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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 17, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 11)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3964-3976]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ja01-37]

[[Page 3964]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG23

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 3965]]

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

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

[[Page 3966]]

Discussion of the 12 Species Proposed for Listing

Drosophila aglaia

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

Drosophila differens

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

Drosophila hemipeza

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

Drosophila heteroneura

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

Drosophila montgomeryi

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

[[Page 3967]]

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

Drosophila mulli

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

Drosophila musaphilia

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

Drosophila neoclavisetae

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

Drosophila obatai

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

[[Page 3968]]

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

Drosophila ochrobasisn

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

Drosophila substenoptera

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

Drosophila tarphytrichia

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Summary of Factors Affecting These Species

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

[[Page 3969]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3970]]

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

[[Page 3971]]

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

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

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

C. Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 3972]]

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

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

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

Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 3973]]

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

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 3974]]

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

Public Comments Solicited

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

[[Page 3975]]

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

Electronic Access and Filing

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

References Cited

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

Author

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
------------------------------------------------------------ Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
INSECTS

* * * * * * *
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila aglaia..... U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila differens.. U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila hemipeza... U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila heteroneura U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila montgomeryi U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila mulli...... U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila musaphilia. U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
neoclavisetae.
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila obatai..... U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila ochrobasis. U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila U.S.A. (HI)........... NA.................... E NA NA
substenoptera.

[[Page 3976]]

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

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation