2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 55170; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55170-55203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22433]

[[Page 55169]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 172

September 6, 2011

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on Five
Petitions To List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as
Endangered; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 55170]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2010-0012; MO 92210-0-008]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on Five Petitions To List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees
as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on five petitions to list seven species of Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H.
hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana) as endangered and to
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing these seven species of Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees is warranted. Currently, however, listing these seven
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees is precluded by higher priority
actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add
these seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees to our candidate
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list these seven
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees as our priorities allow. We will
make any determinations on critical habitat during development of the
proposed listing rule. In any interim period we will address the status
of the candidate taxa through our annual Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 6,
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2010-0012. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone
at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TTD) please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

On March 23, 2009, we received five petitions dated March 23, 2009,
from Scott Hoffman Black, Executive Director of the Xerces Society,
requesting that seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees be listed
as endangered under the Act and critical habitat be designated.
Each petition contained information regarding the species' taxonomy
and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and
current and potential threats. We acknowledged the receipt of the
petitions in a letter to Mr. Black, dated May 8, 2009. In that letter
we also stated that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted at that
time. We published the 90-day finding in the Federal Register on June
16, 2010 (75 FR 34077). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on
the March 23, 2009, petitions to list the seven species of Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees as endangered.

Species Information

Overview of the Genus Hylaeus
The seven species of bees described in this finding belong to the
genus Hylaeus. Hylaeus is a large, globally distributed genus comprised
of over 500 species worldwide. In the Hawaiian Islands, the genus
Hylaeus is widespread and very diverse, with 60 native species,
including 20 endemic to single islands (Magnacca 2007a, p. 174). All 60
Hawaiian species are in the subgenus Nesoprosopis (Magnacca and
Danforth 2006, p. 393). The Hawaiian Hylaeus genus belongs to the
Colletidae family of bees, also known as plasterer bees due to their
habit of lining their nests with salival secretions. The family is
comprised of over 2,000 species, all of which are solitary nesting
(unlike social wasps and bees), although a few do nest in close
vicinity to each other.
The species of Hylaeus are commonly known as yellow-faced bees or
masked bees for their yellow-to-white facial markings. All of the
Hylaeus species roughly resemble small wasps in appearance, due to
their slender bodies and their seeming lack of setae (sensory hairs).
However, Hylaeus bees have plumose (branched) hairs on the body that
are longest on the sides of the thorax. To a discerning eye, it is
these plumose setae that readily distinguish them from wasps (Michener
2000, p. 55).
A great deal of our knowledge on Hawaiian Hylaeus bees is based
upon surveys by Robert Cyril Layton Perkins, a distinguished British
entomologist and naturalist renowned for his pioneering work on the
insects of the Hawaiian Islands, particularly the Hymenoptera
(sawflies, wasps, bees, and ants), in the early 20th Century. His
surveys were conducted between 1892 and 1906, and form the basis for
most of the historical records of Hylaeus in the Hawaiian Islands.
According to Perkins, Hylaeus species were ``almost the most ubiquitous
of any Hawaiian insects'' (Perkins 1913, p. lxxxi). However, there are
about 90 years between Perkins' surveys and the most recent surveys
conducted in the late 1990s for Hylaeus bees in the Hawaiian Islands.
Surveys in more recent years (1998-2010) for Hylaeus spp. in the
Hawaiian Islands have largely involved targeted collecting on specific
flowering plants (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-233; Magnacca in
litt. 2011, p. 5), rather than survey methods such as pan trapping or
Pollard walks (see below). While this means the numbers of individuals
and species observed are not strictly quantifiable by effort, the
probability of collecting species actually present is

[[Page 55171]]

