   (hala pepe)
Drosophila ochrobasis..........    ................    ................    ...............    ...............  current..........  Myrsine spp. (kolea),
                                                                                                                                   Marattia spp. and
                                                                                                                                   Clermontia spp.
Drosophila substenoptera.......    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............     Cheirodendron spp.
                                                                                                                                   and Tetraplasandra
                                                                                                                                   spp. (`ohe mauka)
Drosophila tarphytrichia.......    ................  current...........    ...............    ...............    ...............  Charpentiera spp.
                                                                                                                                   (papala)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
current = population observed within the past 20 years.


[[Page 3966]]

Discussion of the 12 Species Proposed for Listing

Drosophila aglaia

    Drosophila aglaia was first collected in 1946 on Mount Ka`ala on 
the island of O`ahu, and described by Elmo Hardy in 1965 (Hardy 1965). 
Drosophila aglaia is a small species, 4.0 mm (0.15 in.) in length, with 
wings 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) long. It has a yellow head that is approximately 
one-third wider than long. The eyes are brown, and the antennae are 
yellow, tinged with brown. The thorax is clear yellow with three broad 
brown stripes on the top, and the legs are yellow. The abdomen is brown 
with a large yellow spot on each of the hind corners. The wings are 
predominantly clear with irregular but characteristic brown markings, 
and are about two and three-quarter times longer than wide.
    Drosophila aglaia is known only from six localities in the Wai`anae 
Mountains of O`ahu. It has been recorded on land owned by the State of 
Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) at Makaleha 
Valley, Peacock Flats Trail, and Pu`u Kaua. Additionally, this species 
is known from private land holdings at Palikea Ridge, Pu`u Kaua, and 
Kalua`a gulch, and is also found on Federal land owned by the United 
States Army at Pu`u Pane. The occurrence of D. aglaia is restricted to 
the patchy distribution of its host plant, Urera glabra), a small 
endemic tree. The larvae of D. aglaia develop in the bark and stem of 
U. glabra. This tree does not form large stands, but is scattered 
throughout slopes and valley bottoms in mesic and wet forest habitat on 
all the main islands. In the Wai`anae Mountains on O`ahu, this tree 
occurs infrequently in mesic forest. Because D. aglaia is reliant on an 
infrequently occurring host plant, it is difficult to estimate the size 
of the land area on which this species occurs. Each site is probably 
less than several acres. The major threats to D. aglaia are predation 
by ants and habitat degradation from feral ungulates, alien plants, and 
fire.

Drosophila differens

    Drosophila differens was described by Elmo Hardy and Kenneth 
Kaneshiro (1975) from specimens collected at South Hanalilolilo, 
Moloka`i, in 1972. Previous to the description, D. differens was 
referred to as ``Idiomyia planitibia from Moloka`i.'' This species is 
large, approximately 7.0 mm (0.3 in.) in length, with wings 8.3 mm 
(0.33 in.) long. Drosophila differens looks very similar to D. 
planitibia of Mau`i, but can be differentiated from D. planitibia by 
its entirely or predominantly yellow face. There is also a difference 
in the markings found on the leading edge of the wings. In D. 
planitibia males, the marking extends about two-thirds the distance to 
the tip of the wings, while in D. differens males, it extends nearly to 
the marking at the tip of the wing. Hybridization experiments have 
demonstrated that D. planitibia from Mau`i and D. differens from 
Moloka`i represent distinct species as they are incapable of inter-
breeding (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). Crosses have been done in both 
directions and have resulted in fertile females, but sterile males. 
Other than differences in color, no morphological characters separate 
these species, and they are, therefore, considered to be sibling 
species.
    Drosophila differens is restricted to the island of Moloka`i where 
it is known from three populations on private land: Kaunu O Hua, Pu`u 
Kolekole, and south Hanalilolilo where it was last observed on July 22, 
1986. Montgomery (1975) found D. differens to breed in the bark, stems, 
and leaves of Clermontia spp. in wet rainforest habitat. This species 
is endangered by habitat degradation from feral ungulates and alien 
weeds, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila hemipeza

    Elmo Hardy (1965) described Drosophila hemipeza from specimens 
collected at Pupukea, O`ahu, in 1952. Drosophila hemipeza is most 
closely related to D. planitibia and D. differens. The key differences 
among these species is in the color of the face, which in D. hemipeza 
is pale yellow and densely covered with white fuzz. The thorax of D. 
hemipeza is predominantly yellow with two brown stripes on the top, and 
the legs are entirely yellow. This species is 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) long; 
the front legs are very slender with short straight bristles; and the 
wings are 6.0 mm (0.2 in.) in length, slender, and somewhat pointed.
    Drosophila hemipeza is restricted to the island of O`ahu where it 
is known from six localities. In the Wai`anae Mountains, it is known 
from privately owned land at Palikea Ridge, Kalua`a Gulch, and Mauna 
Kapu. The species is also known from State of Hawai`i DLNR land in 
Makaleha and Wai`anae Valleys as well as from City and County of 
Honolulu holdings in Wai`anae Valley. The only occurrence of this 
species in the Ko`olau Range is from City and County of Honolulu 
property at Pauoa Flats on Mt. Tantalus.
    Montgomery (1975) determined that Drosophila hemipeza utilizes 
several different mesic forest plants as larval breeding substrates. It 
breeds in the bark of Urera kaalae, a Federal endangered species (56 FR 
55770), in the stems of Lobelia spp., and in the bark and stems of 
Cyanea spp., in mesic forest habitat. This Hawaiian picture-wing is 
endangered by habitat degradation from feral ungulates, alien weeds, 
and fire, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila heteroneura

    R.C.L. Perkins described Idiomyia heteroneura, based on specimens 
from `Ola`a on Hawai`i island (Perkins 1910). This taxon was later 
transferred to the genus Drosophila (Hardy 1969), forming its presently 
accepted name, D. heteroneura. Drosophila heteroneura has very large 
spots on the bases of the wings. However, the most characteristic 
feature of this species is the broad head of the male with the eyes 
situated laterally, thus giving it a hammer-head appearance. The 
hammer-head and entirely yellow face differentiate it from the closely 
related species, D. silvestris. The thorax is predominantly yellow with 
several black streaks and markings on top. The legs are yellow except 
for slight tinges of brown on the ends of the middle and hind femora 
and tibiae. The wings are hyaline (transparent) and are very similar in 
markings and venation to those of D. silvestris, except that the 
marking in the front margin of the wing of D. heteroneura extends 
nearly to the marking at the end of the wing. The abdomen is shining 
black with a large yellow spot on the top of each segment. This species 
is about 5.7 mm (0.22 in.) in length with wings approximately 7.0 mm 
(0.3 in.) long.
    Drosophila heteroneura is restricted to the island of Hawai`i where 
it was historically known from 16 localities, on 4 of the island's 5 
volcanoes (Hualalai, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea). This species 
has never been found on the Kohala Mountains. The species was believed 
to be extinct in the late 1980s, until it was rediscovered on private 
acreage at Hualalai Volcano in 1993. The remaining population is 
extremely small, with a 90 percent reduction from historical abundance 
(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995).
    Drosophila heteroneura breeds primarily in the bark and stems of 
Clermontia spp. and Delissea spp., but it is also known to utilize 
Cheirodendron spp. in open rain forest habitat. This Hawaiian picture-
wing is endangered by habitat degradation from ungulates and alien 
weeds, predation by ants and alien wasps, and an extremely small 
remaining population.

