[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32490-32510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2009-0036; 92210-1111-0000-B2]
RIN 1018-AV47


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Endangered Status for Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly (Megalagrion 
nesiotes) and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly (M. pacificum) Throughout 
Their Ranges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list two species of Hawaiian damselflies, the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (M. 
pacificum), as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend 
the Act's protections to these species. We have determined that 
critical habitat for these two Hawaiian damselflies is prudent, but not 
determinable at this time.

DATES: We will accept comments received on or before September 8, 2009. 
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by August 
24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R1-
ES-2009-0036.

[[Page 32491]]

     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2009-0036; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Shultz, Deputy Field Supervisor, 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 
50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-
9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this rule will be 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or suggestions on this proposed rule from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may be 
addressing those threats;
    (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population sizes of these species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of these species;
    (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
these species;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these 
species and their possible impacts on these species;
    (5) Which physical and biological factors are essential to the 
conservation of each species and whether those features may require 
special management considerations or protections;
    (6) Which specific areas area essential to the conservation of each 
species; and
    (7) The reasons why any areas should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 
the benefits of designation would outweigh the threats to the species 
that designation could cause, such that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include 
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any 
scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule by mail from the Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 
or by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    The candidate status of each of the two damselfly species proposed 
here for listing, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly, was most recently reassessed and affirmed in the 
December 6, 2007, Notice of Review of Native Species that are 
Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR) (72 FR 
69034). Candidate species are those taxa for which the Service has 
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to 
propose them for listing under the Act, but for which the development 
of a listing regulation has been precluded by other higher priority 
listing activities.
    Both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly were first listed as candidate species on May 22, 1984 (49 FR 
21664). The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was listed as a Category 
3A (C3A) species, while the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was listed as a 
Category 2 (C2) species. The flying earwig was removed from the 
candidate list on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), whereas the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly retained its status as a C2 species. On November 15, 
1994 (59 FR 58982), the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was added back 
to the candidate list, this time as a C2 species, and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly was reclassified as a Category 1 species. In the 
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on February 28, 1996, we 
announced a revised list of plant and animal taxa that were regarded as 
candidates for possible addition to the Lists of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants (61 FR 7595). This revision also 
included a new ranking system, whereby each candidate species was 
assigned a Listing Priority Number (LPN) from 1 to 12. Both the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly were 
assigned an LPN of 2 on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7595).
    On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the 
Secretary of the Interior to list 225 species of plants and animals 
that were already candidates, including these two Hawaiian damselfly 
species, as endangered or threatened under the provisions of the Act. 
In our annual CNOR, dated May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), we retained a 
listing priority number of 2 for both of these species in accordance 
with our priority guidance published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 
43098). A listing priority number of 2 reflects threats that are both 
imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic classification 
of each of these two Hawaiian damselflies as distinct species. At the 
time, we determined that publication of a proposed rule to list these 
species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions. 
Since then, we have published our annual findings on the May 4, 2004, 
petition (including our findings on these two candidate species) in the 
CNORs dated September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 
69034), and December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176).
    In Fiscal year 2007, we determined that funding was available to 
initiate

[[Page 32492]]

work on listing determinations for these two species and that work on 
listing determinations was no longer precluded by higher priority 
actions. As such, this proposal constitutes our proposed listing 
determination for these two species.

Species Information

    The Hawaiian Islands are well-known for several spectacular 
evolutionary radiations resulting in a unique insect fauna found 
nowhere else in the world. One such group, which began its evolution 
perhaps as long as 10 million years ago (Jordan et al. 2003, p. 89), is 
the narrow-winged Hawaiian damselfly genus Megalagrion. This genus 
appears to be most closely related to species of Pseudagrion elsewhere 
in the Indo-Pacific (Zimmerman 1948a, pp. 341, 345). The Megalagrion 
species of the Hawaiian Islands have evolved to occupy as many larval 
breeding niches as all the rest of the world's damselfly species 
combined, and in terms of the number of insular endemic (native to only 
one island) species, are exceeded only by the radiation of damselfly 
species of Fiji in the Pacific (Jordan et al. 2003, p. 91). Resembling 
slender dragonflies, damselflies are distinguished by folding their 
wings parallel to the body while at rest rather than holding them out 
perpendicular to the body.
    Native Hawaiians apparently did not differentiate the various 
species, but referred to the native damselflies (and dragonflies) 
collectively as ``pinau,'' and to the red-colored damselflies 
specifically as ``pin ao ula.'' There has been no traditional European 
use of a common name for species in the genus Megalagrion. In his 1994 
taxonomic review of the candidate species of insects of the Hawaiian 
Islands, Nishida (1994, pp. 4-7) proposed the name ``Hawaiian 
damselflies'' as the common name for species in the genus Megalagrion. 
Because this name reflects the restricted distribution of these insects 
and is nontechnical, the common name ``Hawaiian damselflies'' is 
adopted for general use here, and we use the accepted common names 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to 
identify the two individual species addressed in this proposed rule.
    The general biology of Hawaiian damselflies is typical of other 
narrow-winged damselflies (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, pp. 2-7). The 
males of most species are territorial, guarding areas of habitat where 
females will lay eggs (Moore 1983a, p. 89). During copulation, and 
often while the female lays eggs, the male grasps the female behind the 
head with terminal abdominal appendages to guard the female against 
rival males; thus males and females are frequently seen flying in 
tandem.
    In most species of Hawaiian damselflies, the immature larval stages 
(naiads) are aquatic, breathing through three flattened abdominal 
gills, and are predaceous, feeding on small aquatic invertebrates or 
fish (Williams 1936, p. 303). Females lay eggs in submerged aquatic 
vegetation or in mats of moss or algae on submerged rocks, and hatching 
occurs in about 10 days (Williams 1936, pp. 303, 306, 318; Evenhuis et 
al. 1995, p. 18). Naiads may take up to 4 months to mature (Williams 
1936, p. 309), after which they crawl out of the water onto rocks or 
vegetation to molt into winged adults, typically remaining close to the 
aquatic habitat from which they emerged. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
exhibits this typical aquatic life history.
    The naiads of some species of Hawaiian damselflies are terrestrial 
or semi-terrestrial, living on wet rock faces or in damp terrestrial 
conditions, inhabiting wet leaf litter or moist leaf axils (the angled 
juncture of the leaf and stem) of native plants up to several feet 
above ground (Zimmerman 1970, p. 33; Simon et al. 1984, p. 13; Polhemus 
and Asquith 1996, p. 17). The naiads of these terrestrial and semi-
terrestrial species have evolved short, thick, hairy gills and in many 
species are unable to swim (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 75). The 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is believed to exhibit this 
terrestrial or semi-terrestrial naiad life history.
    Adult damselflies are predaceous and feed on small flying insects 
such as midges. The adults of many of the Hawaiian Megalagrion spp. are 
unusual in that they have a highly developed behavior of feigning death 
when caught or attacked (Moore 1983b, pp. 161-165).
    The Hawaiian damselflies are represented by 23 species and 5 
subspecies, and are found on 6 of the Hawaiian Islands (Kauai, Oahu, 
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii). There are more species of 
Megalagrion on the geologically older islands (e.g., 12 species on 
Kauai) than on the geologically youngest island (e.g., 8 species on 
Hawaii), and there are more single-island endemic species on the older 
islands (e.g., 10 on Kauai) than on the youngest island (e.g., none on 
Hawaii) (Jordan et al. 2003, p. 91). Historically, Megalagrion 
damselflies were among the most common and conspicuous native Hawaiian 
insects. Some species commonly inhabited water gardens in residential 
areas, artificial reservoirs, and watercress farms, and were even 
abundant in the city of Honolulu, as noted by early collectors of this 
group (Perkins 1899, p. 76; Perkins 1913, p. clxxviii; Williams 1936, 
p. 304).
    Beginning with the early alteration of streams and wetland systems 
by the colonizing Hawaiians, followed by extensive stream and wetland 
conversion, alteration, and modification, and by degradation of native 
forests through the 20th century, Hawaii's native damselflies, 
including the two species that are the subject of this proposal, 
experienced a tremendous reduction in available habitat. In addition, 
predation by a number of nonnative species that have been both 
intentionally and, in some cases, inadvertently introduced onto the 
Hawaiian Islands is a significant and ongoing threat to all native 
Hawaiian damselflies.
Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly
    The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was first described from 
specimens collected in the 1890s in Puna on Hawaii Island by R.C.L. 
Perkins (1899, p. 72). Kennedy (1934, pp. 343-345) described what was 
believed at the time to be a new species of damselfly based on 
specimens from Maui; these were later determined to be synonymous with 
the specimens collected by Perkins. The flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly is a comparatively large and elongated species. The males are 
blue and black in color and exhibit distinctive, greatly enlarged, 
pincer-like cerci (paired appendages on the rear-most segment of the 
abdomen used to clasp the female during mating). Females are 
predominantly brownish in color. The adults measure from 1.8 to 1.9 
inches (in) (46 to 50 millimeters (mm)) in length and have a wingspan 
of 1.9 to 2.1 in (50 to 53 mm). The wings of both sexes are clear 
except for the tips, which are narrowly darkened along the front 
margins. Naiads of this species have never been collected or found 
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 69), but they are believed to be 
terrestrial or semi-terrestrial in habit (Kennedy 1934, p. 345; Preston 
2007).
    The biology of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is not well 
understood, and it is unknown if this species is more likely to be 
associated with standing water or flowing water (Kennedy 1934, p. 345; 
Polhemus 1994, p. 40). The only confirmed population found in the last 
6 years occurs along a steep, moist, riparian talus slope (a slope 
formed by an accumulation of rock debris), densely covered with 
Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe), a native