higher (Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 5). Because the number and diversity
of Hylaeus spp. tend to be locally concentrated rather than widely
distributed, randomized and more quantifiable surveys such as pan
trapping and Pollard walks are actually less effective means of
locating Hylaeus spp. (Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 5). Pan trapping
involves the use of shallow pans of fluid, and relies on the organism
falling or flying into the fluid preservative. Pollard walks involve
observers walking along a fixed transect route and recording the
insects observed.
The recent Hylaeus spp. survey efforts are not easily comparable to
Perkins' collections, which are considered now to have been conducted
opportunistically. For example, Perkins collected higher numbers of
individuals and species in certain areas, including coastal areas that
were much less disturbed at the time, and some species, such as H.
facilis, were formerly very common but have almost entirely disappeared
(Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 5).
Life History of Genus Hylaeus
The following discussion includes all Hawaiian Hylaeus species, and
specific information about the seven petitioned Hylaeus species.
Hawaiian Hylaeus species are grouped within two categories: Ground-
nesting species that require relatively dry conditions, and wood-
nesting species that are often found within wetter areas (Zimmerman
1972, p. 533; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11). Nests of Hylaeus species
are usually constructed opportunistically within dead twigs or plant
stems, or other similarly small natural cavities under bark or rocks
(i.e., they seek out existing cavities that they suit to their own
needs). This is unlike the nests of many other bee species, which are
purposefully excavated or constructed underground. Like other Hylaeus,
Hawaiian Hylaeus lack strong mandibles and other adaptations for
digging and often use nest burrows abandoned by other insect species
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 9). The female Hylaeus bee lays eggs in
brood cells she constructs in the nest and lines with a self-secreted,
cellophane-like material. Prior to sealing the nest, the female
provides her young with a mass of semiliquid nectar and pollen left
alongside her eggs. Upon hatching, the grub-like larvae eat the
provisions left for them, pupate, and eventually emerge as adults
(Michener 2000, p. 24). The adult male and female bees feed upon flower
nectar for nourishment. Many species, including the Hawaiian Hylaeus,
lack an external structure for carrying pollen, called a scopa, and
instead internally transport collected pollen, often mixed with nectar,
within their crop (stomach).
Recent studies of visitation records of Hawaiian Hylaeus bees to
native flowers (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11) and pollination studies
of native plants (Sakai et al. 1995, pp. 2,524-2,528; Cox and Elmqvist
2000, p. 1,238; Sahli et al. 2008, p. 1) have demonstrated Hawaiian
Hylaeus species almost exclusively visit native plants to collect
nectar and pollen, pollinating those plants in the process. Hylaeus
bees are very rarely found visiting nonnative plants for nectar and
pollen (Magnacca 2007a, pp. 186, 188), and are almost completely absent
from habitats dominated by nonnative plant species (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 11). Sahli et al. (2008, p. 1) quantified pollinator
visitation rates to all of the flowering plant species in communities
on a Hawaiian lava flow dating from 1855 to understand how pollination
webs and the integration of native and nonnative species changes with
elevation. In that study, eight flowering plants were observed at six
sites, which ranged in elevation from approximately 2,900 to 7,900 feet
(ft) (approximately 880 to 2,400 meters (m)). The study also found the
proportion of native pollinators changed along the elevation gradient;
at least 40 to 50 percent of visits were from nonnative pollinators at
low elevation, as opposed to 4 to 20 percent of visits by nonnative
pollinators at mid to high elevations. Hylaeus bees were less abundant
at lower elevations, and there were lower visitation rates of any
pollinators to native plants at lower elevations, which suggest Hylaeus
may not be easily replaceable by nonnative pollinators (Sahli et al.
2008, p. 1).
For some of the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees addressed in this
finding, we have information about the specific host plants they visit
for nectar and pollen. For some species, we have also identified
primary host plants visited (see description of the species where
noted). However, for others, we lack detailed information on the
specific host plants visited for foraging. Nonetheless, researchers
believe native plants both endemic and indigenous to the Hawaiian
Islands are essential to the survival of the Hylaeus species (Hopper et
al. 1996, pp. 8-9; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229; Magnacca 2007a,
pp. 185-186).
Hawaiian Island Ecosystems
The five Hawaiian Island ecosystems that support the seven Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees addressed in this 12-month finding are described in
the following section. See Table 1 below for a list of the ecosystems
from which each species is reported. Because Hawaiian Hylaeus spp.,
including these seven, are believed to be essential pollinators of the
native Hawaiian plant fauna, we are providing this background
information on the different ecosystems in which they occur to better
elaborate upon the specific threats found in the five ecosystem types.

Table 1--Current (and Historical) Distribution of the Seven Yellow-Faced Bees by Ecosystem Type and Island
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystems
Species and number of current -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
populations Coastal Lowland dry Lowland mesic Lowland wet Montane mesic Montane dry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. anthracinus, 13 populations.. HI, MA, MO, OA.... HI, KAH, (*LA), N/A............... N/A............... .................. HI.
MA, (*MO), (*OA).
H. assimulans, 5 populations.... KAH, (*MA), (*OA). LA, MA, (*OA)..... N/A............... N/A............... .................. N/A.
H. facilis, 2 populations....... (*MA), MO, (*OA).. (*LA), (*OA)...... (*LA), (*MA), (*MA), OA......... (*MO)............. N/A.
(*OA).
H. hilaris, 1 population........ (*LA), (*MA), MO.. (*MA)............. N/A............... N/A............... .................. N/A.
H. kuakea, 2 populations........ N/A............... N/A............... OA................ N/A............... .................. N/A.
H. longiceps, 6 populations..... LA, MA, MO, OA.... LA, (*MA), (*MO).. N/A............... N/A............... .................. N/A.

[[Page 55172]]

H. mana, 1 population........... N/A............... N/A............... OA................ N/A............... .................. N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI = Hawaii (Island); KAH = Kahoolawe; LA = Lanai; MA = Maui; MO = Molokai; OA = Oahu;
(*XX) denotes a historical population; N/A means no population records

Coastal Ecosystem
The coastal ecosystem is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands,
with the highest species diversity found in the least populated coastal
areas of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and Kauai, and their
associated islets, and extends from sea level to approximately 1,000 ft
(approximately 300 m) in elevation. The coastal vegetation zone is
typically dry, with annual rainfall of less than approximately 20
inches (in) (50.8 centimeters (cm)); however windward rainfall may be
high enough (up to approximately 40 in (1,000 mm)) to support mesic-
associated and sometimes wet-associated vegetation (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, pp. 54-66). Compared to dry and mesic ecosystems, biological
diversity (number of species) is low to moderate in the coastal
ecosystem, but may include some specialized plants and animals such as
nesting seabirds and the rare native plant Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)
(The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2006a). Sesbania tomentosa formerly
occurred widely in lower elevation dry habitat on all of the main
islands and at least on Necker and Nihoa of the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands. The species is now scattered throughout its former range, and
is restricted to relic populations on sandy beaches, on dunes, on soil
pockets on lava, and along pond margins (Wagner et al. 1990, p. 705).
The dominant native vegetation in coastal ecosystems is the shrub
Scaevola sericea (naupaka kahakai) (Alpha et al. 1996, p. 86). Other
common native plant species include Ipomoea pes-caprae (beach morning-
glory), Sporobolus virginicus (beach dropseed), Jacquemontia ovata (pau
o Hiiaka), and Sesuvium portulacastrum (akulikuli or sea purslane)
(Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 57-59). Among the Hylaeus species addressed in
this finding, five are known from coastal ecosystems, including H.
anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, and H. longiceps.
Lowland Dry Ecosystem
The lowland dry ecosystem includes shrublands and forests below
approximately 3,300 ft (1,000 m) in elevation that receive less than 50
in (127 cm) annual rainfall, or are in otherwise prevailingly dry
substrate conditions. Areas consisting of predominantly native species
in the lowland dry ecosystem are now rare. This ecosystem is found on
the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and
Kauai, and is best represented on the leeward sides of the islands
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67). Biological diversity is low to
moderate in this ecosystem, and includes specialized animals and plants
such as the Hawaiian owl or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) and
Santalum ellipticum (iliahialoe) (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 1,220-1,221;
TNC 2006b).
Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, and H. longiceps
are known from lowland dry forests. These forests are typically
dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis (lama), Erythrina sandwicensis
(wiliwili), Nestegis sandwicensis (olopua), or Metrosideros polymorpha
(ohia) and a diversity of native shrubs growing within the understory
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 72-74).
Lowland Mesic Ecosystem
The lowland mesic ecosystem includes a variety of grasslands,
shrublands, and forests, below approximately 3,300 ft (1,000 m) in
elevation, that receive between 50 and 75 in (127 and 191 cm) annual
rainfall, or are in otherwise mesic substrate conditions (TNC 2006c).
In the Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is found on Hawaii, Maui,
Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, and Kauai, on both windward and leeward sides of
the islands. Biological diversity is high in this system (TNC 2006c).
Lowland mesic forests are typically dominated by Acacia koa (koa),
Diospyros sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha, or Nestegis
sandwicensis, and a diversity of understory trees and native shrubs
growing below the canopy species (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 80-82).
Historically, Hylaeus facilis was known from lowland mesic forest, but
currently only H. kuakea and H. mana are found in this habitat.
Lowland Wet Ecosystem
The lowland wet ecosystem is generally found below approximately
3,300 ft (1,000 m) in elevation on the windward sides of the main
Hawaiian Islands, except Kahoolawe (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 85; TNC
2006d). These areas include a variety of wet grasslands, shrublands,
and forests that receive greater than 75 in (191 cm) annual
precipitation, or are in otherwise wet substrate conditions (TNC
2006d). Biological diversity is high in this system (TNC 2006d). The
majority of lowland wet forests are dominated by Metrosideros
polymorpha, with understory trees such as Psychotria spp. (kopiko) and
Antidesma platyphyllum (hame) (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 87).
Currently, Hylaeus facilis is known from lowland wet forest (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 81).
Montane Dry Ecosystem
The montane dry ecosystem is composed of natural communities
(shrublands, grasslands, forest) found at elevations between
approximately 3,300 and 6,600 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where
annual precipitation is less than 50 in (127 cm), or otherwise in dry
substrate conditions (TNC 2006g). Montane dry forests occur on the
leeward sides of the islands of Maui and Hawaii, and biological
diversity is moderate (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 93; TNC 2006g).
Montane dry forests are dominated by some combination of Acacia koa,
Sophora chrysophylla) (mamame), Metrosideros polymorpha, and rarely,
Chamaesyce olowaluana (akoko) (Gagne and Cuddihy, p. 95). In 2004, a
single individual of H. anthracinus was collected in montane dry forest
on Hawaii Island.
Specific Information on Hylaeus anthracinus
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus anthracinus was first described as Prosopis anthracina by
Smith in 1873 (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 55), and transferred to
Nesoprosopis 20 years later (Perkins 1899, pp. 75). Nesoprosopis was
reduced to a subgenus of Hylaeus in

[[Page 55173]]

1923 (Meade-Waldo 1923, p. 1). Although the distinctness of this
species remains unquestioned, recent genetic evidence (Magnacca and
Brown 2010, pp. 5-7) suggests H. anthracinus may be composed of three
cryptic (not recognized) species or subspecies that represent the
populations on Hawaii, Maui and Kahoolawe, and Molokai and Oahu.
However, this has not been established scientifically; therefore, we
treat H. anthracinus as a single species in this finding.
Hylaeus anthracinus is a medium-sized, black bee with clear to
smoky wings and black legs. The male has a single large yellow spot on
his face, while below the antennal sockets the face is yellow. The
female is entirely black and can be distinguished by the black hairs on
the end of the abdomen and an unusual mandible that has three teeth, a
characteristic shared only with H. flavifrons, a closely related
species on Kauai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 53).
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus anthracinus is unknown,
although the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the adult female. Likewise, the
nesting habits of H. anthracinus are not known, but the species is
thought to nest within the stems of coastal shrubs (Magnacca 2005a, p.
2).
Hylaeus anthracinus adults have been observed visiting the flowers
of Sesbania tomentosa, Scaevola sericea, Sida fallax (ilima), Argemone
glauca (pua kala), Chamaesyce celastroides (akoko), Chamaesyce degeneri
(akoko), Heliotropium anomalum (hinahina), and Myoporum sandwicense
(naio). This species has also been collected from inside the fruit
capsule of Kadua coriacea (kioele) (Magnacca 2005a, p. 2). Hylaeus
anthracinus has also been observed visiting Tournefortia argentea (tree
heliotrope), a tree native to tropical Asia, Madagascar, tropical
Australia, and Polynesia, for nectar and pollen (Wagner et al. 1999, p.
398; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 55; Magnacca 2007a, p. 181).
Tournefortia argentea was first collected on Oahu in 1864-1865, and is
naturalized and documented from all of the main islands except
Kahoolawe (Wagner et al. 1999, p. 398). Hylaeus anthracinus commonly
occurs alongside other Hylaeus species, including H. longiceps and H.
flavipes.
Range and Distribution
Hylaeus anthracinus was historically known from numerous coastal
and lowland dry forest habitats up to 2,000 ft (610 m) in elevation on
the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Between 1997 and
2008, surveys for Hawaiian Hylaeus were conducted at 43 sites
throughout the Hawaiian Islands that were either historical collecting
localities for H. anthracinus, or potentially suitable habitat for this
species. Hylaeus anthracinus was observed at 13 of the 43 survey sites,
but had disappeared from each of the 9 historically occupied sites
surveyed (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 217; Magnacca 2007b, p. 44).
Several of the historical collection sites, such as Honolulu and
Waikiki on Oahu and Kealakekua Bay on Hawaii, no longer contain Hylaeus
habitat, which has been replaced by urban development or is dominated
by nonnative vegetation (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, pp. 346-347; Daly
and Magnacca 2003, p. 55; Magnacca 2007a, pp. 186-188).
Hylaeus anthracinus is currently known from 13 small patches of
coastal and lowland dry forest habitat (Magnacca 2005a, p. 2): five
locations on the island of Hawaii; one location on Kahoolawe; two
locations on Maui; three locations on Molokai; and two locations on
Oahu (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 217; Magnacca 2005a, p. 2; Magnacca
2007b, p. 44). These 13 locations supported small populations of H.
anthracinus, but the number of individual bees is unknown. In 2004, a
single individual was collected in montane dry forest on the island of
Hawaii; however, the presence of additional individuals has not been
confirmed at this site (Magnacca 2005a, p. 2). Although it was
previously unknown from the island of Kahoolawe, H. anthracinus was
observed at one location on the island in 2002 (Daly and Magnacca 2003,
p. 55). The species is believed to be extirpated from Lanai (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 55). Additionally, during surveys between 1997 and
2008, H. anthracinus was absent from 17 other sites on Hawaii, Maui,
Molokai, and Oahu with potentially suitable habitat from which other
species of Hylaeus were collected (Daly and Magnacca 2003; Magnacca,
University of Hawaii at Hilo, pers. comm. 2008a).
Hawaii Island
Hylaeus anthracinus was first described by Perkins (1899, p. 100)
from specimens collected by F. Smith on the Kona (west) coast at
Kealakekua Bay. In the intervening 99 years, H. anthracinus appears to
have declined significantly throughout its historical range on this
coastline. Between 1997 and 2008, researchers thoroughly surveyed the
area around Kealakekua Bay and Keei to the south, but found no species
of Hylaeus and observed that most of these areas are either dominated
by invasive, nonnative plants, such as Leucaena leucephala (koa haole),
or lack vegetation entirely (Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a). Hylaeus
anthracinus is currently found in five locations in coastal and lowland
dry forest on the leeward (west) side of the island, including
Kohanaiki; Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park (NHP); Makalawena
Beach; the Mahaiula section of Kekaha Kai (Kona Coast) State Park; and
Kaulana Bay near Ka Lae (South Point). In addition, there is one recent
collection from montane dry forest in the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa
Training Area, in the northern part of the island. Collection reports
from these six areas follow:
(A) Kohanaiki: Hylaeus anthracinus was collected in coastal habitat
on Tournefortia argentea at this location near Puhili Point by Magnacca
(2007b, p. 44). Kohanaiki is an area of land granted to indigenous
Hawaiians in 1995 for cultural and recreational preservation and
pursuits (Kohanaiki Ohana 1995 (http://www.kohanaiki.org/)). There is
some possibility for increased recreational impact to the area, if and
when adjacent privately owned parcels are developed, as is currently
planned (Kohanaiki Ohana 1995 (http://www.kohanaiki.org/)).
(B) Kaloko-Honokohau NHP: In 2007, researchers collected Hylaeus
anthracinus in coastal habitat in Kaloko-Honokohau NHP, which is just
south of Kohanaiki, and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) (P.
Aldrich, University of Hawaii at Manoa, pers. comm. 2008a; Magnacca,
pers. comm. 2008c).
(C) Makalawena Beach: Researchers collected Hylaeus anthracinus in
coastal habitat in south Kona at Makalawena Beach in 2007 (P. Aldrich,
pers. comm., July 2008a). Inaccessible by motor vehicle, visitors must
hike to the beach on a trail that begins in nearby Kekaha Kai State
Park. Makalawena Beach is located on private land owned by Kamehameha
Schools.
(D) Mahaiula Section of Kekaha Kai State Park: Researchers
collected Hylaeus anthracinus in coastal habitat in the Mahaiula
section of Kekaha Kai State Park in 2007 (P. Aldrich, unpublished
data). The park is managed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources' (DLNR) Division of State Parks, and is open to the public
daily. This section of the park is accessed by a 1.5-mile (mi) (1.6-
kilometer (km)) unpaved road from the main highway (Queen Kaahumanu
Highway (Hwy 19)), and offers public