Drosophila montgomeryi

    Named after Dr. Steven L. Montgomery in honor of his work on

[[Page 3967]]

Hawaiian picture-wings, Drosophila montgomeryi was described by Elmo 
Hardy and Kenneth Kaneshiro (1971) from specimens collected in the 
Wai`anae Mountains of O`ahu in 1970. This species morphologically 
appears to be most closely related to D. pisonia from the island of 
Hawai`i. It can be distinguished by the narrow, pale brown stripe on 
each side of the top of the thorax, the long hairs on the front legs, 
and the second antennal segment, which is yellow, tinged with brown on 
the top.
    Drosophila montgomeryi is restricted to the Wai`anae Mountains on 
the island of O`ahu, where it is known from private holdings at Pu`u 
Kaua and Kalua`a Gulch, and State of Hawai`i DLNR property at Pu`u Kaua 
and Alaiheihe Gulch. Montgomery (1975) reported that the larvae of this 
species feed in the decaying bark of Urera kaalae, which grows on 
slopes and in gulches of diverse mesic forest. This Hawaiian picture-
wing is endangered by habitat degradation from feral ungulates, alien 
weeds, and fire, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila mulli

    Drosophila mulli was described by William Perreira and Kenneth 
Kaneshiro (1990) and named for the eminent Hawaiian naturalist, William 
P. Mull, who first discovered this species. The head of D. mulli is 
yellow on the front, covered with a light, silvery grey fuzz. The face 
of the male is characteristically white, while that of the female is 
brown. The top of the thorax is brownish yellow and lacks conspicuous 
markings or stripes. The legs are predominantly yellow, and the front 
legs of males bear three distinct rows of long, curled hairs. The wings 
are two and one-half times longer than wide with distinct brown 
markings at the base and the tip. The length of the body is 4.3-5.0 mm 
(0.17-0.2 in.), and the wings are 4.3-4.8 mm (0.17-0.19 in.) long.
    Drosophila mulli is restricted to the island of Hawai`i and is 
known only from the State of Hawai`i DLNR-owned `Ola`a Forest Reserve 
at an elevation of 985 meters (m) (3,200 feet (ft)). Adults are found 
only on the undersides of leaves of Pritchardia beccariana, an endemic 
fan palm, but the larval feeding site is still unknown. Attempts to 
rear this species from decaying parts of P. beccariana have been 
unsuccessful (W.P. Mull, Volcano, Hawai`i, pers. comm., 1995). However, 
because of the extremely localized population within a relatively small 
patch of P. beccariana, that a strong association between D. mulli and 
this plant is likely. This Hawaiian picture-wing is endangered by 
habitat degradation from feral pigs and alien weeds, limited numbers, 
and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila musaphilia

    Elmo Hardy (1965) formally described Drosophila musaphilia from 
specimens at Koke`e, Kaua`i, in 1952. Although Hardy (1965) indicated 
that D. musaphilia is very similar to D. villosipedis, based on both 
chromosomal data, as well as comparison of the male genitalia, D. 
musaphilia is clearly most closely related to D. hawaiiensis (Kaneshiro 
et al. 1995).
    Drosophila musaphilia is characterized by a predominantly black 
thorax with gray fuzz and a very narrow gray stripe extending down the 
top. The legs are dark brown to yellow, with the front tibia devoid of 
ornamentation, and the tips of the legs have abundant long black hairs 
on top. The wings are three times longer than wide with characteristic 
markings of the D. hawaiiensis group. The abdomen is dark brown to 
black and densely covered with brown fuzz. The body length is about 5.0 
mm (0.2 in.) and the wings 5.25 mm (0.207 in.) long.
    Drosophila musaphilia is restricted to the island of Kaua`i where 
it is known from State of Hawai`i DLNR-owned land at Alexander 
Reservoir, Koke`e State Park, and Halemanu. This species is extremely 
rare and has been observed only five times in the last 25 years. 
Montgomery (1975) determined that the host plant for D. musaphilia is 
Acacia koa. The females lay their eggs, and the larvae develop in the 
sap seeping from injured trees. This Hawaiian picture-wing is 
endangered by habitat degradation from feral ungulates, alien weeds, 
hurricanes, and fire, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila neoclavisetae

    Drosophila neoclavistae was described by William Perreira and 
Kenneth Kaneshiro (1990) from specimens collected at Pu`u Kukui, West 
Mau`i, in 1969. The species appears to be restricted to a ridge top at 
an elevation of 1,371 m (4,500 ft) (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). It 
was named for its obvious affinities with D. clavistae from East Mau`i. 
Both species are similar in wing and thoracic markings as well as 
sharing one of the most bizarre courtship dances in the family. The 
male bends its abdomen up over its head, produces a bubble of liquid 
from its anal gland believed to be a sex pheromone, and then vibrates 
the abdomen, fanning the scent toward the female. Both D. neoclavistae 
and D. clavistae are members of the D. adiastola species group 
(Perreira and Kaneshiro 1990), and, while other species in this group 
perform similar mating behaviors, they are highly exaggerated in D. 
clavistae and D. neoclavistae.
    Drosophila neoclavistae is between 6.0-6.4 mm (0.2-0.25 in.) in 
length, with wings 6.5-7.0 mm (0.26-0.3 in.) long. It is distinguished 
by its amber brown head and yellow face, with the middle portion raised 
to form a prominent ridge. The thorax is predominantly reddish brown 
with a distinct brown median stripe, bordered on each side by two brown 
stripes. The legs are yellow, with brown on the femora and a distinct 
brown band on the tips of the tibiae. The wings are broad and rounded, 
more than twice as long as wide, and with the front portion covered 
with brown markings and large clear spots tinged light yellow. It 
shares with D. clavistae an extra crossvein in the wing, which sets 
both these species apart from the other species of the D. adiastola 
species group. The abdomen is dark brown and black with numerous long 
hairs on the hind segments of the male.
    Drosophila neoclavistae is restricted to the island of Mau`i where 
it is known only from State of Hawai`i DLNR property at Pu`u Kukui. The 
host plant of this species has not yet been confirmed, although it is 
believed to be associated with Cyanea sp.. All collections of this 
species have come from within a small patch of Cyanea spp., and many 
other species in the D. adiastola species group utilize these and other 
plants in the family Campanulaceae. This Hawaiian picture-wing is 
endangered by habitat degradation from feral ungulates and alien weeds, 
limited numbers, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila obatai