[[Page 32493]]

fern. Adults of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly have been observed 
to perch on vegetation and boulders, and to fly slowly for short 
distances. When disturbed, the adults fly downward within nearby 
vegetation or between rocks, rather than up and away as is usually 
observed with aquatic Hawaiian damselfly species. Although immature 
individuals have not been located, based on the habitat and the 
behavior of the adults, it is believed that the naiads are terrestrial 
or semi-terrestrial, occurring among damp leaflitter (Kennedy 1934, p. 
345) or possibly within moist soil or seeps between boulders in 
suitable habitat (Preston 2007). The highest elevation at which this 
species has been recorded is 3,000 feet (ft) (914 meters (m)), but its 
close association with uluhe habitat suggests that its range may extend 
upward to close to 4,000 ft (1,212 m) (Foote 2007).
    Historically, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was known from 
the islands of Hawaii and Maui. On Hawaii, it was originally known from 
seven or more general localities. The species has not been seen on 
Hawaii for over 80 years, although extensive surveys within apparently 
suitable habitat in the Kau and Olaa areas were conducted from 1997 to 
2008 (Polhemus 2008). On Maui, the flying earwig damselfly was 
historically reported from five general locations on the windward side 
of the island (Kennedy 1934, p. 345). Since the 1930s, however, the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly has only been observed in a single 
area on the windward side of east Maui, despite surveys from 1993 
through 2008 at several of its historically occupied sites. The last 
observation of the species on windward east Maui was in 2005 (Foote 
2008); the species was not observed during the last survey at this 
location in 2008. No quantitative estimate of the size of this 
remaining population is available.
    It is hypothesized that the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly may 
now be restricted to what is perhaps suboptimal habitat, where periodic 
absences of the species due to drought may be expected and might 
explain the lack of observations of the species (Foote 2007). Some 
researchers also believe that overcollection of this species by 
enthusiasts may have impacted some populations in the past (Polhemus 
2008). It is further possible that the individuals observed in this 
area are actually part of a larger population that may be located in 
the extensive belt of uluhe habitat located upslope, where the habitat 
is predominantly native shrubs and matted fern understory (Foote 2007; 
Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program (HBMP) 2006). Unsurveyed areas 
containing potentially suitable habitat for this species include the 
Hana coast of east Maui, and the east rift zone of Kilauea and the Kona 
area on the island of Hawaii (Foote 2007).
Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly
    The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was first described by McLachlan 
(1883, p. 234) based on specimens collected by R.C.L. Perkins from 
streams on the islands of Lanai and Maui. This damselfly is a 
relatively small, dark-colored species, with adults measuring from 1.3 
to 1.4 in (34 to 37 mm) in length and having a wingspan of 1.3 to 1.6 
in (33 to 42 mm). Both adult males and females are mostly black in 
color. Males exhibit brick red striping and patterns, while females 
exhibit light green striping and patterns. The only immature 
individuals of this species that have been collected were early-instar 
(an intermoult stage of development) individuals, and they exhibit 
flattened, leaf-like gills (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 83). This 
species is most easily distinguished from other Hawaiian damselflies by 
the extremely long lower abdominal appendages of the male, which 
greatly exceed the length of the upper appendages.
    Historically, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was known from lower 
elevations (below 2,000 ft (600 m)) on all of the main Hawaiian Islands 
except Kahoolawe and Niihau (Perkins 1899, p. 64). This species was 
known to breed primarily in lentic (standing water) systems such as 
marshes, seepage-fed pools, large ponds at higher elevations, and 
small, quiet pools in gulches that have been cut off from the main 
stream channel (Moore and Gagne 1982, p. 4; Polhemus and Asquith 1996, 
p. 83). The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is no longer found in most 
lentic habitats in Hawaii, such as ponds and taro (Colocasia esculenta) 
fields, due to predation by nonnative fish that now occur in these 
systems (Moore and Gagne 1982, p. 4; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215). 
Observations have confirmed that the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is now 
restricted almost exclusively to seepage-fed pools along overflow 
channels in the terminal reaches of perennial streams, usually in areas 
surrounded by thick vegetation (Moore and Gagne 1982, pp. 3-4; Polhemus 
1994, p. 54; Englund 1999, p. 236; Englund et al. 2007, p. 216; 
Polhemus 2007, p. 238). Adults usually do not stray far from the 
vicinity of the breeding pools, perching on bordering vegetation and 
flying only short distances when disturbed (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, 
p. 83). This species is rarely seen along main stream channels, and its 
ability to disperse long distances over land or water is suspected to 
be poor compared to other Hawaiian damselflies (Jordan et al. 2007, p. 
254).
    The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is now believed to be extirpated 
from the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Lanai (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, 
p. 83). On the island of Oahu, due to its occupation of particularly 
vulnerable habitat within sidepools of lowland streams, the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly was rare by the 1890s and appears to have been 
extirpated from this island since 1910 (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 
494). It is unknown when the Kauai and Lanai populations of the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly disappeared. Until 1998, it was believed that the 
species may also have been extirpated from the island of Hawaii. That 
year, one population was discovered within a small stream located just 
above, but isolated from, Maili Stream, which is known to be occupied 
by nonnative fish (Englund 1998, pp. 15-16). By the late 1970s, fewer 
than six populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly could be located 
on Maui and Molokai (Harwood 1976, pp. 251-253; Gagne 1980, pp. 119, 
125; Moore and Gagne 1982, p. 1), and the conservation of this species 
was identified as a priority by the International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Moore 1982, p. 209).
    The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is currently found in at least seven 
streams on Molokai and may possibly be extant in other, unsurveyed 
streams on Molokai's north coast that have not been invaded by 
nonnative fish (Englund 2008). On the island of Maui, the species is 
currently known from 14 streams. The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is no 
longer found along the entire reaches of these Maui streams, but only 
in restricted areas along each stream where steep terrain prevents 
access by nonnative fish, which inhabit degraded, lower stream reaches 
(Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 13; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215). The 
species is known from a single population on the island of Hawaii, last 
observed in 1998.
    No quantitative estimates of the size of the extant populations are 
available. Howarth (1991, p. 490) described the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly as the most common and most widespread of the native 
damselfly species at the end of the 19th century, and yet a decline in 
this species was observed as early as 1905 due to the effects of 
nonnative fish introduced for control of mosquitoes.

[[Page 32494]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. These five listing factors are: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing a species as a 
threatened or endangered species under the Act may be warranted based 
on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    The threats to the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
species are summarized according to the five listing factors in Table 
1, and discussed in detail below.

            TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE FLYING EARWING AND PACIFIC HAWAIIAN DAMSELFLY SPECIES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Flying Earwig Hawaiian      Pacific Hawaiian
                Threat                          Factor                 Damselfly                Damselfly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture/urban development          A                        X                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;Stream alteration                     A                        P                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat modification by pigs           A                        X                        .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat modification by nonnative      A                        X                        X
 plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stochastic events                      A                        X                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change                         A                        X                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overcollection                         B                        P                        .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predation                              C                        A, BF (P)                A, B, F, BF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequate habitat protection          D                        X                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequate protection from nonnative   D                        X                        X
 aquatic species introduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited populations                    E                        X                        X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = ants B = backswimmers F = fish BF = bullfrogs P = potential threat

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of [Their] Habitat or Range

    Freshwater habitats used by the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian 
damselflies on all of the main Hawaiian Islands have been severely 
altered and degraded because of past and present land and water 
management practices, including: agriculture and urban development; 
development of ground water, perched aquifer (aquifer sitting above 
main water table), and surface water resources; and the deliberate and 
accidental introductions of nonnative animals (Harris et al. 1993, pp. 
12-13; Meier et al. 1993, pp. 181-183).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Urban 
Development
    Although there has never been a comprehensive, site-by-site 
assessment of wetland loss in Hawaii (Erikson and Puttock 2006, p. 40), 
Dahl (1990, p. 7) estimated that at least 12 percent of lowland to 
upper-elevation wetlands in Hawaii had been converted to non-wetland 
habitat by the 1980s. If only coastal plain (below 1,000 ft (305 m)) 
wetlands are considered, it is estimated that 30 percent have been 
converted for agricultural and urban development (Kosaka 1990). These 
marshlands and wetlands provided habitat for several damselfly species, 
including the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
    Although extensive filling of freshwater wetlands is rarely 
permitted today, loss of riparian or wetland habitats utilized by the 
Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies, such as smaller areas 
of moist slopes, emergent vegetations and narrow strips of freshwater 
seeps within anchialine pool complexes (landlocked bodies of water with 
a subterranean connection to the ocean), still occurs. In addition, 
marshes have been, and continue to be, slowly filled and converted to 
meadow habitat due to increased sedimentation resulting from increased 
storm water runoff from upslope development, the accumulation of 
uncontrolled growth of invasive vegetation, and blockage of downslope 
drainage (Wilson Okamoto & Associates, Inc. 1993, pp. 3-4 to 3-5).
    The effects of future conversion of wetland and other aquatic 
habitat for agriculture and urban development are immediate and 
significant for the following reason: as noted above, an estimated 30 
percent of all coastal plain wetlands in Hawaii have already been lost 
to agriculture and urban development, while the loss of lowland 
freshwater habitat in Hawaii already approaches 80 to 90 percent 
(Kosaka 1990). Lacking the aquatic habitat features that the 
damselflies require for essential life history needs, such as marshes, 
ponds, and sidepools along streams (Pacific Hawaiian damselfly) and 
riparian habitat (flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly), these modified 
areas no longer support populations of these two Hawaiian damselflies. 
Agriculture and urban development have thus contributed to the present 
curtailment of the habitat of these two Hawaiian damselflies, and we 
have no indication that this threat is likely to be significantly 
ameliorated in the near future.

[[Page 32495]]