[[Page 55174]]

recreational opportunities for swimming and beach-related activities,
such as hiking, picnicking, and boating (http://www.hawaiistateparks.org/hawaiistateparks/parks/hawaii/index.cfm?park_id=47).
(E) Kaulana Bay: Hylaeus anthracinus appears to be restricted to an
area of 5,000-10,000 year-old lava flows east of Ka Lae at Kaulana Bay,
where it and other species of Hylaeus were collected in 1999 and 2002
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). The substrate of these lava flows is distinct
from the surrounding areas covered by Pahala ash (Magnacca, pers. comm.
2010b). The area near Ka Lae, at the southernmost tip of the island of
Hawaii, is believed to be the best coastal habitat for Hylaeus on the
island. However, H. anthracinus was absent from several sites with
potentially suitable vegetation near Ka Lae and other sites to the east
along the coast, including Kalu, Kaalualu, and Mahana, where other
Hylaeus species were collected. The population of H. anthracinus at
Kaulana Bay appears highly localized, and may have more stringent
habitat requirements related to localized substrate type than other
species of Hawaiian Hylaeus found in nearby areas (e.g., H. difficilis
and H. flavipes). The Ka Lae area, including Kaulana Bay, is registered
as a National Historic Landmark District and a large portion of the
area is primarily owned by the State's Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands (DHHL), although a smaller portion is privately owned. Public
access to Kaulana Bay is not restricted, and the area is used for
recreational activities such as off-road vehicle use (Magnacca, pers.
comm. 2008a).
(F) U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA): In 2004, one male
Hylaeus anthracinus was collected on the southern slopes of Mauna Kea
in montane dry forest habitat in the U.S. Army's PTA at approximately
5,200-5,400 ft (1,590-1,650 m) in elevation (Magnacca 2007b, p. 44).
The specimen was found inside the fruit capsule of the federally
endangered plant, Hedyotis coriacea (kioele). Hylaeus anthracinus has
not been observed at the PTA since the collection made in 2004
(Magnacca 2007b, p. 44). It is unknown if this collection was a single
vagrant individual or from an established population at the PTA
(Magnacca 2007b, p. 44).
Kahoolawe Island
Previously unknown on Kahoolawe, a population of Hylaeus
anthracinus was discovered in 2002 in coastal habitat at Pali o
Kalapakea, where four specimens were collected at an elevation of 1,000
ft (300 m) (Daly and Magnacca 2003; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a).
However, this species was absent from potentially suitable habitat
located at Kamohio on the southeastern coast of the island where other
Hylaeus species were collected. Overgrazing by introduced cattle and
goats, and bombing and target practice by the U.S. military, have led
to soil erosion resulting in the loss of almost all of the coastal and
lowland dry forest habitat on this island (Warren 2004, p. 461). In
1993, Congress ended military use on Kahoolawe, and the Kahoolawe
Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) was created to manage land use and
restore Kahoolawe's natural resources (Dept. of Defense, p. 1). Access
to the island is limited and controlled by KIRC, and activities
conducted on the island include fishing, habitat restoration,
historical preservation, and education. Commercial enterprises are
currently prohibited on the island (Warren 2004, p. 1).
Maui
Perkins (1899, p. 100) originally described Hylaeus anthracinus as
abundant in coastal and lowland habitat on the island of Maui, where it
was known from four sites. Perkins' primary collection site for coastal
bees on Maui was the Wailuku sandhills, which once supported a diverse
bee fauna. Lacking adequate descriptions, researchers were unable to