    Drosophila obatai was described by Elmo Hardy and Kenneth Kaneshiro 
in 1972, from specimens collected in the Wai`anae Mountains of O`ahu. 
This species was named for Mr. John Obata, who has made significant 
contributions to the study of Hawaiian Drosophila because of his 
knowledge of the native plants and habitats where these insects are 
found. Drosophila obatai resembles D. sodomae from Mau`i and Moloka`i, 
and is distinguished by small differences in wing markings and the 
black coloration of the abdomen.
    Drosophila obatai is restricted to the island of O`ahu where it is 
known from State of Hawai`i DLNR-owned land at Makaleha Valley in the 
Mokul'`ia Forest Reserve in the Wai`anae Mountains, and

[[Page 3968]]

Wailupe Gulch located in the Honolulu Watershed Forest Reserve in the 
southern Ko`olau Mountains. This species is also known from Federal 
land owned by the Army at Pu`u Pane, and from City and County of 
Honolulu and private holdings at Wai`alae Nui. Drosophila obatai use 
Pleomele forbesii as a host plant (Montgomery 1975). This host plant, 
growing on slopes in dry forest and diverse mesic forest, occurs singly 
or in small clusters and does not form large stands of many individuals 
(Wagner et al. 1990). Threats to this Hawaiian picture-wing include 
habitat degradation from feral ungulates, alien weeds, and fire, and 
predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila ochrobasisn

    Drosophila ochrobasis was originally described by Elmo Hardy and 
Kenneth Kaneshiro (1968) based on a specimen collected from Pu`u 
Hualalai at an elevation of 1,692 m (5,550 ft). Based on chromosomal 
studies, D. ochrobasis appears to be most closely related to 
D.setosimentum (Kaneshiro et al. 1995).
    Both the body and wings are approximately 4.6 mm (0.18 in.) in 
length. The head is yellow in front and brown on top, and the face is 
white with a prominent ridge running down the middle. The thorax is 
yellow except for a large brown spot on each side. The legs are yellow 
tinged with brown. In males, the basal three-fifths of the wing is 
predominantly clear to translucent with faint transverse streaks of 
brown. The outer two-thirds of the wing is dark brown with large clear 
spots similar to that portion of the wings in Drosophila setosimentum. 
The females of D. ochrobasis are virtually indistinguishable from those 
of D.setosimentum females.
    Drosophila ochrobasis is restricted to the island of Hawai`i and 
has been found on State of Hawai`i DLNR property at Kipuka and Alakahi 
Stream. It has also been observed at Kipuka Pahipa and Hualalai, both 
of which are privately owned. Drosophila ochrobasis was collected 
almost every year from 1967 to 1975, sometimes in large numbers, but 
has now virtually disappeared (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). It was 
last observed at Kipuka on February 14, 1986. This species has been 
reported to utilize several host plants, including Myrsine spp., 
Clermontia spp., and Marattia spp. (Montgomery 1975). Threats to this 
Hawaiian picture-wing include habitat degradation from ungulates and 
alien weeds, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Drosophila substenoptera

    Elmo Hardy described Idiomyia substenoptera in 1965. He then later 
determined the genus Idiomyia to be synonymous with Drosophila (Hardy 
1969), thus creating the current name of Drosophila substenoptera. This 
species is closely related to D. planitibia and other closely related 
flies (Kaneshiro et al. 1995) but is quite distinctive from all the 
other species in this group because of characteristic markings on the 
wings, the narrow wing shape, and the complex structures of the male 
genitalia. Drosophila substenoptera is predominantly yellow with two 
black stripes extending down the entire length of the top surface of 
the thorax. The legs are yellow and lack long hairs on the dorsal 
surfaces. Body length is 4.35 mm (0.171 in.), and the wings are 5.0-5.3 
mm (0.2-0.21 in.) long.
    Drosophila substenoptera is restricted to the island of O`ahu where 
it is known from the following private holdings: Wiliwili Nui Ridge, 
Castle Trail, Halawa Ridge Trail, and Palikea Ridge. Drosophila 
substenoptera is also found on State of Hawai`i DLNR property at Mt. 
Ka`ala and the DuPont trail as well as on City and County of Honolulu 
owned acreage at Ka`au Crater. This species has never been abundant at 
any of these locations, but now appears to be extant only on the summit 
of Mt. Ka`ala , despite intensive efforts to relocate it at other 
sites. Montgomery (1975) determined that this Hawaiian picture-wing 
breeds in the bark of Cheirodendron spp. and Tetraplasandra spp. trees 
in wet forest habitat. Threats to this species include habitat 
degradation from feral ungulates and alien weeds, and predation by ants 
and alien wasps.

Drosophila tarphytrichia

    Drosophila tarphytrichia was described by Elmo Hardy (1965) from 
specimens collected from Manoa Falls on O`ahu, in 1949. This species is 
closely related to D. vesciseta based on the structure of the male 
genitalia (Kaneshiro et al. 1995), but can be differentiated by 
distinct wing markings and the ornamentation of the front legs of the 
male. The thorax is almost entirely yellow to red with a tinge of brown 
on the top. The legs are yellow, with the tip of the front leg strongly 
flattened laterally and with a dense clump of black hairs. This species 
is 3.70 mm (0.148 in.) long with wings 4.0 mm (0.2 in.) long.
    Drosophila tarphytrichia is restricted to the island of O`ahu where 
it was historically known from both the Ko`olau and Wai`anae mountain 
ranges. It is now apparently extinct in the Ko`olau range and presently 
known from four localities in the Wai`anae Mountains. Three populations 
are found on privately owned lands at Mauna Kapu, Palikea ridge, and 
Kalua`a Gulch. The fourth is known from private and State of Hawai`i 
DLNR land at Pu`u Kaua. This species breeds on the stems and branches 
of Charpentiera spp. trees in mesic forest habitat (Montgomery 1975). 
Threats to this species include habitat degradation from feral 
ungulates and alien weeds, and predation by ants and alien wasps.

Previous Federal Action

    Ten of these proposed species were classified as candidates for 
listing in the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review of Plant and Animal 
Taxa That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened 
Species (Notice of Review) (61 FR 7596). The remaining two species, 
Drosophila differens and D. ochrobasis, were classified as candidates 
for listing in the Notice of Review dated September 19, 1997 (62 FR 
49398). Candidates are those taxa for which the Service has on file 
substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support preparation of listing proposals.
    The processing of this proposed rule conforms with our Listing 
Priority Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 
(64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will 
process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing 
rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent 
risk to its well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is 
processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of 
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Third priority (Priority 
3) is processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The 
processing of administrative petition findings (petitions filed under 
section 4 of the Act) is the fourth priority (Priority 4). The 
processing of this proposed rule is a Priority 3 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting These Species

    The procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists are found in 
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 
the accompanying regulations (50 CFR part 424). A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). Threats to these 12 
species are summarized in Table 2.