Habitat Destruction and Modification by Stream Diversion
    Stream modifications began with the early Hawaiians who diverted 
water to irrigate taro. However, early diversions often took no more 
than half the stream flow, and typically were periodic, to occasionally 
flood taro ponds year round, rather than continuously flood them (Handy 
and Handy 1972, pp. 58-59).
    The advent of plantation sugarcane cultivation led to far more 
extensive stream diversions, with the first diversion built in 1856 on 
Kauai (Wilcox 1996, p. 54). These systems were designed to tap water at 
upper elevations (above 984 ft (300 m)) by means of a concrete weir in 
the stream (Wilcox 1996, p. 54). All or most of the low or average flow 
of the stream was, and often still is, diverted into fields or 
reservoirs, leaving many stream channels completely dry (Takasaki et 
al. 1969, pp. 27-28; Harris et al. 1993, p. 12; Wilcox 1996, p. 56).
    By the 1930s, water diversions had been developed on all of the 
main Hawaiian Islands, and by 1978 the stream flow in over one-half of 
all of the 366 perennial streams in Hawaii had been altered in some 
manner (Brasher 2003, p. 1055). Some stream diversion systems are 
extensive, such as the Waiahole Ditch, which diverts water from 37 
streams within the range of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on the 
windward side of Oahu to the dry plains on the leeward side of the 
island via a tunnel cut through the Koolau mountain range (Stearns and 
Vaksvik 1935, pp. 399-403). On west Maui, as of 1978, over 49 mi (78 
km) of stream habitat in 12 streams had been lost due to diversions, 
and all of the 17 perennial streams on west Maui are dewatered to some 
extent (Maciolek 1979, p. 605). This loss of stream habitat may have 
contributed to the extirpation of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
population on west Maui. Given the affiliation of the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly with riparian habitats, this loss of stream habitat 
may also potentially account for its absence on west Maui. Most lower-
elevation stream segments on west Maui are now completely dry, except 
during storm-influenced flows (Maciolek 1979, p. 605). The extensive 
diversion of streams on Maui island-wide has reduced the amount of 
stream habitat available to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, and 
potentially to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly as well.
    In addition to diverting water for agriculture and domestic water 
supply, streams in Hawaii have also been diverted for use in 
hydroelectric power. There are a total of 18 active hydroelectric 
plants operating on Hawaiian streams on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, 
and Maui, only one of which is located on a stream where a historical 
population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was known on Kauai 
(Waimea). Another 38 sites have been identified for potential 
hydroelectric development on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and 
Molokai (Hawaii Stream Assessment 1990, pp. xxi, 96-97). Three of the 
proposed sites include current populations of the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly. Notably, the single current remaining population site for 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly on Maui is identified as a 
potential hydroelectric site. Any additional diversion of streams for 
use in hydroelectric power could contribute to further loss of stream 
habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and for the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly.
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Dewatering of Aquifers
    In addition to the diversion of stream water and the resultant 
downstream dewatering, many streams in Hawaii have experienced reduced 
or zero surface flow as a result of the dewatering of their source 
aquifers. Often these aquifers, which previously fed the streams, were 
tapped by tunneling or through the injudicious placement of wells 
(Stearns and Vaksvik 1935, pp. 386-434; Stearns 1985, pp. 291-305). 
These groundwater sources were captured for both domestic and 
agricultural use and in some areas have completely depleted nearby 
stream and spring flows. For example, the Waikolu Stream on Molokai has 
reduced flow due in part to groundwater withdrawal (Brasher 2003, p. 
1,056), which may have reduced stream habitat available to the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly. Likewise, on Maui, streams in the west Maui 
Mountains that flow into the Lahaina District are fed by groundwater 
leaking from breached, high-elevation dikes. Downstream of the dike 
compartments, stream diversions are designed to capture all of the low 
stream flow, causing the streams downstream to be frequently dry (U.S. 
Geological Survey 2008a, p. 1), likely impacting available habitat for 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, and potentially for the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly, in the Honolua and Honokohau streams.
    The island of Lanai lies within the rain shadow of the west Maui 
Mountains, which reach 5,788 ft (1,764 m) in elevation. Lower in 
elevation than Maui, annual rainfall on Lanai's summit is 30 to 40 in 
(760 to 1,015 mm) but much less over the rest of the island (University 
of Hawaii Department of Geography 1998, p. 13). Flows of almost every 
spring and seep on Lanai have been diverted (Stearns 1940, pp. 73-74, 
85, 88, 95). Surface waters in streams have also been diverted by 
tunnels in stream beds. Historically, Maunalei Stream was the only 
perennial stream on Lanai, and Hawaiians constructed taro loi (ponds 
for cultivation of taro) in the lower portions of this stream system. 
In 1911, a tunnel was constructed at 1,100 ft (330 m) elevation that 
undercuts the stream bed, diverting both the surface and subsurface 
flows and dewatering the stream from this point to its mouth (Stearns 
1940, pp. 86-88). The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, which depends on 
stream habitat, was historically known from Lanai but is no longer 
extant on this island, and was most likely impacted by the dewatering 
of this stream because it was the only permanent stream on Lanai prior 
to its dewatering. This example of the negative impact of dewatering 
leads us to conclude that dewatering poses a threat to the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly on the 
remaining islands where the species persist.
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Vertical Wells
    Surface flow of streams has also been affected by vertical wells 
drilled in pre-modern times, because the basal aquifer (lowest 
groundwater layer) and alluvial caprock (sediment-deposited harder rock 
layer) through which the lower sections of streams flow can be pierced 
and hydraulically connected by wells (Stearns 1940, p. 88). This allows 
water in aquifers normally feeding the stream to be diverted elsewhere 
underground. Dewatering of the streams by tunneling and earlier, less-
informed well placement near or in streams was a significant cause of 
habitat loss, and these effects continue today. Historically, for 
example, there was sufficient surface flow in Makaha and Nanakuli 
streams on Oahu to support taro loi in their lower reaches, but this 
flow disappeared subsequent to construction of vertical wells upstream 
(Devick 1995). The inadvertent dewatering of streams through the 
piercing of their aquifers (which are normally separated from adjacent 
water-bearing layers by an impermeable layer), by tunneling or through 
placement of vertical wells, caused the loss of Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly habitat, and contributed to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly's 
extirpation on the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Lanai. Such activities 
also reduced the extent of stream habitat

[[Page 32496]]

for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and 
Hawaii. Most lower-elevation stream segments on west Maui and leeward 
east Maui are now completely dry, except during storm-influenced flows 
(Maciolek 1979, p. 605). The flow of nearly every seep and spring on 
Lanai has been captured or bored with wells (Stearns 1940, pp. 73-74, 
85, 88, 95). The inadvertent drying of streams from poor well 
replacement and other activities has contributed to the decline of the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly by reducing its habitat on all of the 
islands from which it was historically known. It should be noted that 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was once among the most commonly 
observed aquatic insects in the islands (Howarth 1991, p. 40). The 
dewatering of streams on Maui and Hawaii may also have impacted habitat 
of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
    Although the State of Hawaii's Commission on Water Resource 
Management is now more cognizant of the effects that ground water 
removal has on streams via injudicious placement of wells, the 
Commission still routinely reviews new permit applications for wells 
(Hardy 2009). All requests for new wells require a drilling permit and, 
in some cases, a use permit is additionally required, depending upon 
the intended allocation and anticipated amount of water to be pumped 
from the well. Water Management Areas have been designated over much of 
Oahu and in some areas on other neighboring islands. Within these 
areas, a use permit for a new well is also required, which 
automatically triggers a greater review of the potential impacts. Any 
request for a permit to drill a well within proximity of streams or 
dike rock located at the headwaters of streams automatically triggers 
additional review (Hardy 2009). Permits to drill wells near streams or 
within dike complexes are now unlikely to be granted because a new well 
would require the amendment of in-stream flow standards for the 
impacted stream. However, such amendments are sometimes approved. One 
example is the long-contested case involving the Waiahole Ditch on the 
island of Oahu (Hawaii Department of Agriculture 2002). In that case, 
the Commission continues to support the removal of several million 
gallons of water daily from windward Oahu streams (Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture 2002). In conclusion, although a regulatory process is in 
place that can potentially address the effects of new requests for 
ground water removal on streams, this process includes provisions for 
amendments that would result in adverse effects to ground water that 
supports streamside habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, and 
potentially for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Habitat Modification and Destruction by Channelization
    In addition to the destruction of most of the stream habitat of the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, 
most remaining stream habitat has been, and continues to be, seriously 
degraded throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Stream degradation has been 
particularly severe on the island of Oahu where, by 1978, 58 percent of 
all the perennial streams had been channelized (lined, partially lined 
or altered) to control flooding (Brasher 2003, p. 1055; Polhemus and 
Asquith 1996, p. 24), and 89 percent of the total length of these 
streams had been channelized (Parrish et al. 1984, p. 83). The 
channelization of streams creates artificial, wide-bottomed stream beds 
and often results in removal of riparian vegetation, increased 
substrate homogeneity, increased temporal water velocity (increased 
water flow speed during times of higher precipitation including minor 
and major flooding), increased illumination, and higher water 
temperatures (Parrish et al. 1984, p. 83; Brasher 2003, p. 1052). 
Natural streams meander and are lined with rocks, trees, and natural 
debris, and during times of flooding, jump their banks. Channelized 
streams are straightened and often lack natural obstructions, and 
during times of higher precipitation or flooding, facilitate a higher 
water flow velocity. Hawaiian damselflies are largely absent from 
channelized portions of streams (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 24). In 
contrast, undisturbed Hawaiian stream systems exhibit a greater amount 
of riffle habitat, canopy closure, higher consistent flow velocity, and 
lower water temperatures that are characteristic of streams to which 
the Hawaiian damselflies, in general, are adapted (Brasher 2003, pp. 
1054-1057).
    Channelization of streams has not been restricted to lower stream 
reaches. For example, there is extensive channelization of the Kalihi 
Stream, on the island of Oahu, above 1,000 ft (300 m) elevation. 
Extensive stream channelization has contributed to the extirpation of 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly on Oahu (Englund 1999, p. 236; Polhemus 
2008).
    Stream diversion, channelization, and dewatering represent 
significant and immediate threats to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly for 
the following reasons: (1) They reduce the amount and distribution of 
stream habitat available to this species; (2) they reduce stream flow, 
leaving lower elevation stream segments completely dry except during 
storms, or leaving many streams completely dry year round, thus 
reducing or eliminating stream habitat; and (3) they indirectly lead to 
an increase in water temperature that leads to the loss of Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly naiads due to direct physiological stress. Because 
the probability of species extinction increases when ranges are 
restricted, habitat decreases, and population numbers decline, the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is particularly vulnerable to extinction due 
to such changes in its stream habitats. In addition, stream diversion, 
dewatering, and vertical wells have the potential to negatively impact, 
and in some cases may have impacted, the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Feral Pigs
    One of the primary threats to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly 
is the ongoing destruction and degradation of its riparian habitat by 
nonnative animals, particularly feral pigs (Sus scrofa) (Polhemus and 
Asquith 1996, p. 22; Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 42). Pigs of Asian 
descent were first introduced to Hawaii by the Polynesian ancestors of 
Hawaiians around 400 A.D. (Kirch 1982, pp. 3-4). Western immigrants, 
beginning with Captain Cook in 1778, repeatedly introduced European 
strains (Tomich 1986, pp. 120-121). The pigs escaped domestication and 
successfully invaded all areas, including wet and mesic forests and 
grasslands, on all of the main Hawaiian Islands.
    High pig densities and expansion of their distribution have caused 
indisputable widespread damage to native vegetation on the Hawaiian 
Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). Feral pigs create open areas 
within forest habitat by digging up, eating, and trampling native plant 
species (Stone 1985, p. 263). These open areas become fertile ground 
for nonnative plant seeds spread through the excrement of the pigs and 
by transport in their hair (Stone 1985, p. 263). In nitrogen-poor 
soils, feral pig excrement increases nutrient availability, enhancing 
establishment of nonnative weeds that are more adapted to richer soils 
than are native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65). In this manner, 
largely nonnative forests replace native forest habitat (Cuddihy and 
Stone 1990, p. 65). In