relocate two of the Perkins collection sites during recent surveys, but
two sites were relocated and surveyed in 1999 and 2001 (Magnacca 2007a,
p. 173). Hylaeus anthracinus has also been collected at Kanaio on the
lower southern slopes of Haleakala, an unusual location for this
otherwise exclusively coastal species. The species was also collected
at the coast nearby, at Manawainui. Descriptions of these three sites
follows:
(A) Wailuku Sand Hills: Formerly a large expanse of coastal dune
habitat, the Wailuku sand hills remain as small remnant dunes and only
one, at Waiehu, contains intact native vegetation potentially suitable
for Hylaeus bees. This remnant coastal sand dune covers less than 2.5
acres (ac) (1 hectare (ha)) on State lands near a golf course. Hylaeus
anthracinus was not observed during the 1999 and 2001 surveys in this
location (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 217). The rest of the dunes have
been destroyed by development or are overgrown with the nonnative plant
Prosopis pallida (kiawe). Researchers observed that the Kahului section
of the dunes, located south of the native remnant dune, no longer
contains potentially suitable habitat for species of Hylaeus (Magnacca
2007a, p. 182).
(B) Kanaio Natural Area Reserve: Hylaeus anthracinus was collected
in 1999 in remnant native lowland dry forest in the State's Kanaio
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) on the southern slopes of Haleakala at 2,000
ft (600 m) in elevation (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 217). Kanaio NAR is
a State-protected area of approximately 876 ac (355 ha), and contains
patches of lowland dry forest and shrub lands. The State plans to
rehabilitate habitat in the Kanaio NAR by excluding feral ungulates
with fencing, managing weeds, and planting native species (http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dofaw/rpc/projects-on-maui).
(C) Manawainui Gulch: In 1999, Hylaeus anthracinus was collected at
this coastal site on land owned by the State's DHHL (Magnacca, pers.
comm. 2008a). The site is east of Kahikinui, and should not be confused
with the Manawainui Valley, which is east of Kaupo, or Manawainui Gulch
at Ukumehame on west Maui.
Molokai
Perkins collected Hylaeus anthracinus at Kaulawai [Kauluwai] and
two unknown sites: the lower slopes of the north Molokai mountains and
the ``Molokai plains'' (Perkins 1899; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 55).
Hylaeus anthracinus occurred in three of five sites surveyed between
1999 and 2005. These locations include TNC's Moomomi Preserve on
Molokai's northwest coast, and Hoolehua Beach and Kaupikiawa, both
located on the Kalaupapa peninsula (Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a). This
species was not observed at several other sites with potentially
suitable habitat, including sand dune habitat near the Kaluakoi resort
on Molokai's west coast (Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a). Collection
reports of these sites follow:
(A) Moomomi Preserve: Between 1999 and 2001, researchers collected
H. anthracinus and H. longiceps from an area of native vegetation in
coastal dune habitat within Moomomi Preserve (Magnacca 2007a, p. 181).
Moomomi Preserve contains intact coastal dunes dominated by native
vegetation, as well as dune and inland areas dominated by nonnative
vegetation.
(B) Hoolehua Beach and Kaupikiawa: In 2005, Hylaeus anthracinus was
collected at a coastal site above Hoolehua Beach near the tip of the
Kalaupapa peninsula, and at Kaupikiawa, just to the east (Magnacca
2007b, p. 181). Both sites are located within Kalaupapa NHP, which is
cooperatively managed by the NPS, DHHL, and the State's DLNR and
Departments of Health (DOH) and Transportation (DOT). The areas on the