[[Page 3969]]



                                             Table 2.  Summary of Threats to 12 Hawaiian Picture-Wing Flies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Threats
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Species                                                        Feral animal activity
                                         Major alien plants   ----------------------------------------------------     Fire        Alien       Limited
                                                                   Pigs        Goats         Deer        Cattle                   insects      numbers*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila aglaia...................  1,2,3,6................           X            X   ...........  ...........           X            X   ...........
Drosophila differens................  2......................           X            X            X   ...........  ...........           X   ...........
Drosophila hemipeza.................  1,2,3,5,6..............           X            X   ...........  ...........  ...........           X   ...........
Drosophila heteroneura..............  2,4,8,9................           X   ...........  ...........           X   ...........           X            X
Drosophila montgomeryi..............  1,2,3,6................  ...........           X   ...........  ...........           X            X   ...........
Drosophila mulli....................  2,8,9..................           X   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........           X            X
Drosophila musaphilia...............  2,3,6,7,8..............           X            X            X   ...........           X            X   ...........
Drosophila neoclavisetae............  2,8....................           X   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........           X            X
Drosophila obatai...................  1,2,3,5,6..............           X            X   ...........  ...........           X            X   ...........
Drosophila ochrobasis...............  2,4,8,9................           X   ...........  ...........           X   ...........           X   ...........
Drosophila substenoptera............  2,5,6..................           X   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........           X   ...........
Drosophila tarphytrichia............  1,2,3,5,6..............           X            X   ...........  ...........  ...........           X   ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ -Schinus terebinthifolius    \2\ -Psidium cattleianum    \3\ -Melinus minutiflora    \4\ -Pennisetum setaceum    \5\ -Clidemia hirta    \6\ -Lantana
  camara    \7\ -Rubus argutus    \8\ -Passiflora mollissima    \9\ Rubus ellipticus
* Fewer than three populations

    The five factors and their application to Drosophila aglaia, D. 
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. 
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. 
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Native vegetation on all the main Hawaiian islands has undergone 
extreme alteration because of past and present land management 
practices, including ranching, deliberate introduction of alien plants 
and animals, and agricultural development (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). 
Some of the primary threats facing the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing species 
proposed for listing are ongoing and threatened destruction and adverse 
alteration of habitat by feral animals and alien plants.
    All 12 of the proposed species are endangered by feral animals to 
various degrees. The early human inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands 
introduced Polynesian pigs (Sus spp.), and more recently European 
settlers introduced more ungulate species, such as goats (Capra 
hircus), axis deer (Axis axis), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus 
hemionus), cattle (Bos taurus), and other domesticated pigs (S. 
scrofa), for food, commercial ranching activities, and hunting. Over 
the 200 years following the introduction of these animals, their 
numbers increased, and the adverse impacts of these feral ungulates on 
native vegetation have become increasingly apparent. Beyond the direct 
effect of trampling and grazing native plants, these feral ungulates 
have contributed significantly to the heavy erosion taking place on 
most of the main Hawaiian islands.
    Pigs that were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands have escaped 
domestication and successfully established feral populations in wet and 
mesic forests and grasslands of Kaua`i, O`ahu, Moloka`i, Mau`i, and 
Hawai`i. Their presence on these islands threatens the existence of at 
least 11 of the proposed Hawaiian picture-wing species (see Table 2). 
Foote and Carson (1995) experimentally demonstrated the detrimental 
impact of feral pigs on Hawaiian picture-wings by showing that areas 
that had been fenced to exclude pigs supported higher numbers of flies 
and the plants they require for habitat. Conversely, areas of the same 
habitat that were not fenced were altered by pig-foraging activities 
resulting in the direct destruction of host plants. Furthermore, the 
foraging activities modified the habitat by making it more suitable for 
invasive plants that could crowd out host plants. While foraging, pigs 
root and trample the forest floor, encouraging the establishment of 
alien plants in the newly disturbed soil. Pigs also disperse alien 
plant seeds through their feces and on their bodies, accelerating the 
spread of alien plants through native forest (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 
Stone 1985).
    Goats native to the Middle East and India were first successfully 
introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in 1792. Feral goats now occupy a 
wide variety of habitats from lowland dry forests to montane grasslands 
on Kaua`i, O`ahu, Moloka`i, Mau`i, and Hawai`i, where they consume 
native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion, and 
promote the invasion of alien plants (Stone 1985, van Riper and van 
Riper 1982). Goats are significantly degrading the habitat of at least 
seven species proposed in this rule (see Table 2). On Kaua`i, goats 
contribute to the substantial decline of Drosophila musaphilia. On 
O'ahu, encroaching urbanization and hunting pressure tend to 
concentrate the goat population in the dry upper slopes of the Wai`anae 
Mountains, where populations of D. aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, 
D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia exist (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995). 
The goat population in the Wai`anae area is apparently increasing, 
becoming an even greater threat to the native habitat there. On 
Moloka`i, at least one population of D. differens at Pu`u Kolekole is 
presently endangered by goats.
    Eight axis deer were introduced to the island of Moloka`i in 1868. 
By the turn of the century, their numbers had increased to thousands of 
animals (Tomich 1986). The herds had so damaged the vegetation on 
Moloka`i that professional hunters were hired to control their numbers 
(Tomich 1986). However, by then, the native vegetation had suffered 
irreparable damage from overgrazing by axis deer. These deer continue 
to degrade the habitat by trampling and overgrazing vegetation, which 
removes ground cover and exposes the soil to erosion. Activity of deer 
on Moloka`i has resulted in loss of habitat for Drosophila differens. 
The axis deer population is not presently managed by the State of 
Hawai`i DLNR or any other agency.
    Black-tailed deer were first introduced to Kaua`i in 1961 for the 
purpose of sport hunting, and today probably number well over 500 
animals. The deer are presently confined to the western side of the 
island, where they feed on a variety of native and alien

[[Page 3970]]