[[Page 32497]]

addition, feral pigs will root and dig for plant tubers and worms in 
wetlands, including marshes, on all of the main Hawaiian Islands 
(Erikson and Puttock 2006, p. 42).
    In a study conducted in the 1980s on feral pig populations in the 
Kipahulu Valley on Maui, the deleterious effects of feral pig rooting 
on native forest ecosystems was documented (Diong 1982, pp. 150, 160-
167). Rooting by feral pigs was observed to be related to the search 
for earthworms, with rooting depths averaging 8 in (20 cm), and rooting 
was found to greatly disrupt the leaf litter and topsoil layers, and 
contribute to erosion and changes in ground topography. The feeding 
habits of pigs were observed to create seed beds, enabling the 
establishment and spread of invasive weedy species such as Clidemia 
hirta (Koster's curse). The study concluded that all aspects of the 
feeding habits of pigs are damaging to the structure and function of 
the Hawaiian forest ecosystem (Diong 1982, pp. 160-167).
    It is likely that pigs similarly impact the native vegetation used 
for perching by adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies. On Maui, 
feral pigs inhabit the uluhe-dominated riparian habitat of the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly. Through their rooting and digging 
activities, they have significantly degraded and destroyed the habitat 
of the adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly (Foote 2008).
    In addition to creating conditions that enable the spread of 
nonnative plant species, Mountainspring (1986, p. 98) surmised that 
rooting by pigs depresses insect populations that depend upon the 
ground layer at some life stage or that exhibit diel (day and night) 
movements. As a result, it is likely that the presumed habitat (seeps 
or damp leaf litter) of the naiads of the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly is negatively impacted by feral pig activity, including the 
uprooting and denuding of native vegetation (Foote 2008; Polhemus 
2008).
    Notwithstanding the above impacts, feral pigs are managed as a game 
animal for public hunting in the more accessible regions of the east 
Maui watershed (Jokiel 2008). In contrast to an eradication program, 
this action makes it likely that feral pigs will continue to exist on 
Maui, and thus likely that pigs will continue to destroy and degrade 
habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly on the island of Maui.
    The effects from introduced feral pigs are immediate and ongoing 
because pigs currently occur in the uluhe-dominated riparian habitat of 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. The threat of habitat destruction 
or modification from feral pigs is significant for the following 
reasons: (1) Trampling and grazing directly impact the vegetation used 
by adult flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies for perching and by the 
terrestrial or semi-terrestrial naiads; (2) increased soil disturbance 
leads to mechanical damage to plants used by adults for perching and by 
the terrestrial or semi-terrestrial naiads; (3) creation of open, 
disturbed areas, conducive to weedy plant invasion and establishment of 
alien plants from dispersed fruits and seeds, results over time in the 
conversion of a community dominated by native vegetation to one 
dominated by nonnative vegetation (leading to all of the negative 
impacts associated with nonnative plants, detailed below); and (4) 
increased watershed erosion and sedimentation further degrade habitat 
for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. These threats are expected to 
continue or increase without control or elimination of pig populations 
in these habitats.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
    The invasion of nonnative plants, including Clidemia hirta, further 
contributes to the degradation of Hawaii's native forests, including 
the riparian habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly on Maui 
(Foote 2008). Clidemia hirta is the most serious nonnative plant 
invader within the uluhe-dominated riparian habitat where the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly occurs on Maui and where it formerly occurred 
on the island of Hawaii (Foote 2008). Clidemia hirta can outcompete the 
native uluhe fern, and so is capable of altering the natural 
environment where the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly occurs. A 
noxious shrub first cultivated in Wahiawa on Oahu before 1941, this 
plant is now found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (Wagner et al. 
1985, p. 41). Clidemia hirta forms a dense understory, shading out 
native plants and hindering their regeneration; it is considered a 
major nonnative plant threat in wet forest areas because it inhibits 
and eventually replaces native plants (Wagner et al. 1985, p. 41; Smith 
1989, p. 64).
    Presently, the most significant threat to natural ponds and marshes 
in Hawaii is the nonnative species Urochloa mutica (California grass). 
This sprawling perennial grass is likely from Africa (Erickson and 
Puttock 2006, p. 270). It was first noted on Oahu in 1924 and now 
occurs on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (O'Connor 1999, p. 1,504), 
where it is considered an aggressive invasive weed of marshes and 
wetlands (Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 270). Found from sea level to 
3,610 ft (1,100 m) in elevation (Erickson and Puttock 2006, p. 270), 
this plant forms dense, monotypic stands that can completely eliminate 
any open water by layering its trailing stems (Smith 1985, p. 186). 
Marshlands eventually convert to meadowland when invaded by Urochloa 
mutica (Polhemus and Asquith 1996, p. 23). At Kawainui Marsh, the most 
extensive marsh system remaining on Oahu, control of Urochloa mutica to 
prevent conversion of the marsh to meadowland is an ongoing management 
activity (Wilson, Okamoto and Associates, Inc. 1993, pp. 3-4; Hawaiian 
Ecosystems at Risk (HEAR) 2008, p. 1). The preferred habitat of the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (primarily lowland, stagnant water, large 
ponds, and small pools) on all of the Hawaiian Islands has likely 
declined and continues to decline due to the spread of Urochloa mutica, 
which is causing the conversion of marshlands to meadowlands (Polhemus 
and Asquith 1996, p. 23).
    Nonnative plants represent a significant and immediate and ongoing 
threat to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly through habitat 
destruction and modification for the following reasons: (1) They 
adversely impact microhabitat by modifying the availability of light; 
(2) they alter soil-water regimes; (3) they modify nutrient cycling 
processes; and (4) they outcompete, and possibly directly inhibit the 
growth of, native plant species; ultimately, native dominated plant 
communities are converted to nonnative plant communities (Cuddihy and 
Stone 1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35). This conversion 
negatively impacts and threatens the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, 
which depends upon native plant species, particularly uluhe, for 
essential life history needs. Conversion habitat from marshlands to 
meadowlands by the nonnative Urochloa mutica also threatens the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly. These threats are expected to continue or increase 
without control or elimination of invasive nonnative plants in these 
habitats.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes, Landslides, and 
Drought
    Stochastic (random, naturally occurring) events, such as 
hurricanes, landslides, and drought, alter or degrade the habitat of 
Hawaiian damselflies directly by modifying and destroying native 
riparian, wetland, and stream habitats (e.g., rocks and debris falling 
in a stream; mechanical damage to riparian and wetland vegetation), and 
indirectly

[[Page 32498]]

by creating disturbed areas conducive to invasion by nonnative plants 
that outcompete the native plants used by damselflies for perching. We 
presume these events also alter microclimatic conditions (e.g., opening 
the tree canopy that leads to an increase in stream water temperature; 
increasing stream sedimentation) so that the habitat no longer supports 
damselfly populations. Both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may also be affected by temporary 
habitat loss (e.g., desiccation of streams, die-off of uluhe) 
associated with droughts, which are not uncommon on the Hawaiian 
Islands. With populations that have already been severely reduced in 
both abundance and geographic distribution, even such a temporary loss 
of habitat can have a negative impact on the species.
    Natural disasters such as hurricanes and drought, and local, random 
environmental events (such as landslides), represent a significant 
threat to native riparian, wetland, and stream habitat and the two 
damselfly species addressed in this proposed rule. These types of 
events are known to cause significant habitat damage (e.g., Polhemus 
1993, p. 86). Because the two species addressed in this proposed rule 
now persist in low numbers or occur in restricted ranges, they are more 
vulnerable to these events and less resilient to such habitat 
disturbances. Hurricanes, drought, and landslides are known and 
expected to occur at irregular intervals. Therefore, they pose an 
immediate and ongoing threat to the two damselfly species and their 
habitat.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
    The information currently available on the effects of global 
climate change does not make sufficiently precise estimates of the 
location and magnitude of the effects. Consequently, the exact nature 
of the impacts of climate change and increasing temperatures on native 
Hawaiian ecosystems, including the aquatic and riparian habitats of the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, 
are unknown. However, they are likely to include the loss of aquatic 
habitat through reduced stream flow and evaporation of standing water, 
increased streamwater temperature, and the loss of native riparian and 
wetland plants that comprise the habitat in which these two species 
occur (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; 
Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and 14,248).
    Oki (2004, p. 4) has noted long-term evidence of decreased 
precipitation and stream flow in the Hawaiian Islands, based upon 
evidence collected by stream gauging stations. This long-term drying 
trend, coupled with existing ditch diversions and periodic El 
Ni[ntilde]o-caused drying events, has created a pattern of severe and 
persistent stream dewatering events (Polhemus 2008). Future changes in 
precipitation and the forecast of those changes are highly uncertain 
because they depend, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a 
weather cycle (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system in the 
tropical Pacific having important global consequences for weather and 
climate) might change (Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan 1998, pp. 2-
10).
    The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly may be especially vulnerable to extinction due to anticipated 
environmental change that may result from global climate change. 
Environmental changes that may affect these species are expected to 
include habitat loss or alteration and changes in disturbance regimes 
(e.g., storms and hurricanes), in addition to direct physiological 
stress caused by increased stream water temperatures to which the 
native Hawaiian damselfly fauna are not adapted. The probability of a 
species going extinct as a result of these factors increases when its 
range is restricted, habitat decreases, and population numbers decline 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 8). Both of these 
damselfly species have limited environmental tolerances ranges, 
restricted habitat requirements, small population size, and a low 
number of individuals. Therefore, we would expect these species to be 
particularly vulnerable to projected environmental impacts that may 
result from changes in climate, and subsequent impacts to their aquatic 
and riparian habitats (e.g., Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et 
al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and 14,248). We 
believe changes in environmental conditions that may result from 
climate change will likely impact these two species and, according to 
current climate projections, we do not anticipate a reduction in this 
threat any time in the near future.
Summary of Factor A
    The effects of past and present destruction, modification, and 
degradation of native riparian, wetland, and stream habitats threaten 
the continued existence of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, which depend on these habitats, throughout 
their respective ranges. These effects have been or continue to be 
caused by: agriculture and urban development; stream diversion, 
channelization, and dewatering; introduced feral pigs; introduced 
plants; and hurricanes, landslides, and drought. The ongoing and likely 
increasing effects of global climate change are also likely to 
adversely impact, directly or indirectly, the habitat of these two 
species.
    Agriculture and urban development, to date, have caused the loss of 
30 percent of Hawaii's coastal plain wetlands and 80 to 90 percent of 
lowland freshwater habitat in Hawaii. Extensive stream diversions and 
the ongoing dewatering of remaining wetland habitats continue to 
degrade the quality of Pacific Hawaiian damselfly habitat and its 
capability to support viable populations of this species and may also 
negatively affect the habitat of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. 
Ongoing habitat destruction and degradation caused by feral pigs in 
remaining tracts of uluhe-dominated riparian habitat promote the 
establishment and spread of nonnative plants which, in turn, lower or 
destroy the capability of the habitat to support viable populations of 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
    The above threats have caused the extirpation of many flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly populations; as a 
result, their current ranges are very restricted. The combination of 
restricted range, limited habitat quantity and quality, and low 
population size makes each of these species especially vulnerable to 
extinction. Thus we consider the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the habitat and range of the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to pose an 
immediate and significant threat to these species.