[[Page 55175]]

east side of the Kalaupapa peninsula are largely rocky and devoid of
vegetation, but contain scattered patches of native coastal vegetation,
similar to Ka Lae on the island of Hawaii (Magnacca 2007a, p. 181).
Oahu
Hylaeus anthracinus was historically known from seven sites on the
island of Oahu, although two of the coastal sites were not conclusively
identified by Perkins and the exact locations cannot now be determined
(Perkins 1899, p. 100). This species appears to have declined
precipitously since Perkins' collecting period on Oahu (1892-1906) and
is currently only known from two sites, Kaena Point NAR and Mokuauia
(Goat Island). Between 1997 and 2008, H. anthracinus was not found
during surveys of five of its historical Perkins-era collection sites.
Several of these sites no longer provide suitable habitat for Hylaeus
species because native vegetation has been removed during urbanization,
or the sites are dominated by invasive, nonnative vegetation. These
sites include Honolulu, Waikiki, ``the Honolulu mountains,'' Waialua,
and the Waianae coast (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, pp. 345-347; Daly
and Magnacca 2003, p. 55). Between 1999 and 2002, researchers searched
coastal habitat at Makapuu and Kalaeloa (Barber's Point), but did not
find any species of Hylaeus (Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a). The coastal
habitat at both sites is degraded and dominated by nonnative
vegetation. Descriptions of the two known sites follow:
(A) Kaena Point NAR: Between 1998 and 2008, Hylaeus anthracinus was
collected at Kaena Point, which is located on Oahu's northwest-most
point (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 55; Sahli, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, pers. comm. 2008). Kaena Point contains the best intact native
coastal habitat on Oahu, and is an excellent example of that type of
ecosystem in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. It provides habitat for
nesting seabirds, monk seals, native plants, and other native species
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). The primary activities within this NAR
include recreation, hiking, nature study, education, and the
observation of wildlife (DLNR 2007, p. 20). While illegal off-road
driving was once a concern, a physical barrier is now in place that
prevents vehicular access, and native vegetation is regenerating and
being restored by the Kaena Point Ecosystem Restoration Project (DLNR
2007, p. 20; Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). In partnership with several
agencies including the Service, the DLNR is building a predator-proof
fence to prevent nonnative species, such as cats and dogs that threaten
nesting seabirds, from entering 59 ac (24 ha) of coastal habitat within
Kaena Point NAR (http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/kaena/index.htm).
(B) Mokuauia (Goat Island): From the lack of records, it appears
Perkins and other early naturalists did not search Mokuauia or Oahu's
other offshore islets for yellow-faced bees. Recently, Hylaeus
anthracinus was found on this islet by Service biologists during
general surveys of the islet (S. Plentovich, Service, pers. comm.
2008). Mokuauia, an offshore islet in Laie Bay located on Oahu's
northeast coast, encompasses 13 ac (5.3 ha) and reaches a maximum
elevation of 15 ft (4.5 m). The entire islet is a State Seabird
Sanctuary and is managed by the State's Department of Forestry and
Wildlife (DOFAW). The entire islet was designated as critical habitat
for the endangered plant Sesbania tomentosa in 2003, and the DOFAW is
actively restoring native vegetation and controlling nonnative species.
Mokuauia is easily accessed by the public and is a popular destination
for small boats, kayaks, and swimmers on weekends.
Lanai
Hylaeus anthracinus has not been observed on Lanai for over 100
years and is likely extirpated from this privately owned island. This
species was not observed at any of the recently surveyed sites,
including Manele Bay, where it was collected by Perkins in 1899
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 182; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a). However, other
Hylaeus species were collected at seven of the eight locations surveyed
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Summary of Hylaeus anthracinus Range and Distribution
Hylaeus anthracinus was historically known from numerous coastal
and lowland dry forest habitats up to 2,000 ft (600 m) in elevation, on
the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Currently, this
species is known from a total of 13 sites in a few small patches of
coastal and lowland dry forest habitat: one location on Kahoolawe, five
locations on the island of Hawaii, two locations on Maui, three
locations on Molokai, and two locations on Oahu. In addition, in 2004 a
single individual of H. anthracinus was collected in montane dry forest
habitat on the island of Hawaii. It is unknown if this collection was a
single vagrant individual or from an established population. The lands
on which H. anthracinus occurs are under a variety of jurisdictions,
including private (e.g., TNC), State (e.g., DHHL, DOFAW, NARs, State
Park, Seabird Sanctuary), and Federal (U.S. Army, NPS).
Specific Information on Hylaeus assimulans
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus assimulans was first described as Nesoprosopis assimulans
(Perkins 1899, pp. 75, 101-102); Nesoprosopis was reduced to a subgenus
of Hylaeus in 1923 (Meade-Waldo 1923, p. 1). The species was most
recently described as Hylaeus assimulans by Daly and Magnacca in 2003
(pp. 55-56). Hylaeus assimulans is distinguished by its large size
relative to other coastal Hylaeus species and slightly smoky to smoky-
colored wings. The male is black with yellow face marks, with an almost
entirely yellow clypeus (lower face region) with additional marks on
the sides that narrow dorsally (towards the top). The male also has
brown appressed (flattened) hairs on the tip of the abdomen. The female
is entirely black, large-bodied, and has no distinct punctuation on the
abdomen (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 56).
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus assimulans is unknown,
although the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the female adult (Magnacca
2005b, p. 2). Likewise, the nesting habits of H. assimulans are not
known, but because the species is genetically related to other ground
nesting Hylaeus spp., it is thought to be a ground nester (Magnacca
2005b, p. 2).
Hylaeus assimulans adults have been observed visiting the flowers
of Lipochaeta lobata (nehe) and its likely primary host plant, Sida
fallax (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58). Hylaeus assimulans appears to
be closely associated with plants in the genus Sida, and studies thus
far suggest this yellow-faced bee species may be more common where this
plant is abundant (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 58, 217; Magnacca 2007a,
p. 183). In recent survey efforts, H. assimulans seems to be more
common in dry forest at relatively higher elevations, which may be
related to the abundance of Sida in the understory (Magnacca 2005b, p.
2). Sida spp. were less often found in coastal habitat. It is likely H.
assimulans visits several other native plants, including Acacia koa,
Metrosideros polymorpha, Styphelia tameiameiae (pukiawe), and species
of Scaevola (naupaka) and Chamaesyce (akoko),