plants (van Riper and van Riper 1982). The presence of these deer on 
Kaua`i is endangering some Drosophila musaphilia habitat.
    Large-scale ranching of cattle in the Hawaiian Islands began in the 
middle of the 19th century on the islands of Kaua`i, O`ahu, Mau`i, and 
Hawai`i. Large ranches, tens of thousands of acres in size, developed 
on East Mau`i and Hawai`i (Cuddihy and Stone 1990) where most of the 
State's large ranches still exist today. Degradation of native forests 
used for ranching activities became evident soon after full-scale 
ranching began. The negative impact of cattle on Hawai`i's ecosystem is 
similar to that described for goats and deer (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 
Stone 1985). Cattle grazing continues in several lowland regions in the 
northern portion of the Wai`anae Mountains of O`ahu. On Mau`i, cattle 
ranching is the primary agricultural activity in many areas and 
presently threatens populations of Drosophila heteroneura and D. 
ochrobasis.
    Most of the plants that serve as breeding sites for these proposed 
Hawaiian picture-wings occur as understory vegetation beneath the 
canopy of the Metrosideros polymorpha (`ohi`a) and Acacia koa, and are 
affected by competition with alien weeds. All of the 12 Hawaiian 
picture-wing species being proposed for listing are endangered by loss 
of host plants due to competition with one or more alien plant species. 
The most significant of these alien plants appear to be Schinus 
terebinthifolius (Christmasberry), Psidium cattleianum (strawberry 
guava), Melinus minutiflora (molasses grass), Pennisetum setaceum 
(fountain grass), Clidemia hirta (Koster's curse), Lantana camara 
(lantana), Passiflora mollissima (banana poka), Rubus argutus (prickly 
Florida blackberry), and R. ellipticus (Himalayan raspberry).
    Many noxious alien plants, such as Schinus terebinthifolius, have 
invaded the dry to mesic lowland regions of the Hawaiian Islands. 
Introduced to Hawai`i before 1911, S. terebinthifolius forms dense 
thickets that shade out and displace other plants (Cuddihy and Stone 
1990). This fast-growing tree or shrub is found in lowland areas of the 
major Hawaiian Islands and is currently expanding its range (Smith 
1985). Schinus terebinthifolius is now a major component of the mesic 
forests of the Wai`anae and Ko`olau mountains of O`ahu and currently 
threatens the habitat of Drosophila aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. 
montgomeryi, D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia.
    Psidium cattleianum, an invasive shrub or small tree native to 
tropical America, has become naturalized on all of the main Hawaiian 
islands. Like Schinus terebinthifolius, P. cattleianum is capable of 
forming dense stands that exclude other plant species (Cuddihy and 
Stone 1990). This alien plant grows primarily in mesic and wet habitats 
and provides food for several alien animal species, including feral 
pigs and game birds, which disperse the plant's seeds through the 
forest (Smith 1985, Wagner et al. 1985). Psidium cattleianum is 
considered one of the greatest alien plant threats to Hawai`i's 
rainforests. Psidium cattleianum is a major invader of forests in the 
Wai`anae and Ko`olau Mountains of O`ahu, where it often forms single-
species stands. It poses a threat to all proposed species of Hawaiian 
picture-wings on O`ahu. Psidium cattleianum also threatens D. 
musaphilia on Kaua`i, D. differens on Moloka`i, D. neoclavisetae on 
Mau`i, and D. heteroneura, D. mulli, and D. ochrobasis on the island of 
Hawai`i.
    First introduced to the Hawaiian Islands as cattle fodder, Melinus 
minutiflora (molasses grass) was later planted for erosion control 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). This alien grass quickly spread to dry and 
mesic forests previously disturbed by ungulates. Melinus minutiflora 
produces a dense mat capable of smothering plants (Smith 1985), 
essentially preventing seedling growth and native plant reproduction 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Because it burns readily and often grows at 
the border of forests, this grass tends to carry fire into areas with 
woody native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, Smith 1985). It is able to 
spread prolifically after a fire and effectively compete with less 
fire-adapted native plant species, ultimately creating a stand of alien 
grass where forest once stood. Melinus minutiflora is becoming a major 
threat to six of the proposed species on four islands. On Kaua`i it 
threatens the habitat of Drosophila musaphilia. In the Wai`anae 
Mountains of O`ahu, M. minutiflora threatens the habitat of D. aglaia, 
D. hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia.
    Pennisetum setaceum has greatly increased fire risk in some 
regions, especially on the dry slopes of Hual'lai, K'lauea, and Mauna 
Loa volcanoes on the island of Hawai`i. The effects of P. setaceum 
invasion are similar to those discussed above for Melinus minutiflora. 
Pennisetum setaceum threatens the native vegetation on the leeward 
slopes of Hual'lai in a region where Drosophila heteroneura and D. 
ochrobasis occur.
    Clidemia hirta, a noxious shrub native to tropical America, was 
first reported on O`ahu in 1941. It had spread through much of the 
Ko`olau Mountains by the early 1960s, and spread to the Wai`anae 
Mountains by 1970 (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). It poses a serious threat 
to Drosophila hemipeza, D. obatai, D. substenoptera, and D. 
tarphytrichia by displacing native plants used by these Hawaiian 
picture-wings as breeding sites.
    Lantana camara, a native of the West Indies, became naturalized in 
dry to mesic forests and shrublands of the Hawaiian Islands before 1871 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). This shrub often forms thick cover and 
produces chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plant species 
(Smith 1985). On Kaua`i, L. camara is a major component of the 
vegetation around the east and west rims of Waimea Canyon and the 
western ridges, and threatens the habitat of Drosophila musaphilia. It 
poses a threat to all proposed species of Hawaiian picture-wings on 
O`ahu.
    Rubus argutus was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late 
1800s (Haselwood and Motter 1976). The fruit and seeds of this plant 
are easily spread by birds to open areas where this plant can form 
dense, impenetrable thickets (Smith 1985). On Kaua`i, the habitat of 
Drosophila musaphilia is endangered by this noxious weed.
    Passiflora mollissima, a vine in the passionflower family, was 
introduced to the islands in the 1920s, probably as an ornamental. This 
vine is extremely detrimental to certain wet forest habitats of Kaua`i, 
Mau`i, and Hawai`i. Heavy growth of this vine can cause damage or death 
to the native trees by overloading branches, causing breakage, or by 
forming a dense canopy cover, intercepting sunlight and shading out 
native plants below. This weed threatens Drosophila musaphilia on 
Kaua`i, D. neoclavisetae on Mau`i, and D. heteroneura, D. mulli, and D. 
ochrobasis on the island of Hawai`i.
    A recent introduction to the Hawaiian Islands, Rubus ellipticus is 
rapidly becoming a major weed pest in wet forests, pastures, and other 
open areas on the island of Hawai`i. It forms large thorny thickets and 
displaces native plants. Its ability to invade the understory of wet 
forests enables it to fill a niche presently unoccupied by any other 
major wet forest weed in Hawai`i. This has resulted in an extremely 
rapid population expansion of this alien plant in recent years. Rubus 
ellipticus threatens the habitat of Drosophila heteroneura, D. mulli, 
and D. ochrobasis.
    Fire threatens species of Hawaiian picture-wings living in dry to 
mesic grassland, shrubland, and forests on two islands. On Kaua`i, fire 
is a significant

[[Page 3971]]

threat to Drosophila musaphilia. Hurricane Iniki, in 1992, resulted in 
an enormous fuel load of downed woody debris and significantly raised 
the potential for serious fires on the western slopes of Kaua`i 
(Hawai`i DLNR-Department of Forestry and Wildlife 1993) . On O`ahu, 
fire is a potential threat to D. montgomeryi, D. aglaia, and D. obatai 
in the Wai`anae Mountains. The effects of fires on native Hawaiian 
vegetation are largely deleterious, tipping the competitive balance 
toward alien species. Unlike native plant species, many alien plant 
species recover quickly and increase in cover following fires (Cudihy 
and Stone 1990). Hawaiian picture-wing habitat that is damaged or 
destroyed by fire is likely to be invaded and revegetated by alien 
plants that cannot be used as host plants by picture-wings.
    Two Hawaiian picture wings, Drosophila obatai and D. aglaia, occur 
on Federal property at Pu`u Pane, a part of the United States Army's 
Schofield Barracks Military Reservation. The gently sloping lands below 
Pu`u Pane are used as a live firing range, and ordnance-induced fires 
are a common occurrence. Although firebreak roads have been constructed 
around the perimeter of the firing range, uncontrollable fire still 
remains a threat to these species and their habitat.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Overutilization is not a threat to any of the proposed Hawaiian 
picture-wings. While these and other species are valuable and popular 
as scientific research subjects, only a small number of researchers 
actively engage in field collections of these taxa. The individuals 
involved in this activity are professional biologists, knowledgeable 
and cognizant of the biology and conservation status of these animals. 
Because of the special collecting techniques involved, the use of these 
flies by more people for any purpose is highly unlikely. In addition, 
the collection of small numbers of adult flies would have little impact 
on the viability of a population, and such collection is necessary for 
accurate identification and conservation research.