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

    Individuals from what may be the single remaining population of the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly were collected by amateur collectors 
as recently as the mid-1990s (Polhemus 2008). Although it is not known 
how many individuals were collected at that time, Polhemus (2008) 
believes this incident resulted in a noticeable decrease in the 
population size. Furthermore, if there is only one population of the 
species left, the decreased reproduction that would result from the 
removal of potentially breeding adults would have a

[[Page 32499]]

potentially significant negative impact on the species.
    There is a market for damselflies that may serve as an incentive to 
collect them. There are internet websites that offer damselfly 
specimens or parts (e.g., wings) for sale. In addition, the internet 
abounds with ``how to'' guides for collecting and preserving damselfly 
specimens (e.g., Abbott 2000, pp. 1-3). After butterflies and large 
beetles, dragonflies and damselflies are probably the most frequently 
collected insects in the world (Polhemus 2009). A rare specimen such as 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly may be particularly attractive to 
potential collectors (Polhemus 2008). Based on the history of 
collection of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, the market for 
damselfly specimens or parts, and the vulnerability of this small 
population to the negative impacts of any collection, we consider the 
potential overutilization of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly to 
pose an immediate and significant threat to this species.
    Unlike the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, which is restricted to 
one remaining population site and which is known to have previously 
been of interest to odonata enthusiasts (Polhemus 2008), we do not 
believe over-collection is currently a threat to the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly because it is comparatively more widespread across several 
population sites on three islands.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The geographic isolation of the Hawaiian Islands restricted the 
number of original successful colonizing arthropods and resulted in the 
development of Hawaii's unusual fauna. Only 15 percent of the known 
families of insects are represented by native Hawaiian species (Howarth 
1990, p. 11). Some groups of insects that often dominate continental 
arthropod fauna, including social Hymenoptera (e.g., ants and wasps) 
were absent during the evolution of Hawaii's unique arthropod fauna. 
Commercial shipping and air cargo, as well as biological introductions 
to Hawaii, have resulted in the establishment of over 3,372 species of 
nonnative insects (Howarth 1990, p. 18; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 52), 
with an estimated continuing establishment rate of 20 to 30 new species 
per year (Beardsley 1962, p. 101; Beardsley 1979, p. 36; Staples and 
Cowie 2001, p. 52).
    Nonnative arthropod predators and parasites have also been 
intentionally imported and released by individuals and governmental 
agencies for biological control of insect pests. Between 1890 and 1985, 
243 nonnative species were introduced, sometimes with the specific 
intent of reducing populations of native Hawaiian insects (Funasaki et 
al. 1988, p. 105; Lai 1988, pp. 186-187). Nonnative arthropods, whether 
purposefully or accidentally introduced, pose a serious threat to 
Hawaii's native insects, including the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly 
and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, through direct predation (Howarth 
and Medeiros 1989, pp. 82-83; Howarth and Ramsay 1991, pp. 81-84; 
Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 54-57).
    In addition to the problems posed by nonnative arthropods, the 
establishment of various nonnative fish, frogs, and toads that act as 
predators on native Hawaiian damselflies has also had a serious 
negative impact on the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly, as discussed below.
Predation by Nonnative Ants
    Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod fauna, and 
the native species of the islands evolved in the absence of predation 
pressure from ants. Ants can be particularly destructive predators 
because of their high densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness, 
and broad range of diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 17-18). The threat of ant 
predation on the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly is amplified by the fact that most ant species have 
winged reproductive adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and can quickly 
establish new colonies in suitable habitats (Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 
55). These attributes allow some ants to destroy otherwise 
geographically isolated populations of native arthropods (Nafus 1993, 
pp. 19, 22-23).
    At least 47 species of ants are known to be established in the 
Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii Ants 2008, pp. 1-11), and at least 4 
particularly aggressive species have severely impacted the native 
insect fauna, likely including native damselflies (Zimmerman 1948b, p. 
173; Reimer et al. 1990, pp. 40-43; HEAR database 2005, pp. 1-2): the 
big headed ant (Pheidole megacephala), the long-legged ant (also known 
as the yellow crazy ant) (Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis papuana 
(no common name), and Solenopsis geminata (no common name). Numerous 
other species of ants are recognized as threats to Hawaii's native 
invertebrates, and an unknown number of new species of ants are 
established every few years (Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 53). Due to 
their preference for drier habitat sites, ants are less likely to occur 
in high densities in the riparian and aquatic habitat currently 
occupied by the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly. However, some species of ants (e.g., the long-
legged ant and Solenopsis papuana) have increased their range into 
these areas.
    The presence of ants in nearly all of the lower elevation habitat 
sites historically occupied by the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may preclude the future recolonization 
of these areas by these two species. Damselfly naiads may be 
particularly susceptible to ant predation when they crawl out of the 
water or seek a terrestrial location for their metamorphosis into the 
adult stage. Likewise, newly emerged adult damselflies are susceptible 
to predation until their wings have sufficiently hardened to permit 
flight, or when the adults are simply resting on vegetation at night 
(Polhemus 2008). In 1998, during a survey of an Oahu stream, 
researchers observed predation by ants upon another damselfly species, 
the orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas) (Englund 
2008).
    The long-legged ant appeared in Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on 
Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). It inhabits 
low to midelevation (less than 2,000 ft (600 m)) rocky areas of 
moderate rainfall (less than 100 in (250 cm) annually) (Reimer et al. 
1990, p. 42). Direct observations indicate that Hawaiian arthropods are 
susceptible to predation by this species. Gillespie and Reimer (1993, 
p. 21) and Hardy (1979, p. 34) documented the impacts to native insects 
within the Kipahulu area on Maui after this area was invaded by the 
long-legged ant. Although only cursory observations exist, long-legged 
ants are thought to be a threat to populations of the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly in mesic areas within its elevation range (Foote 2008).
    Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has 
invaded intact mesic to wet forest from sea level to over 2,000 ft (600 
m) on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still expanding its 
range (Reimer 1993, p. 14). It is likely, based on our knowledge of the 
expanding range of this invasive ant, that it threatens populations of 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly in mesic areas up to 2,000 ft (600 m) 
elevation as well (Foote 2008).
    The rarity or disappearance of native damselfly species, including 
the two species in this proposal, from historical observation sites 
over the past 100 years

[[Page 32500]]

is likely due to a variety of factors. While there is no documentation 
that conclusively ties the decrease in damselfly observations to the 
establishment of nonnative ants in low to montane, and mesic to wet, 
habitats on the Hawaiian Islands, the presence of nonnative ants in 
these habitats and the decline of damselfly observations in these 
habitats suggest that nonnative ants may have played a role in the 
decline of some populations of the two damselflies that are the subject 
of this proposal.
    In summary, observations and reports have documented that ants are 
particularly destructive predators because of their high densities, 
broad range of diet, and ability to establish new colonies in otherwise 
geographically isolated locations because the reproductive adults are 
able to fly. Damselfly naiads are particularly vulnerable to ant 
predation when they crawl out of water or seek a terrestrial location 
for metamorphosis into adults, and newly emerged adults are susceptible 
to predation until they can fly. In particular, the long-legged ant and 
Solenopsis papuana are two aggressive species reported from sea level 
to 2,000 ft (610 m) in elevation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands. 
Since their range overlaps that of both damselfly species, we consider 
these introduced ants to pose an immediate and significant threat to 
both damselfly species. Unless these aggressive nonnative ant predators 
are eliminated or controlled, we expect this threat to continue or 
increase.
Predation by Nonnative Backswimmers
    Backswimmers, so-called because they swim upside down, are aquatic 
``true bugs'' (Heteroptera). Backswimmers are voracious predators and 
frequently feed on prey much larger than themselves, such as tadpoles, 
small fish, and other aquatic insects including damselfly naiads (Heads 
1985, p. 559; Heads 1986, p. 369). Backswimmers are not native to 
Hawaii, but several species have been introduced. Notonecta indica (no 
common name) was first collected on Oahu in the mid-1980s and is 
presently known from Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. Species of Notonecta are 
known to prey on damselfly naiads and the mere presence of this 
predator in the water can cause naiads to reduce foraging (which can 
reduce naiad growth, development, and survival) (Heads 1985, p. 559; 
Heads 1986, p. 369). While there is no documentation that conclusively 
ties the decrease in damselfly observations to the establishment of 
nonnative backswimmers in Hawaiian streams and other aquatic habitat, 
the presence of backswimmers in these habitats and the concurrent 
decline of damselfly observation in some areas suggest that these 
nonnative aquatic insects may have played a role in the decline of some 
damselfly populations, including those of the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly.
    We consider predation by nonnative backswimmers to pose a 
significant and immediate threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
since this species has an aquatic naiad life stage. In addition, the 
presence of these predators in damselfly aquatic habitat causes naiads 
to reduce foraging, which in turn reduces their growth, development, 
and survival. Backswimmers are reported on all of the main Hawaiian 
Islands except Kahoolawe. In the absence of the elimination or control 
of nonnative backswimmers, we expect this threat to continue or 
increase over time.
Predation by Nonnative Fish
    Predation by nonnative fish is a significant threat to Hawaiian 
damselfly species with aquatic life stages, such as the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly. The aquatic naiads tend to rest and feed near or on 
the surface of the water, or on rocks where they are exposed and 
vulnerable to predation by nonnative fish. Hawaii has only five native 
freshwater fish species, comprised of gobies (Gobiidae) and sleepers 
(Eleotridae), that occur on all of the major islands. Because these 
native fish are benthic (bottom) feeders (Kido et al. 1993, pp. 43-44; 
Ego 1956, p. 24; Englund 1999, pp. 236-237), Hawaii's stream-dwelling 
damselfly species probably experienced limited natural predation 
pressure due to their avoidance of benthic areas in preference for 
shallow side channels, sidepools, and higher velocity riffles and seeps 
(Englund 1999, pp. 236-237). While fish predation has been an important 
factor in the evolution of behavior in damselfly naiads in continental 
systems (Johnson 1991, pp. 8), it is speculated that Hawaii's stream-
dwelling damselflies adapted behaviors to avoid the benthic feeding 
habits of native fish species. Additionally, some species of 
damselflies, including some of the native Hawaiian species, are not 
adapted to cohabitate with some fish species, and are found only in 
bodies of water without fish (Henrickson 1988, p. 179; McPeek 1990a, p. 
83). The naiads of the aquatic Pacific Hawaiian damselfly tend to 
occupy more exposed positions and engage in conspicuous foraging 
behavior, thereby increasing their susceptibility to fish predation 
(Englund 1999, p. 232), unlike damselflies which co-evolved with 
predaceous fish (Macan 1977, p. 48; McPeek 1990b, p. 1,714). In 
laboratory studies, Englund (1999, p. 232) found that naiads of the 
orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
invariably were eaten due to their behavior of swimming to the water 
surface when exposed to two nonnative freshwater fish. In the same 
study, naiads of nonnative damselfly species avoided predation by the 
same fish species by remaining still and avoiding surface waters 
(Englund 1999, p. 232).
    Over 70 species of nonnative fish have been introduced into 
Hawaiian freshwater habitats (Devick 1991, p. 190; Englund 1999, p. 
226; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 32; Brasher 2003, p. 1,054; Englund 
2004, p.27; Englund et al. 2007, p. 232); at least 51 species are now 
established in the freshwater habitats of Hawaii (Freshwater Fishes of 
Hawaii 2008). The initial introduction of nonnative fish to Hawaii 
began with the release of food stock species by Asian immigrants at the 
turn of the 20th century; however, the impact of these first 
introductions to Hawaiian damselflies cannot be assessed because they 
predated the initial collection of damselflies in Hawaii (Perkins 1899, 
pp. 64-76).
    In 1905, three species of fish within the Poeciliidae family, 
including the mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) and the sailfin molly 
(Poecilia latipinna), were introduced for biological control of 
mosquitoes (Van Dine 1907, p. 9; Englund 1999, p. 225; Brasher 2003, p. 
1054). In 1922, several additional species were introduced for mosquito 
control, including the green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri), the 
moonfish (Xiphophorus maculatus), and the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). 
By 1935, some Oahu damselfly species, including the orangeblack 
Hawaiian damselfly, were becoming less common, and fish introduced for 
mosquito control were the suspected cause of their decline (Williams 
1936, p. 313; Zimmerman 1948b, p. 341). Current literature clearly 
indicates that the extirpation of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from 
the majority of its historical habitat sites on the main Hawaiian 
Islands is the result of predation by nonnative fish (Moore and Gagne 
1982, p. 4; Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 502; Englund 1999, pp. 235-
237; Brasher 2003, p. 1,055; Englund et al. 2007, p. 215; Polhemus 
2007, pp. 238-239). From 1946 through 1961, several additional 
nonnative fish were introduced for the purpose of controlling nonnative 
aquatic plants, and for angling (Brasher 2003, p. 1,054). In the early 
1980s, several additional species of nonnative fish began appearing in 
stream systems, likely

