[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5119]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 7, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB66

 

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the 
Hungerford's crawling water beetle (Brychius hungerfordi Spangler) to 
be an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) 
of 1973 as amended. The species is a small, rare beetle that lives in 
the cool riffles of clean, slightly alkaline streams. The species is 
known to occur in only three isolated locations: The East Branch of the 
Maple River, Emmet County, Michigan; the East Branch of the Black 
River, Montmorency County, Michigan; and the North Saugeen River at 
Scone, Bruce County, Ontario. The two Michigan sites are in the 
Cheboygan River watershed. This species is threatened by the rarity of 
the type locality in association with alteration of its stream habitat 
as a result of beaver dam management. Other potential contributing 
factors include fisheries management, logging, impoundment, bank 
stabilization, stream pollution and general stream degradation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection 
during normal business hours at the Division of Endangered Species, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 
One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Adair, Chief, Division of Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES 
above) at 612/725-3276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Hungerford's crawling water beetle, Brychius hungerfordi, was first 
identified by Spangler in 1954 (Spangler 1954). The bettle is a member 
of an uncommon genus in the Family Haliplidae and Order Coleoptera. It 
can be distinguished from all other beetles as follows (from Wilsmann 
and Strand 1990):


    Brychius hungerfordi is a small (4.20 mm), distinctive, 
yellowish brown beetle with irregular dark markings and longitudinal 
stripes on the elytra, each of which is comprised of a series of 
fine, closely spaced and darkly pigmented punctures. Males tend to 
be smaller than females. In Spangler's (1954) original series, 
specimens ranged from 3.70 mm in length and 1.90 mm in width (a 
male) to 4.35 mm in length and 2.25 mm in width (a female). Males 
are characterized by thickened tarsal segments of the front legs 
with small tufts of hair on the first three segments. B. hungerfordi 
can be differentiated from all other Haliplidae in Michigan by the 
shape of its pronotum, the sides of which are nearly parallel for 
the basal \2/3\ (Hilsenhoff and Brigham, 1978) and are widened mid-
laterally.