C. Disease or Predation

    Over 2,500 alien arthropods are now established in Hawai`i (Howarth 
1990, Howarth et al. 1995, Nishida 1994), with a continuing 
establishment rate of 10-20 new species per year (Beardsley 1962, 
1979). Many of these alien species have severe effects on the native 
Hawaiian insect fauna (Asquith 1995). Species of social Hymenoptera 
(ants and some wasps) and parasitic wasps pose the greatest threat to 
the Hawaiian picture-wings. Ants and other social insects frequently 
dominate the ecologies of tropical ecosystems and strongly influence 
the evolution of certain plants and animals. However, all of the native 
Hawaiian arthropods, including the Hawaiian picture-wings, evolved 
without the predation influence of ants or social wasps, and the 
subsequent arrival of these new groups to the Hawaiian islands has been 
devastating to the relatively defenseless native Hawaiian invertebrate 
flora.
    Ants can be particularly destructive predators because of their 
high densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness, and broad range 
of diet (Reimer 1993). These attributes allow some ants to affect prey 
populations independent of prey density; thus ants can locate and 
destroy isolated populations and individuals (Nafus 1993). At least 36 
species of ants are known to be established in the Hawaiian Islands, 
and particularly aggressive species have had severe effects on the 
native insect fauna (Zimmerman 1948). By the late 1870s, the big-headed 
ant (Pheidole megacephala) was present in Hawai`i, and its predation on 
native insects was noted by the early Hawaiian naturalist R.C.L. 
Perkins (1913), ``It may be said that no native Hawaiian Coleoptera 
insect can resist this predator, and it is practically useless to 
attempt to collect where it is well established. Just on the limits of 
its range, one may occasionally meet with a few native beetles (e.g., 
species of Plagithmysus), often with these ants attached to their legs 
and bodies, but sooner or later they are quite exterminated from these 
localities.'' With few exceptions, native insects have been eliminated 
from areas where the big-headed ant is present (Perkins 1913, Gagne 
1979, Gillespie and Reimer 1993), and it has been documented to 
completely exterminate populations of native insects.
    The Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) was discovered on the 
island of O`ahu in 1940 and is now established on all the main islands. 
Unlike the big-headed ant, the Argentine ant is primarily confined to 
higher elevations (Reimer et al. 1990). This species has been 
demonstrated to reduce populations or even eliminate native arthropods 
at high elevations in Haleakala National Park on Mau`i (Cole et al. 
1992). While this species does not disperse by flight, colonies are 
moved about with soil and construction material; a colony was recently 
discovered on an isolated peak on the island of O`ahu under a radio 
tower.
    The long-legged ant (Anoplolepis longipes) appeared in Hawai`i in 
1952 and now occurs on O`ahu, Mau`i, and Hawai`i (Reimer et al. 1990). 
It inhabits low-elevation (less than 600 m (2,000 ft)), rocky areas of 
moderate rainfall (less than 250 cm (100 in.) annually) (Reimer et al. 
1990). Direct observations indicate that Hawaiian arthropods are 
susceptible to predation by this species (Gillespie and Reimer 1993), 
and Hardy (1979) documented the disappearance of most native insects 
from Kipahulu Stream on Mau`i after the area was invaded by the long-
legged ant.
    At least two species of fire ants, Solenopsis geminita and S. 
papuana, are also important threats (Reagan 1986; Gillespie and Reimer 
1993) and occur on all the major islands (Reimer et al. 1990). 
Solenopsis geminita is known to be a significant predator on pest fruit 
flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawai`i (Wong and Wong 1988). 
Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has 
invaded intact mesic forest above 600 m (2,000 ft) and is still 
expanding its range in Hawai`i (Reimer 1993).
    Numerous other ant species are recognized as threats to native 
invertebrates, and additional species become established almost yearly. 
While the larvae of most of the Hawaiian picture-wings feed deep in the 
substrate of the host plant, they emerge and move away to pupate in the 
ground, thus exposing themselves to predation by ants. Upon newly 
emerging as adults, these flies are particularly susceptible to 
predation. Adult picture-wings have been observed with ants attached to 
their legs (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995).
    Another group of social insects that are voracious predators and 
were originally absent from Hawai`i are yellowjacket wasps 
(Hymenoptera: Vespidae). In 1977, an aggressive race of the western 
yellowjacket (Paravespula pennsylvanica) became established in Hawai`i 
and is now abundant at most higher elevations (Gambino et al. 1990). In 
Haleakala National Park on Mau`i, yellowjackets were found to forage 
predominantly on native arthropods (Gambino et al. 1987, 1990, Gambino 
and Loope 1992). Overwintering yellowjacket colonies in Hawai`i can 
produce over half a million foragers that consume tens of millions of 
arthropods, and evidence exists for localized reduction in native 
arthropod abundance (Gambino and Loope 1992). Yellowjackets have been 
observed preying on Hawaiian picture-wings (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 
1995), and