[[Page 32501]]

originating from the aquarium fish trade (Devick 1991, p. 189; Brasher 
2003, p. 1,054). By 1990, there were an additional 14 species of 
nonnative fish established in waters on Hawaii, Maui, and Molokai. By 
2008, there were at least 17 nonnative freshwater fish established on 
one or more of these islands, including several aggressive predators 
and habitat-altering species such as the channel catfish (Ictalurus 
punctatus) and cichlids (Tilapia sp.) (Devick 1991, pp. 191-192; 
FishBase 2008).
    Currently, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is found only in portions 
of stream systems without nonnative fish (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, 
pp. 493-494; Englund 1999, p. 228; Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al. 
2007, p. 215). There is a strong correlation between the absence of 
nonnative fish species and the presence of Hawaiian damselflies in 
streams on all of the main Hawaiian Islands (Englund 1999, p. 225; 
Englund et al. 2007, p. 215), suggesting that the damselflies cannot 
coexist with nonnative fish. The distribution of some Hawaiian 
damselfly species are now reduced to stream reaches less than 312 ft 
(95 m) in length and that lack invasive fish species (Englund 1999, p. 
229; Englund 2004, p. 27). In 2007, a statewide survey that included 15 
streams on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Molokai found that the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly was not found in streams where the 
introduced Mexican molly (Poecilia mexicana) was present (Englund et 
al. 2007, pp. 214-216, 228). On Oahu, researchers found that the Oahu-
endemic Hawaiian damselflies only occupied habitat sites without 
nonnative fish. For two of these species, a geologic or manmade barrier 
(e.g., waterfalls, steep gradient, dry stream midreaches, or 
constructed diversions) appears to prevent access by the nonnative fish 
species. For this reason, researchers have recommended that 
geologically isolated sites, such as isolated anchialine ponds and 
high-gradient streams interrupted by manmade diversions and those 
entering the coast as waterfalls, be used as restoration sites for 
damselflies on all of the Hawaiian Islands (Englund 2004, p. 27).
    Of the two damselfly species considered in this proposal, the 
aquatic Pacific Hawaiian damselfly appears to have had the greatest 
range contraction due to predation by nonnative fish (Englund 1999, p. 
235; Polhemus 2007, p. 234, 238-240). Once found on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands, it is now found only on Molokai, Maui, and one stream 
on the island of Hawaii below 2,000 ft (600 m) in elevation; all are in 
stream habitat sites free of nonnative fish. The Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly was extirpated from Oahu by 1910 (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, 
p. 502), although Englund (1999, p. 235) found that Oahu still has 
abundant and otherwise suitable lowland and coastal water habitat to 
support this species. However, this aquatic habitat is infested with 
nonnative fish, with some nonnative species occurring up to 1,300 ft 
(400 m) elevation. Englund (1999, p. 236) found that even at sea level, 
artificial wetlands (resulting from taro cultivation) on the island of 
Molokai can support populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly 
because nonnative fish are absent.
    Even the geographically isolated stream headwaters and other 
aquatic habitats where the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly remains extant 
are not secure from the threat of predation by introduced fish species. 
There are many documented cases of people moving nonnative fish from 
one area to another (Brock 1995, pp. 3-4; Englund 1999, p. 237). Once 
nonnative fish species are introduced to aquatic habitats previously 
free of nonnative fish, they often become permanently established 
(Englund and Filbert 1999, p. 151; Englund 1999, pp. 232-233; Englund 
et al. 2007). An example of facilitated fish movement occurred in 2000, 
when an uninformed maintenance worker introduced Tilapia sp. into pools 
located on the grounds of Tripler Hospital that were maintained for the 
benefit of the remaining Oahu population of the orangeblack Hawaiian 
damselfly (Englund 2000).
    The continued introduction and establishment of new species of 
predatory nonnative fish in Hawaiian waters, and the possible movement 
of these nonnative species to new streams and other aquatic habitat, is 
an immediate and significant threat to the survival of the aquatic 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Unless nonnative predatory fish are 
eradicated or effectively controlled in the habitats utilized by the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, we have no reason to believe that there 
will be any significant reduction in this threat at any time in the 
near future. The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly is not known to be 
threatened by predation from nonnative fish species, due to its 
presumed more terrestrial habitats.
Predation by Introduced Frogs and Toads
    Currently, there are three species of introduced aquatic amphibians 
known on the Hawaiian Islands: the North American bullfrog (Rana 
catesbeiana), the cane toad (Bufo marinus), and the Japanese wrinkled 
frog (Rana rugosa). The bullfrog is native to the eastern United States 
and the Great Plains region (Moyle 1973, p. 18; Bury and Whelan 1985 in 
Earlham College 2002, p. 10), and was first introduced into Hawaii in 
1899 (Bryan 1931, p. 63) to help control insects, specifically the 
nonnative Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica), a significant pest of 
ornamental plants (Bryan 1931, p. 62). Bullfrogs were first released 
and quickly became established in the Hilo region on the island of 
Hawaii (Bryan 1931, p. 63). Bullfrogs have demonstrated great success 
in establishing new populations wherever they have been introduced 
(Moyle 1973, p. 19), and now occur on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, 
Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (U.S. Geological Survey 2008b, p. 8). 
This species is flexible in both habitat and food requirements (Bury 
and Whelan 1985 in Earlham College 2002, p. 11), and can utilize any 
water source within its temperature range (60 to 75 oFarenheit (\o\F) 
(16 to 24 \o\Celsius (\o\C)) (DesertUSA 2008). Introduced to areas 
outside its native range, the bullfrog's primary impact is typically 
the elimination of native frog species (Moyle 1973, p. 21). In Hawaii, 
where there are no native frogs, the bullfrog has not been definitively 
implicated in the extirpation of any particular native aquatic species, 
but Englund et al. (2007, pp. 215, 219) found a strong correlation 
between the presence of bullfrogs and the absence of Hawaiian 
damselflies in their 2006 study of streams on all of the main Hawaiian 
Islands. As the bullfrog prefers habitats with dense vegetation and 
relatively calm water (Moyle 1973, p. 19; Bury and Whelan 1985 in 
Earlham College 2002, p. 9), it is likely of particular threat to the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly because this species also prefers calm water 
habitat that is surrounded by dense vegetation. Capable of breeding 
within small pools of water, bullfrogs are also a potential threat to 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly within its uluhe-covered, steep, 
riparian, moist talus slope habitat on Maui.
    Because the effects of possible predation by the cane toad and the 
Japanese wrinkled frog on the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are unknown at this time, the magnitude or 
significance of this potential threat cannot be determined.
    We consider predation by bullfrogs to pose a significant and 
immediate threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, since Englund et 
al. (2007, pp. 215, 219) found a strong correlation between the 
presence of predatory nonnative

[[Page 32502]]

bullfrogs and the absence of Hawaiian damselflies, and the preferred 
habitat of the bullfrog overlaps with that of the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly. Within its riparian habitat, the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly may also be threatened by the bullfrog, which is capable of 
breeding within small pools of water. In the absence of the elimination 
or control of nonnative bullfrogs, we expect that this threat will 
continue or increase in the future.
Summary of Factor C
    Predation by nonnative animal species (ants, backswimmers, fish, 
and bullfrogs) poses an immediate and significant threat to the Pacific 
and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies throughout their ranges, for the 
following reasons:
     Damselfly naiads are vulnerable to predation by ants, and 
the ranges of both the Pacific and flying earwig Hawaiian damselflies 
overlap that of particularly aggressive, nonnative, predatory ant 
species that currently occur from sea level to 2,000 ft (610 m) in 
elevation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands. We consider both of the 
Hawaiian damselflies that are the subject of this proposed rule to be 
threatened by predation by these nonnative ants.
     Nonnative backswimmers prey on damselfly naiads in streams 
and other aquatic habitat, and are considered a threat to the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly since this species has an aquatic naiad life stage. 
In addition, the presence of backswimmers inhibits the foraging 
behavior of damselfly naiads, with negative consequences for 
development and survival. Backswimmers are reported on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands except Kahoolawe.
     The absence of Hawaiian damselflies, including the aquatic 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, in streams and other aquatic habitat on the 
main Hawaiian Islands is strongly correlated with the presence of 
predatory nonnative fish as documented in numerous observations and 
reports (Englund 1999, p. 237; Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al. 
2007, p. 215), thereby suggesting that nonnative predatory fishes 
eliminate native Hawaiian damselflies from these aquatic habitats. 
There are over 51 species of nonnative fishes established in freshwater 
habitats on the Hawaiian Islands from sea level to over 3,800 ft (1,152 
m) in elevation (Devick 1991, p. 190; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 32; 
Brasher 2003, p. 1054; Englund 1999, p. 226; Englund and Polhemus 2001; 
Englund 2004, p. 27; Englund et al. 2007, p. 232). Predation by 
nonnative fishes is considered to pose a significant and immediate 
threat to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly due to its aquatic habit.
     Englund et al. (2007, pp. 215, 219) found a strong 
correlation between the presence of nonnative bullfrogs and the absence 
of Hawaiian damselflies. Bullfrogs are reported on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands, except Kahoolawe and Niihau. The Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly is likely threatened by bullfrogs, due to their shared 
preference for similar habitat, and the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly may also be threatened within its riparian habitat by the 
bullfrog, which is capable of breeding within small pools of water.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Inadequate Habitat Protection
    Currently, there are no Federal, State, or local laws, treaties, or 
regulations that specifically conserve or protect the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from the threats 
described in this proposed rule. The State of Hawaii considers all 
natural flowing surface water (streams, springs, and seeps) as State 
property (Hawaii Revised Statutes 174c 1987), and the Hawaii Department 
of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has management responsibility for 
the aquatic organisms in these waters (Hawaii Revised Statutes 
Annotated, 1988, Title 12; 1992 Cumulative Supplement). Thus, damselfly 
populations associated with streams, seeps, and springs are under the 
jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, regardless of the ownership of the 
property across which the stream flows. This includes all populations 
of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
    The State of Hawaii manages the use of surface and ground water 
resources through the Commission on Water Resource Management (Water 
Commission), as mandated by the 1987 State Water Code (State Water 
Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 174C-71, 174C-81-87, and 174C-
9195 and Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13, 
Chapters 168 and 169). In the State Water Code, there are no formal 
requirements that project proponents or the Water Commission protect 
the habitats of fish and wildlife prior to issuance of a permit to 
modify surface or ground water resources.
    The maintenance of instream flow, which is needed to protect the 
habitat of damselflies and other aquatic wildlife, is regulated by the 
establishment of standards on a stream-by-stream basis (State Water 
Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 174C-71 and Administrative Rules 
of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169). Currently, the interim 
instream flow standards represent the existing flow conditions in 
streams in the State (as of June 15, 1988, for Molokai, Hawaii, Kauai 
and east Maui; and October 19, 1988, for west Maui and leeward Oahu) 
(Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169-
44-49). However, the State Water Code does not provide for permanent or 
minimal instream flow standards for the protection of aquatic wildlife. 
Instead, modification of instream flow standards and stream channels 
can be undertaken at any time by the Water Commission or via public 
petitions to revise flow standards or modify stream channels in a 
specified stream (Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 
13, Chapter 169-36). Additionally, the Water Commission must consider 
economic benefits gained from out-of-stream water uses, and is not 
required to balance these benefits against instream benefits to aquatic 
fish and wildlife. Consequently, any stabilization of stream flow for 
the protection of Pacific Hawaiian damselfly habitat is subject to 
modification at a future date.
    The natural value of Hawaii's stream systems has been recognized 
under the State of Hawaii Instream Use Protection Program 
(Administrative Rules of the State Water Code, Title 13, Chapter 169-
20(2)). In the Hawaii Stream Assessment Report (1990), prepared in 
coordination with the National Park Service, the State Water Commission 
identified high quality rivers or streams, or portions of rivers or 
streams that may be placed within a wild and scenic river system. This 
report recommended that streams meeting certain criteria be protected 
from further development. However, there is no formal or institutional 
mechanism within the State's Water Code to designate and set aside 
these streams, or to identify and protect stream habitat for Hawaiian 
damselflies.
    Existing Federal regulatory mechanisms that may protect Hawaiian 
damselflies and their habitat are also inadequate. The Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) has very limited jurisdiction in Hawaii. 
Hawaii's streams are isolated on individual islands and run quickly 
down steep volcanic slopes. There are no interstate rivers in Hawaii, 
few if any streams crossing Federal land, and no Federal dams. Hawaii's 
streams are generally not navigable. Thus, licensing of hydroelectric 
projects in Hawaii generally does not come under the purview of FERC, 
although hydropower developers in Hawaii may voluntarily seek licensing 
under FERC.