    This small, rare beetle lives in the cool riffles of clean, 
slightly alkaline streams. The species is known to occur in only three 
isolated locations: The East Branch of the Maple River, Emmet County, 
Michigan; the East Branch of the Black River, Montmorency County, 
Michigan; and the North Saugeen River at Scone, Bruce County, Ontario. 
The two Michigan sites are in the Cheboygan River watershed. The 
disjunct distribution of this species suggests that it is a relict from 
glacial periods when cool, fast moving streams were more prevalent and 
the beetle was more widespread. It is speculated that human activities 
such as fish management, logging, beaver control management, dredging, 
stream pollution, and general stream degradation have contributed to 
the reduction of its habitat (Wilsmann and Strand 1990).
    On May 22, 1984, the Service published in the Federal Register (49 
FR 21664) its first listing of invertebrate animal species being 
considered for listing under the Act (Animal Notice of Review) which 
included the Hungerford's crawling water beetle. Hungerford's crawling 
water beetle appeared again in the January 6, 1989, Animal Notice of 
Review (54 FR 544) as a Category 2 species. Category 2 comprises taxa 
for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which the 
information necessary to list is lacking. It was again listed as 
Category 2 in the November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of Review (56 FR 
58804). However, given the research by Wilsmann and Strand (1990), it 
should have been listed as a Category 1 at that time. The listing 
priority is 2. The research results of Wilsmann and Strand indicate 
that the species occurs in only three vulnerable, isolated locations 
and should receive protection of the Act. The Service analyzed the 
status survey, as well as other information, and determined that the 
beetle is facing serious threats and should be protected as an 
endangered species.
    All of the sites where the beetles have been found are 
characterized by moderate to fast stream flow, good stream aeration, 
inorganic substrate, and alkaline water conditions. Streams like those 
in which B. hungerfordi occur are common in the Great Lakes States. 
Although these areas have been extensively surveyed for invertebrates 
in the last 30 years, no additional populations have been discovered 
(Wilsmann and Strand 1990). Roughley (1989a) surveyed 30 to 40 
potential locations in Ontario and 5 sites in Michigan. The survey 
resulted in the discovery of the only known B. hungerfordi population 
in Canada. White (1989b) surveyed portions of lower and upper Michigan, 
Hilsenhoff and Brigham (1978) surveyed Wisconsin, and Wallace (Brigham 
1982) surveyed Minnesota and southern Canada without finding any new 
populations of B. hungerfordi. Strand (1989) surveyed streams in Emmet, 
Cheboygan, Presque Isle, Montmorency, and Otsego counties and found B. 
hungerfordi in 15 of 128 sampling stations. Of these, 14 occurred near 
the type location in the East Branch of the Maple River and so were 
effectively from the same population. The remaining site, in the East 
Branch of the Black River, was the only new population that has been 
found in the United States since the species was discovered.
    The largest population presently occurs in the East Branch of the 
Maple River in a pristine portion of stream on the boundary of the 
University of Michigan Biological Station. This population is estimated 
to include 200 to 500 individuals while the other two populations are 
thought to be much smaller (White 1986b, Wilsmann and Strand 1990). The 
East Branch of the Maple River is a small stream surrounded by forest 
with a partially open canopy so sunlight reaches the water. The stream 
is cool (15-20 deg. C) with a relatively fast flowing current (>50 cm 
per second) and a substrate of limestone gravel and rock (White 1986b). 
The forest is intact, the beaver population is healthy, and their dams 
function to stabilize water levels so the riffles below the dams remain 
predictable from year to year (Wilsmann and Strand 1990). At the Black 
River site, the beetles occur in a moderately fast current in fairly 
shallow water. The site in Ontario has been degraded by road 
construction and the beetles occur in the riffles below an old 
millrace. The swift currents in these locations maintain a mineral 
substrate.
    White (1986) concluded that the East Branch of the Maple River at 
the type locality provides fast-flowing, deep riffles, and Cladophora 
attached to larger rocks coupled with a lack of fast-water water-column 
predators (i.e., trout). Although some trout exist in the East Branch 
of the Maple River, it is speculated that warm summer water 
temperatures (>25 deg. C) force the population to remain in Lake 
Kathleen except during cooler months of the year. Because adult beetles 
must swim to the surface for air, they are vulnerable to predation by 
fish, tadpoles and other aquatic insects (Hickman 1931; Wilsmann and 
Strand 1990).
    The life history of B. hungerfordi is not known. The beetles are 
thought to live longer than one year and to overwinter as larvae in the 
dense aquatic vegetation at the stream's edge (Wilsmann and Strand 
1990). As with other Haliplidae, larvae probably go through three 
instar phases and pupate in the moist soil above the water line 
(Hickman 1929; White, Brigham, and Doyen 1984). Adults and larvae are 
seldom captured together and they appear to inhabit different 
microhabitats in the stream. Adults are more apt to be found in 
stronger currents, foraging for algae on gravel and stones. Both adults 
and larvae are herbivorous but very little is known about their 
specific dietary requirements or feeding adaptations (White 1986a, 
1986b). Wilsmann and Strand (1990) reported, ``The small size of B. 
hungerfordi adults prevented direct observation of food ingestion. 
However, it is likely that they scrape food material from rocks by 
grasping with their tarsal claws and scraping with their distally 
flattened and single notched mandibles which are slightly medially 
cupped. This speculation is based on observations of the beetles 
crawling from rock to rock, stopping occasionally to grip a rock for 
varying lengths of time.''
    Compared to other Haliplidae, the adults are strong swimmers and 
they obtain oxygen by swimming to the surface or crawling to the water 
line at the edge of the stream. Larvae obtain oxygen directly from the 
water and are found in association with dense mats of vegetation 
(Chara, Nitella, or Cladophora) which offer protection and foraging. 
The growth form of this vegetative cover may be more important than the 
plant composition (Brigham 1990, pers comm. in Wilsmann and Strand 
1990).
    There is no evidence that B. hungerfordi has a dispersal flight. No 
adults have been found at blacklight stations, and the adults seem 
unusually reluctant to fly. This was observed during Wilsmann and 
Strand's (1990) survey when B. hungerfordi were removed from the water 
for 30 minutes and did not attempt to fly. An unexpected result given 
that most other aquatic insects would have attempted to fly after this 
period of desiccation. It is possible, therefore, that if this species 
disperses by flying, it is during a very brief period of time in the 
spring. The primary mode of dispersal appears to be movement within the 
stream system.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the March 2, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 12013), all interested 
parties were requested to submit factual reports or information that 
might contribute to the development of a final rule. Appropriate State 
agencies, county governments, Federal agencies, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting public comment were 
published in 6 Michigan newspapers.
    Four written comments and three responses via telephone were 
received from the following: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 
Algonquin Group (Michigan's Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club), Dr. 
Wayne Owen of Idaho, Mr. Robert Almquist of Ohio, Michigan Department 
of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, and Isle Royale National Park, Michigan. 
Comments supporting the proposal were received from the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources, Algonquin Group Michigan's Mackinac 
Chapter of the Sierra Club, Dr. Wayne, Owen of Idaho, and Mr. Robert 
Almquist of Ohio. Three comments provided thoughts about the species 
but did not take a position on the listing.#
    The primary issue raised was the need to obtain additional 
information regarding the species' distribution, life history, and 
threats to afford adequate protection and management. The information 
is necessary to clarify and/or substantiate the threats stated in the 
proposed rule as sources responsible for the species' decline. 
Specifically stating the role of fish management, beaver dam removal 
and dredging as primary threats for the decline of the species was 
speculative, based on incomplete data and not substantiated by the 
references cited. If managed appropriately, some of the threats may be 
beneficial to the continued existence and management of B. hungerfordi 
and its habitat.
    The Service recognizes the need for further surveys and studies on 
the life history, distribution and ecology of the species. The Service 
considered all comments received and has incorporated them into this 
final rule as appropriate.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all available 
information, the Service has determined that the Hungerford's crawling 
water beetle Brychius hungerfordi should be classified as an endangered 
species. Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to 
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to Hungerford's crawling water beetle (B. hungerfordi 
Spangler) are as follows:

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

    Although natural succession in the type locality is not completely 
understood, it appears, that human activities in or near the habitat 
can speed up succession and subsequent loss of the Hungerford's 
crawling water beetle. For example, removal of existing beaver dams 
upstream from B. hungerfordi populations poses as significant threat to 
the beetle. The downstream side of beaver dams serve as a riffle and 
aeration site because they retain sediments and organic material, raise 
water temperatures, and modify nutrient cycling, decomposition 
dynamics, and riparian zone structure and composition. The highest 
density locations of B. hungerfordi are below beaver dams or 
immediately below structures that provide similar conditions to those 
found downstream from beaver impoundments (Wilsmann and Strand 1990).
    Potential threats that may result in modification of the species 
habitat include certain fish management activities such as removal or 
introduction of fish, stream side logging and heavy siltation resulting 
from logging, impoundment, bank stabilization with structures creating 
an artificial shoreline, stream pollution, and general stream 
degradation. In Michigan, one site already has been impounded 
downstream by a dam, and the Ontario site has been impounded upstream 
(Roughley 1989b). The Service recognizes that further research and 
surveys are required since much is not known about the distribution, 
ecology and the effects of the potential threats on the species.
    Given the rapid rate of recreational development and the demands 
for fish, wildlife, and forest management in northern Michigan, unknown 
populations of B. hungerfordi could easily be extirpated before they 
are discovered, increasing the need to protect existing populations. 
Because only three small populations of this species are known to 
exist, loss of even a few individuals could extirpate the species from 
some locations (Wilsmann and Strand 1990) and thus severely affect the 
continued existence of the species.
    The Michigan Department of Natural Resources issued a permit 
allowing the construction of an experimental stream facility on the 
East Branch of the Maple River. The applicant amended the initial 
proposal such that the location was moved to an area where the beetles 
are not known to occur on the Maple River.

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

    Recent research efforts have involved mostly capture and release 
rather than collecting, and the few collections that have been made are 
housed in appropriate museum collections. The species will continue to 
draw scientific interest and collection should be regulated. However, 
because of the species' rarity, there is the possibility that amateur 
scientific collections could occur.