[[Page 3972]]

the establishment of this species on the island of Hawai`i corresponded 
with a significant decline in several species of Hawaiian picture-wings 
(Carson 1982b, 1986, Foote and Carson 1995). Yellowjackets pose a 
serious threat to all Hawaiian picture-wing species in this proposed 
rulemaking.
    Hawai`i also has a limited number of native parasitic Hymenoptera 
(wasps), with only species of Eucoiliidae recorded to utilize Hawaiian 
picture-wings as hosts. Several species of alien braconid wasps, 
Diaschasmimorpha tryoni, D. longicaudatus, Opius vandenboschi, and 
Biosteres arisanus, were purposefully introduced into Hawai`i to 
control several species of pest tephritid fruit flies (Funasaki et al. 
1988). However, none of these parasitic wasps are specific to the pest 
flies, but are known to attack other species of flies, including native 
Hawaiian Tephritidae. While these wasps have not been recorded 
parasitizing Hawaiian picture-wings, and may not successfully develop 
in Drosophilidae, females will sting any fly larva available and can 
cause significant mortality (T. Duan, University of Hawai`i, pers. 
comm., 1995). Large extensive releases of these wasps or introductions 
of new species pose potential threats to Hawaiian picture-wings.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Currently, no Federal, State, or local laws, treaties, and/or 
regulations specifically apply to the 12 proposed species of Hawaiian 
picture-wings. Some of the species may indirectly receive some 
protection under Federal and State laws because they utilize host 
plants that are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and 
the State of Hawai`i's Endangered Species Act. This indirect 
protection, however, is not sufficient since the species of Hawaiian 
picture-wings that utilize protected host plants may not be physically 
present on the host plants at all times and because some threats to 
these Hawaiian picture-wings can occur regardless of their presence on 
a protected host plant.
    As stated above, alien parasitic wasps pose a threat to the 
Hawaiian picture-wings. Some alien wasp species have been introduced by 
Federal and State agencies for biological control of pest flies. The 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), regulates 
biological control agents as pesticides. However, EPA only regulates 
microorganisms (i.e., bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses). EPA has 
exempted all other organisms from requirements of FIFRA, because it has 
determined that they are regulated by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). 
The State of Hawai`i requires that new introductions be reviewed by 
special committees before release (HRS Chapt. 150A), and current USDA-
APHIS policy is to submit permit application materials, including an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, to the 
Service's Pacific Islands Office for review under section 7 of the Act 
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, predicting from 
laboratory studies the impacts introduced species may have on an 
ecosystem is difficult (Kauffman and Nechols 1992) and the purposeful 
release or augmentation of any Dipteran predator or parasitoid is a 
potential threat to these 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
    Federal listing would automatically invoke listing under Hawai`i 
State law, which prohibits taking and encourages conservation by State 
government agencies. Hawai`i's Endangered Species Act (HRS, Sect. 195D-
4(a)) states, ``Any species of aquatic life, wildlife, or land plant 
that has been determined to be an endangered species pursuant to the 
(Federal) Endangered Species Act shall be deemed to be an endangered 
species under the provisions of this chapter and any indigenous species 
of aquatic life, wildlife, or land plant that has been determined to be 
a threatened species pursuant to the (Federal) Endangered Species Act 
shall be deemed to be a threatened species under the provisions of this 
chapter.'' State regulations prohibit the removal, destruction, or 
damage of federally listed animals found on State lands (HRS, Sect. 
195D-4(e)). Further, the State may enter into agreements with Federal 
agencies to administer and manage any area required for the 
conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered 
species (HRS, Sect. 195D-5(c)). Funds for these activities could be 
made available under section 6 (Cooperation with the States) of the 
Act. Federal listing of these species will, therefore, trigger the 
protection available under State law.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The small number of populations of Drosophila neoclavisetae, D. 
mulli, and D. heteroneura puts these species at risk of extinction from 
naturally occurring, yet relatively common, events such as hurricanes 
and landslides. A hurricane could cause total population loss by 
causing direct mortality, habitat destruction or modification, and the 
spread of invasive alien plants. The continued existence of these 
picture-wings is further complicated by their limited habitat. 
Drosophila mulli is only found at one location on the island of Hawai`i 
within a localized patch of Pritchardia beccariana. Adults are found 
only on the undersides of this plant, and further associations between 
D. mulli and this host plant are likely. Drosophila neoclavisetae is 
restricted to a ridgetop on the island of Mau`i where it has been found 
only within a small patch of endemic Cyanea spp. Drosophila heteroneura 
was believed to be extinct until it was rediscovered on private acreage 
at Hualalai Volcano in 1993. This remaining population is extremely 
small, with a 90 percent reduction from historical abundance (Kaneshiro 
and Kaneshiro 1995). Naturally occurring random events such as 
hurricanes or landslides may destroy vital P. beccariana or Cyanea 
spp., thus placing D. mulli and D. neoclavisetae at significant risk of 
extinction by eliminating the only habitat in which they have been 
found. Additionally, the destruction of native plants opens a niche for 
the establishment of introduced alien plant species. Once alien species 
are established, it is difficult for native plants, including host 
plants for Drosophila spp., to recover and thrive successfully.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the 12 species in determining to propose this 
rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is to list 
Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. 
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. 
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia, as endangered. All 
12 species are endangered by one or more of the following: habitat 
degradation by pigs, goats, deer, cattle, and alien plants; habitat 
loss from fire; predation by ants and alien wasps; and biological pest 
control. Three species are known from less than three populations, 
making them susceptible to extinction from naturally occurring random 
events. Because these 12 species are in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of their ranges, they fit the definition 
of endangered as defined in the Act. Therefore, the Service proposes to 
list these species as endangered.

Critical Habitat

    In the last few years, a series of court decisions has overturned 
our

[[Page 3973]]