[[Page 32503]]

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) also has some regulatory 
control over modifications of freshwater streams in the United States. 
For modifications (e.g., discharge of fill) of streams with an average 
annual flow greater than 5 cubic ft per second (cfs), the COE can issue 
individual permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These 
permits are subject to public review, and must comply with the 
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines and public 
comment requirements. However, in issuing these permits, the COE does 
not establish instream flow standards as a matter of policy. The COE 
normally considers that the public interest for instream flow is 
represented by the state water allocation rights or preferences 
(Regulatory Guidance Letter No 85-6), and project alternatives that 
supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair the state water quantity 
allocations are not normally addressed as alternatives during permit 
review.
    In cases where the COE district engineer does propose to impose 
instream flow standard on an individual permit, this flow standard must 
reflect a substantial national interest. Additionally, if this instream 
flow standard is in conflict with a State water quantity allocation, 
then it must be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Chief 
Engineer in Washington, D.C. (Regulatory Guidance Letter No 85-6). 
Currently, the setting of instream flow standards sufficient to 
conserve Hawaiian damselflies is not a condition that would be 
considered or included in a Hawaii Department of Agriculture individual 
permit (DLNR, Commission on Water Resource Management 2006, p. 2).
    The COE may also authorize the discharge of fill into streams with 
an average annual flow of less than 5 cfs. These discharges are covered 
under a nationwide permit (33 CFR 330). This permit is designed to 
expedite small-scale activities that the COE considers to have only 
minimal environmental impacts (33 CFR 330.1(b)). The Service and the 
Hawaii DLNR have only 15 days to provide substantive site-specific 
comments prior to the issuance of a nationwide permit. Given the 
complexity of the impacts on Hawaiian damselflies from stream 
modifications and surface water diversions, the remoteness of project 
sites, and the types of studies necessary to determine project impacts 
and mitigation, this limited comment period does not allow time for an 
adequate assessment of impacts.
    One population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly occurs in Palikea 
Stream on Maui, which flows through Haleakala National Park. On 
Molokai, populations of this damselfly species occur at the mouth of 
Pelekunu Stream, which flows through a preserve managed by The Nature 
Conservancy, and in lower Waikolu Stream, which flows through Kalaupapa 
National Historic Park. However, the landowners do not own the water 
rights to any of the streams, and thus cannot fully manage the 
conservation of any of these damselfly populations.
    Because there are currently no Federal, State, or local laws, 
treaties, or regulations that specifically conserve or protect habitat 
of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly from the threats described in this proposed rule, all of 
these threats remain immediate and significant. The habitat of both 
species continues to be reduced, degraded, and altered by past and 
present manmade alterations to streams and riparian zones and by the 
indirect impacts of nonnative plant and animal species to remaining 
habitat areas.
Inadequate Protection from Introduction of Nonnative Species
    As discussed above (see Factor C. Disease or Predation), predation 
by nonnative species (fish, insects, and bullfrogs) is one of the most 
significant threats to the survival of the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.
    Based on historical and current rates of aquatic species 
introductions (both purposeful and accidental), existing State and 
Federal regulatory mechanisms are not adequately preventing the spread 
of nonnative species between islands and watersheds in Hawaii. The 
Hawaii Department of Agriculture has administrative rules in place that 
address importation of nonnative species and establish a permit process 
for such activities (Hawaii Administrative Rules Sec. 4-71). The 
Division of Aquatic Resources within the Hawaii Department of Land and 
Natural Resources (HDLNR) has authority to seize, confiscate, or 
destroy as a public nuisance, any fish or other aquatic life found in 
any waters of the State and whose importation is prohibited or 
restricted pursuant to rules of the Department of Agriculture (Section 
187A-2(4 H.R.S.Sec. 187A-6.5)). Although State and Federal regulations 
are now firmly in place to prevent the unauthorized entry of nonnative 
aquatic species into the State of Hawaii, movement of species between 
islands and from one watershed to the next remains problematic even 
while prohibited (HDOA 2003, pp. 2/12 - 2/14). For example, while 
unauthorized movement of an aquatic species from one watershed to the 
next may be prohibited, there simply is not enough government funding 
to adequately enforce such regulation or to provide for sufficient 
inspection services and monitoring, although this priority need is 
recognized (Cravalho 2009). Furthermore, due to the complexity of the 
pathways of invasion by aquatic species (i.e., intentional, 
inadvertent, and by forces of nature), many components contributing to 
the problem may be better addressed through greater public outreach and 
education (Montgomery 2009).
    On the basis of the above information, existing regulatory 
mechanisms do not adequately protect the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly or the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly from the threat of 
established nonnative species (particularly fish and insect species) 
spreading between islands and watersheds, where they may prey upon or 
directly compete with the two damselfly species for food and space. 
Because current Federal, State, and local laws, treaties, and 
regulations are inadequate to prevent the spread of nonnative aquatic 
animals between islands and watersheds, the impacts from these 
introduced threats remain immediate and significant. From habitat-
altering nonnative plant species to predation or competition caused by 
frogs, nonnative fish, and insect species, the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly and the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly are immediately and 
significantly threatened by former and new plant and animal 
introductions within the damselflies' remaining habitat.
Summary of Factor D
    The aquatic habitat of the flying earwig and the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselflies is under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, which 
also has management responsibility for aquatic organisms. However, the 
State Water Code has no regulatory mechanism in place to protect these 
species or their habitat. The State Water Code does not provide for 
permanent or minimum instream flow standards for the protection of 
aquatic ecosystems upon which these damselfly species depend, and does 
not contain a regulatory mechanism for identifying and protecting 
damselfly habitat under a wild and scenic river designation.
    To date, administration of the Clean Water Act permitting program 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not provided substantive 
protection of damselfly habitat, including any requirements for 
retention of adequate instream flows.

[[Page 32504]]

    Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not preventing 
the spread of nonnative animal species between islands and watersheds. 
Predation by nonnative animal species poses a major ongoing threat to 
the flying earwig and the Pacific Hawaiian damselflies. Because 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to maintain aquatic 
habitat for the damselflies and to prevent the spread of nonnative 
species, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is considered 
to be a significant and immediate threat.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting [Their] Continued 
Existence

Small Numbers of Populations and Individuals
    Species that are endemic to single islands or known from few, 
widely dispersed locations are inherently more vulnerable to extinction 
than widespread species because of the higher risks from genetic 
bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change, and 
localized catastrophes such as hurricanes, landslides, and drought 
(Lande 1988, p. 1,455; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988, 
p. 757). These problems are further magnified when populations are few 
and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of 
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face 
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in 
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process 
described as an ``extinction vortex'' by Gilpin and Soul[eacute] (1986, 
pp. 24-25). Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level 
of genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which 
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental 
changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence 
(e.g., Frankham 2003, pp. S22-S29; Soule 1980, pp. 151-169). The 
problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to 
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further 
magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats, such as those 
discussed above (Factors A-C).
    Jordan et al. (2007, p. 247) showed in their genetic and 
comparative phylogeography analysis (study of historical processes 
responsible for genetic divergence within a species) of four 
Megalagrion species that the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly may be more 
susceptible to problems linked to low genetic diversity compared to 
other Hawaiian damselfly species. Both Maui and Molokai populations of 
this species were analyzed, and results suggested that the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly may not disperse well across both land and water, 
which may have led to the low genetic diversity observed in the two 
populations sampled. The authors proposed that populations of the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly be monitored and managed to understand the 
conservation needs of this species and the threat of population 
bottlenecks (Jordan et al. 2007, p. 258). Unfortunately, this study did 
not include an analysis of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly. 
However, given that this species may now be reduced to a single 
population, the potential loss of genetic diversity is a concern for 
the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly as well.
    The small number of remaining populations of the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly (now possibly reduced to a single remaining 
population) puts this species at significant risk of extinction from 
stochastic events, such as hurricanes, landslides, or prolonged drought 
(Jones et al. 1984, p. 209). For example, Polhemus (1993, p. 87) 
documented the extirpation of a related damselfly species, Megalagrion 
vagabundum, from the entire Hanakapiai Stream system on Kauai as a 
result of the impacts from Hurricane Iniki in 1992. Such stochastic 
events thus pose the threat of immediate extinction of a species with a 
very small and geographically restricted distribution, as in the case 
of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly.
Summary of Factor E
    The threat to the flying earwig and Pacific Hawaiian damselflies 
from limited numbers of populations and individuals is significant and 
immediate for the following reasons:
     Each of these species is subject to potentially reduced 
reproductive vigor due to inbreeding depression, particularly the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly which is now apparently restricted to 
one population;
     Each of these species is subject to reduced levels of 
genetic variability that may diminish their capacity to adapt and 
respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of 
their long-term persistence;
     Since there may be only one remaining population of the 
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly that occurs in a relatively restricted 
geographic location, a single catastrophic event, such as a hurricane 
or landslide, could result in the extinction of the species. Likewise, 
the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, with several small, widely dispersed 
populations, would be vulnerable to the extirpation of remaining 
populations; and
     Species with few populations and a small number of 
individuals, such as the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly, are less resilient to threats that might otherwise 
have a relatively minor impact on a larger population. For example, the 
reduced availability of breeding habitat or an increase in predation of 
naiads that might be absorbed in a relatively large population could 
result in a significant decrease in survivorship or reproduction of a 
relatively small, isolated population. The small population size of 
these two species thus magnifies the severity of the impact of the 
other threats discussed in this proposed rule.