C. Disease or Predation

    Little is known about these factors, but there are no indications 
at this time that they may be contributing to the decline of B. 
hungerfordi.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    B. hungerfordi is currently listed as endangered under Michigan's 
Endangered Species Act (P.A. 203 of 1974, as amended). Any taking of 
this species, including harassment, is unlawful without a permit. The 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources also implements section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. This section allows Michigan to regulate placement 
of fill material in waters of the United States. The Montmorency County 
site, including a mile of upstream and downstream buffer, is in a State 
forest but is not protected from fish management activities. The 
aforementioned legislation allows significant regulatory oversight on a 
wide variety of activities that should prevent taking of this species 
and habitat loss and alteration. The Emmet County site is in mixed 
ownership and is not protected. The Canadian population is not 
protected and the land surrounding it is in mixed ownership. The 
Federal Endangered Species Act would offer additional protection to 
this species by increasing the protection for the two Michigan sites, 
encouraging habitat protection for the species on private lands, and 
influencing impoundment development which very likely would involve 
Federal funds.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The existence of only three populations of B. hungerfordi increases 
the potential for extinction from stochasitc events. The limited gene 
pool may depress reproductive vigor, or a single human-caused or 
natural environmental disturbance, disease, or predation could destroy 
an entire population and a significant percentage of the known 
individuals of the species.
    Both Michigan sites are in the Cheboygan watershed and could 
potentially be affected by any changes upstream in the watershed such 
as in Van Creek, the upper portion of the East Branch of the Maple 
River, Town Line Creek, Foch Lakes Flooding Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, 
and the upper portion of the East Branch of the Black River. Changes 
could include agricultural pesticide pollution, siltation, or stream 
bed modification. Because two of the three known populations occur 
immediately downstream from a roadway, accidental events, such as 
chemical spills, pose a threat (Wilsmann and Strand 1990). The 
cumulative effects of road salt runoff also poses a threat to this 
species.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species in determining to make this rule 
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list B. 
hungerfordi as endangered. Only three relatively small populations of 
this species are known to exist and these populations occur on sites 
threatened with habitat loss or destruction. In addition, all of these 
populations are in need of long-term management.
    Critical habitat is not being proposed at this time for the reasons 
discussed below.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act, means:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and (ii) The specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary propose critical 
habitat at the time the species is proposed to be endangered or 
threatened. The Service finds that designation of critical habitat for 
Hungerford's crawling water beetle is not presently determinable. The 
Service's regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat 
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist: 
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts 
of the designation is lacking; or (ii) The biological needs of the 
species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an 
area as critical habitat. As discussed under Factor A in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species, the information on the biology of the 
Hungerford's crawling water beetle is lacking to permit specific 
identification of its critical habitat.
    The Service will initiate a concerted effort to obtain the 
information needed to determine critical habitat for Hungerford's 
crawling water beetle. Designation of critical habitat must be 
completed within two years of the date of this rule, unless the 
designation is not prudent. A proposed rule for critical habitat 
designation must be published in the Federal Register, and the 
notification process and public comment provisions parallel those for a 
species listing. In addition, the Service will evaluate the economic 
and other relevant impacts of the critical habitat designation, as 
required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    It should be emphasized that critical habitat designation does not 
necessarily affect all Federal activities. Where appropriate, the 
impacts will be addressed during consultation with the Service as 
required by section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer 
informally with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction 
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and 
17.31 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that 
apply to all endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt any of these), import or export, 
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any listed 
species. It, also, is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such 
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. In some instances, permits 
may be issued for a specified time to relieve undue economic hardship 
that would be suffered if such relief were not available.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental 
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Brigham, W.U. 1982. Aquatic Coleoptera, pp 10.1-10.136. In: Brigham, 
R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Grilka, eds. Aquatic insects and 
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquat. Ent., 
Mahomet, IL.

Hickman, J.R. 1929. Life-histories of Michigan Haliplidae 
(Coleoptera). Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, Letters 11:399-424.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. and W.U. Brigham. 1978. Crawling water beetles of 
Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 11(1):11-
22.

Roughley, R.E. 1989a. Brychius hungerfordi Spangler (Coleoptera: 
Haliplidae), a new record from Canada with notes about habitat. 
Submitted to the Coleopterists' Bulletin, 5 pp.
Roughley, R.E. 1989b. Letter to L.A. Wilsmann, Michigan Natural 
Features Inventory, dated December 5, 1989.
Spangler, P.J. 1954. A new species of water beetle from Michigan 
(Coleoptera: Haliplidae). Entomol. News 65:113-117.
Strand, R.M. 1989. The status of Brychius hungerfordi (Coleoptera: 
Haliplidae) in northern Michigan. Report to The Nature Conservancy, 
21pp.
U.S.F.W.S. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 
animal notice of review. Federal Register 54(4):554-579.
White, D.S. 1986a. The status of Brychius hungerfordi and Stenelmis 
douglasensis. A proposal to The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Field 
Office Small Grants Program; 11 pp.
White, D.S. 1986n. The status of Brychius hungerfordi and Stenelmis 
douglasensis in Michigan. A report to The Nature Conservancy, 
Michigan Field Office Small Grants Program; 8 pp.
White, D.S., and W.U. Brigham, and J.R. Doyen. 1984. Aquatic 
Coleoptera, pp. 361-437. In: R.W. Merritt and K.W.
Cummins, eds. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North 
America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa; 722 pp.
Wilsmann, L.A. and R.M. Strand. 1990. A status survey of Brychius 
hungerfordi (Coleoptera: Haliplidae).

Author

    The primary author of this final rule is Carlita Shumate (see 
ADDRESSES section), 612/725-3276.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, set forth below.

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under Insects, to the list of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                          Vertebrate                                                   
-----------------------------------------------------------                                population                                                   
                                                                                              where                               Critical      Special 
                                                                   Historic range          endangered    Status    When listed     habitat       rules  
         Common name                 Scientific name                                           or                                                       
                                                                                           threatened                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
           Insects                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Beetle, Hungerford's          Brychuis hungerfordi          U.S.A. (MI), Canada                    NA         E           533            NA          NA 
 crawling water.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 9, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-5119 Filed 3-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M