determinations regarding a variety of species that designation of 
critical habitat would not be prudent (e.g., Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th Cir. 
1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 
(D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in those judicial 
opinions, we have examined the question of whether critical habitat for 
the 12 species of Drosophila flies would be prudent.
    Although the 12 species have small population sizes, they do not 
appear to be vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or other 
intentional disturbance at this time. We remain concerned that these 
threats might be exacerbated by the publication of critical habitat 
maps and further dissemination of locational information. However, we 
have examined the evidence available and have not found specific 
evidence of taking, vandalism, collection, or trade of this species or 
any similarly situated species. Consequently, consistent with 
applicable regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we 
do not expect that the identification of critical habitat will increase 
the degree of threat to this species of taking or other human activity.
    In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase 
threats to a species, if any benefits would result from critical 
habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case 
of these species, some benefits may result from designation of critical 
habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the 
section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any 
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a 
critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by these 
species would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation 
outcome, because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such 
critical habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the 
species, in some instances section 7 consultation might be triggered 
only if critical habitat is designated. Examples include unoccupied 
habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in the future. 
Designating critical habitat may also provide some educational or 
informational benefits. Therefore, we propose that critical habitat is 
prudent for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. 
heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, 
D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia.
    Critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist: the information needed to analyze the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or the biological needs of the 
species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an 
area as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12). Currently, we have found that 
critical habitat for the 12 Drosophila flies is not determinable based 
on our inadequate knowledge about the relationship of the flies to 
their primary and secondary host plant(s), the distributions of these 
host plant(s), the bacteria and fungal communities necessary for 
successful Drosophila larval development, and the relationship of these 
flies to other native and nonnative flies.
    As discussed in the Background section of this proposed rule, each 
of the twelve species of Drosophila proposed for listing is restricted 
geographically to a single island; six species are reported from Oahu, 
three species are reported from the island of Hawaii, and one species, 
each, is reported from Kauai, Molokai, and Maui. All twelve species 
appear to have highly specialized breeding sites; they use small 
sections of fermenting or rotting areas on their host plant(s). The 
host plants are also, in many cases, ``single-island endemics''. Some, 
in fact, have already been independently listed as endangered or 
threatened and their locations are available through various government 
and privately-sponsored databases and from individual botanists. 
Unfortunately, information on the specific locations of other host 
plants may not be known, making determination of critical habitat 
difficult. In addition, we do not currently understand the relationship 
between the primary and the secondary host plant(s) and their 
associated Drosophila species. Factors that determine host suitability 
may include host plant size, the size and age of a rotting area upon 
which the larvae feed, the position of the rotting area with respect to 
the surrounding vegetation, soil moisture, relative humidity, frequency 
of rainfall and fog drip, and the presence or absence of other detritus 
(decaying organic matter) feeders, such as slugs and earthworms. 
However, it is not clear from currently available information which, or 
if all, of these factor(s) are essential for the long-term conservation 
of each Drosophila species.
    We are also unable to determine critical habitat for these flies 
based on the lack of information on the bacteria and fungal communities 
necessary for successful Drosophila larval development. The larvae of 
all twelve Drosophila species are microbivores (fungus feeders) and 
little is known about their bacteria and fungal requirements or about 
the ability of host plant species to support them. This information is 
needed to determine what primary constituent elements are needed for 
fly larvae to survive.
    Finally, we are currently unable to determine the inter-specific 
relationships between these species and other, more common species of 
Drosophila, introduced tipulids (crane flies), and other non-native fly 
species. Preliminary research strongly suggests that inter-generic 
competition is potentially an important limiting factor for the 
picture-wing Drosophila and may inhibit or limit their use of certain 
host plants. Additional information on these interrelationships will 
assist in determining what impacts these relationships have on the 
habitat requirements of these 12 flies.
    When we find that critical habitat is not determinable, our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.17) provide that, within one year of the date 
of the final rule listing the species, we must publish a final rule 
designating critical habitat, based on the best information available 
at the time. Due to a limited listing budget, we plan to employ a 
priority system for deciding which outstanding critical habitat 
designations should be addressed first. We will focus our efforts on 
those designations that will provide the most conservation benefit, 
taking into consideration the efficacy of critical habitat designation 
in addressing the threats to the species, and the magnitude and 
immediacy of those threats. Therefore, if these species are listed, we 
will develop a proposal to designate critical habitat for the 12 
species of Drosophila flies as soon as feasible, considering our 
workload priorities, as outlined in our priority system, and available 
funding.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, 
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions 
against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages 
public awareness and results in conservation actions by Federal, State, 
and private agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for 
possible land acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires 
that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. Funding 
may be available through section 6 of the Act for the State to conduct 
recovery activities. The

[[Page 3974]]

protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against 
certain activities involving listed animals are discussed, in part, 
below.
    Listing the 12 Drosophila species provides for the development and 
implementation of recovery plans for these species. These plans will 
bring together Federal, State, and regional agency efforts for the 
conservation of the species. Recovery plans will establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts. The plans will set 
recovery priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to 
accomplish the priorities. They will also describe the site-specific 
management actions necessary to achieve conservation and survival of 
these species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction 
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with us.
    Federal agency actions that may require conference and/or 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are 
not limited to: Army Corps of Engineers involvement in projects, such 
as the construction of roads, bridges, and dredging projects, subject 
to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) and 
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et 
seq.); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized discharges under 
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); U.S. 
Department of Agriculture involved in release or permitting release of 
biological control agents under the Plant Pest Act; military training 
and activity carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense; and 
projects by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented 
by 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered species, make it illegal for any person 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes 
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any 
endangered wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been 
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and 
State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits 
are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of 
otherwise lawful activities. Requests for copies of the regulations 
regarding listed wildlife and inquiries about permits and prohibitions 
may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 
Species Permits, 911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 
(telephone 503/231-6241; facsimile 503/231-6243).
    As published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 
34272), our policy is to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
be likely to constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent 
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. 
Likely activities that we believe could potentially result in a 
violation of section 9 of the Act include, but are not limited to, the 
following: road and firebreak construction; military troop movements; 
loss of habitat due to fire resulting from the use of military 
ammunition; intentional release or augmentation of biological control 
agents; introduction of other alien species; and collection of 
individuals for any purpose without a permit. Activities that we 
believe would not likely result in a violation of section 9 of the Act 
include, but are not limited to, non-destructive activities in areas 
occupied by these species, such as hiking, collecting non-host plants 
for cultural usage (e.g., hula halau), and hunting. Activities that 
occur under a valid incidental take permit or in accordance with a 
section 7 consultation would not violate section 9.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Manager of 
the Pacific Islands Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES section).
    If these Hawaiian picture-wing flies are listed under the Act, the 
State of Hawai`i Endangered Species Act (HRS, Sect. 195D-4(a)) is 
automatically invoked, prohibiting taking and encouraging conservation 
by State government agencies. Further, the State may enter into 
agreements with Federal agencies to administer and manage any area 
required for the conservation, management, enhancement, or protection 
of endangered species (HRS, Sect. 195D-5(c)). Funds for these 
activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act (State 
Cooperative Agreements). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these 
species by listing them as endangered species will be reinforced and 
supplemented by protection under State law.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial, or other relevant data concerning any 
threat (or lack thereof) to these species;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of these species;
    (3) Identification of habitat that should be designated as critical 
habitat and the reasons why this habitat should be determined to be 
critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act or any reasons why 
critical habitat should not be designated;
    (4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of these species; and
    (5) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on these species.
    Final issuance of regulations on these species will take into 
consideration the comments and any additional information received by 
the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation 
that differs from this proposal. In accordance with interagency policy 
published on July 1,

[[Page 3975]]

1994 (59 FR 34270), upon publication of this proposed rule in the 
Federal Register we will solicit expert reviews by at least three 
specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and 
assumptions relating to the taxonomic, biological, and ecological 
information for the three species. The purpose of such a review is to 
ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses, including the input of appropriate experts. 
We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision 
document. The final determination may differ from this proposal based 
upon the information we receive.
    You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for 
a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date 
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your 
requests to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by 
law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must 
state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. 
However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all 
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may send comments by e-mail to [email protected]. Please 
submit these comments as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: 
1018-AG23'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Pacific Islands 
Office at phone number 808-541-3441.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references and data cited herein, as well as 
others, is available upon request from Pacific Islands Ecoregion (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Dr. Adam Asquith, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under the family indicated, to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) *  *  *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                     Vertebrate population
------------------------------------------------------------     Historic range        where endangered or        Status         When    Critical  Special
            Common name                  Scientific name                                   threatened                           listed    habitat   rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
INSECTS
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila aglaia.....  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila differens..  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila hemipeza...  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila heteroneura  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila montgomeryi  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila mulli......  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila musaphilia.  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila              U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
                                      neoclavisetae.
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila obatai.....  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila ochrobasis.  U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing.........  Drosophila              U.S.A. (HI)...........  NA....................  E                       NA        NA
                                      substenoptera.

[[Page 3976]]

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


    Dated: December 15, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-1338 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U