Conclusion and Proposed Listing Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly. We find that both of these species face immediate and 
significant threats throughout their ranges:
     Both the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly and the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly face threats from past and present destruction, 
modification, and curtailment of their habitats, primarily from: 
agriculture and urban development; stream diversion, channelization, 
and dewatering; feral pigs and nonnative plants; and from stochastic 
events like hurricanes, landslides, and drought. The changing 
environmental conditions that may result from climate change 
(particularly rising temperatures) are also likely to threaten these 
two damselfly species (compounded because of the two species' small 
population sizes and limited distributions), although currently there 
is limited information on the exact nature of these impacts (see 
discussion under Factor A).
     The only known population of the flying earwig Hawaiian 
damselfly is immediately and significantly threatened by potential 
recreational collection (Factor B).
     Both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly are subject to an immediate and significant threat 
of predation by nonnative insects (ants) and bullfrogs. The Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly is also similarly threatened by backswimmers and 
nonnative fish (Factor C).
     The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., 
inadequate

[[Page 32505]]

protection of stream habitat and inadequate protection from the 
introduction of nonnative species) poses a threat to both species of 
Hawaiian damselfly, as discussed under Factor D above.
     Both of these species face an immediate and significant 
threat from extinction due to factors associated with small numbers of 
populations and individuals as discussed under Factor E above.
    All of the above threats are exacerbated by the inherent 
vulnerability of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly to extinction from stochastic events at any time 
because of their endemism (indigenousness), small numbers of 
individuals and populations, and restricted habitats.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that each of these two species 
endemic to Hawaii is presently in danger of extinction throughout its 
entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the 
threats described above. Therefore, on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly as 
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Each of the two endemic damselfly 
species proposed for listing in this rule is highly restricted in its 
range and the threats occur throughout its range. Therefore, we 
assessed the status of each species throughout its entire range. In 
each case, the threats to the survival of these species occur 
throughout the species' range and are not restricted to any particular 
significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and 
proposed determination applies to each species throughout its entire 
range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation actions by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, 
private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation 
with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for 
all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information 
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, 
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or 
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans 
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery 
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery 
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, non-government organizations, and stakeholders) are often 
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery 
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be 
available from our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and 
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.
    If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Hawaii would be eligible 
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the 
protection and recovery of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly are only proposed for listing under the Act at this 
time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to 
submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require

[[Page 32506]]

conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include, but are not limited to: Army Corps of Engineers 
involvement in projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, 
and dredging projects, subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 
of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
authorized discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES); U.S. Department of Agriculture involvement 
in the release or permitting of the release of biological control 
agents under the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj); 
military training and related activity carried out by the U.S. 
Department of Defense; and projects by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Federal Highways Administration, and the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or attempt any of these), import, export, ship in 
interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It 
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions 
apply to our agents and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species 
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result 
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import 
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for 
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years 
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the two damselflies, such as the introduction of competing, 
nonnative insects or predatory fish to the State of Hawaii;
    (3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of these species;
    (4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any 
stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any 
body of water in which the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are known to occur; and
    (5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any 
waters in which the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific 
Hawaiian damselfly are known to occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 
N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-2063; 
facsimile 503-231-6243).
    If these two Hawaiian damselflies are listed under the Act, the 
State of Hawaii's Endangered Species Act (HRS, Sect. 195D-4(a)) is 
automatically invoked, which would also prohibit take of these species 
and encourage conservation by State government agencies. Further, the 
State may enter into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and 
manage any area required for the conservation, management, enhancement, 
or protection of endangered species (HRS, Sect. 195D-5(c)). Funds for 
these activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act 
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to 
these species by listing them as endangered species will be reinforced 
and supplemented by protection under State law.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
     (I) essential to the conservation of the species and
    (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public access to private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where a landowner 
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may 
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the 
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal 
action

[[Page 32507]]

agency's and landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the 
species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas containing the 
physical and biological features, which are the Primary Constituent 
Elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement that are essential to the conservation of the species. 
Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 
critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed only when we determine that those 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species and that 
designation limited to those areas occupied at the time of listing 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub.L. 106-
554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat 
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.
    Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but 
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be 
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific 
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts warrants otherwise.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations 
(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The 
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat 
would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a 
critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. We 
find that the designation of critical habitat for the two damselfly 
species addressed in this rule will benefit them by: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act for Federal actions where 
consultation would not otherwise occur because, for example, the 
affected area has become unoccupied by the species or the occupancy is 
in question; (2) focusing conservation efforts on the most essential 
habitat features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits about 
the species to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) 
preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any 
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. On the 
island of Maui, one population of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly occurs 
in a stream that flows through Haleakala National Park, and on the 
island of Molokai, one population of this species occurs in the lower 
section of a stream that flows through Kalaupapa National Historical 
Park. The National Park Service regulations and Federal laws protect 
all animals in national parks from harassment or destruction. 
Nevertheless, lands that may be designated as critical habitat in the 
future for this species may be subject to Federal actions that trigger 
the section 7 consultation requirement, such as the granting of Federal 
monies for conservation projects or the need for Federal permits for 
projects, such as the construction and maintenance of aqueducts and 
bridges subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq.). There may also be some educational or informational benefits 
to the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include 
the notification of landowners, land managers, and the general public 
of the importance of protecting the habitat of these species. Critical 
habitat may play a role in protecting habitat for future 
reintroductions of a species as well. For example, although the flying 
earwig Hawaiian damselfly formerly inhabited areas that are not 
currently occupied by the species, if those currently unoccupied areas 
are determined to be essential to the survival and recovery of the 
species, they may be proposed for designation of critical habitat. This 
would alert the public that these areas are important for the future 
recovery of the species, as well as invoke the protection of these 
areas under section 7 of the Act with regard to any possible Federal 
actions in that area. These aspects of critical habitat designation 
would potentially benefit the conservation of both the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly. Although 
collection has been identified as a threat to the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly, we believe that collection poses a potential threat 
to this rare species regardless of the designation of critical habitat. 
Therefore, since we have determined that the identification of critical 
habitat will not increase the degree of threats to these species and 
because the designation may provide

[[Page 32508]]

some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat 
is prudent for both the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing 
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable 
when one or both of the following situations exist:
     (A) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (B) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied 
by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, 
we consider the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species which may require special management 
considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing (or development) of 
offspring; and generally
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    As required by 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are to list the known primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) with our description of critical habitat. 
The the physical and biological features are the PCEs laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement, which are essential to 
the conservation of the species. These may be based upon, but are not 
limited to: roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding 
sites, seasonal wetlands or drylands, water quality or quantity, 
vegetation type, plant host species and associated pollinators, 
geological formations, tides, and specific soil types.
    We are currently unable to identify the physical and biological 
features that are considered essential to the conservation of either 
damselfly species, because information on these is not available at 
this time. Key features of the life histories of these damselfly 
species, such as longevity, larval stage requirements, and fecundity, 
remain unknown. The aquatic and associated upland habitats where the 
populations of the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are found have been 
modified and altered by development and agriculture; stream diversions, 
channelization, dewatering; and nonnative plants. In addition, 
introduced ants, backswimmers, bullfrogs, and predatory nonnative fish 
have altered and degraded the habitat for the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly. Likewise, the uluhe moist talus slope habitats where 
populations of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly once occurred have 
been modified and altered by agriculture; stream diversions, 
channelization, dewatering; and the presence of feral pigs, nonnative 
plants, and introduced ants and bullfrogs. Historically, both of these 
damselfly species were much more widespread and occurred in habitats 
found on several different islands. Because over a century has elapsed 
since these species were observed in an unaltered environment, the 
optimal conditions that provide the biological or ecological requisites 
of these species are not known. As described above, we can surmise that 
habitat degradation from a variety of factors and predation by a number 
of nonnative species has contributed to the decline of these species; 
however, we do not know the physical or biological features that are 
essential for either of the two damselflies addressed in this proposed 
rule. As we are unable to identify the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of these species, we are unable to 
identify areas that contain these features.
    Although we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the 
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, the biological needs of these species are 
not sufficiently well known to permit identification of the physical 
and biological features that may be essential for the conservation of 
the species, or those areas essential to the conservation of the 
species. Therefore, we find that critical habitat for the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is not 
determinable at this time. We intend to continue gathering information 
regarding the essential life history requirements of the flying earwig 
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly to facilitate 
identification of essential features and areas. We will evaluate the 
needs of the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian 
damselfly within the ecological context of the broader ecosystems in 
which they occur, similar to the approach that we recently used in our 
proposal to designate critical habitat for 47 species endemic to the 
island of Kauai (October 21, 2008; 73 FR 62592), and will consider the 
utility of using this approach for these species as well.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our proposed rule is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. We have posted our proposed peer review plan 
on our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/informationquality/index.htm. We will send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed 
rule, immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
have invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment 
period on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposal to 
list two Hawaiian damselfly species as endangered and our decision 
regarding critical habitat for these species.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such 
requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.
    Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate 
in a public hearing should contact the Pacific Islands Fish and 
Wildlife Office at 808-792-9400, as soon as possible. To allow 
sufficient time to

[[Page 32509]]

process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing 
date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in 
alternative formats upon request.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ``ADDRESSES'' section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the 
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose 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. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Damselfly, flying 
earwig Hawaiian'' and ``Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian'' to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Insects 
to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                   population where                                         Critical
                                                  Historic range     endangered or        Status         When listed        habitat       Special rules
         Common name            Scientific name                       threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
INSECTS
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damselfly, flying earwig       Megalagrion       U.S.A. (HI)       NA                E                 TBD              NA               NA
 Hawaiian                       nesiotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian    Megalagrion       U.S.A. (HI)       NA                E                 TBD              NA               NA
                                pacificum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 32510]]

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-16087 Filed 7-7- 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S