[[Page 55176]]

which are frequented by other Hylaeus species as well (Magnacca, pers.
comm. 2008b).
Range and Distribution
Historically, Hylaeus assimulans was known from numerous coastal
and lowland dry forest habitats up to 2,000 ft (610 m) in elevation on
the islands of Lanai, Maui, and Oahu. There are no collections from
Molokai, although it is likely H. assimulans also occurred there
because all other species of Hylaeus known from Maui, Lanai, and Oahu
also occurred on Molokai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229). Between
1997 and 2008, surveys for Hawaiian Hylaeus were conducted in 25 sites
on Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Hylaeus assimulans was
absent from six of its historical localities on Lanai, Maui, and Oahu
(Xerces Society 2009b, p. 4). Hylaeus assimulans was not observed at 19
other sites with potentially suitable habitat on Lanai, Maui, Molokai,
and Oahu, including several sites from which other native Hylaeus
species have been recently collected (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 56,
217; Magnacca 2005b, p. 2; Magnacca 2007a, pp. 177, 181, 183).
Currently, Hylaeus assimulans is known from a few small patches of
coastal and lowland dry forest habitat at one location on Kahoolawe,
two locations on Lanai, and two locations on Maui (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 58; Magnacca 2005, p. 2). This species has likely been
extirpated from Oahu because it has not been observed since Perkins'
1899 surveys and was not found during recent surveys of potentially
suitable coastal habitat at Kaena Point, Makapuu, and Kalaeloa (Daly
and Magnacca 2003, p. 217; Magnacca 2005, p. 2; H. Sahli, unpublished
data).
Kahoolawe
Although not historically known from Kahaoolawe (Daly and Magnacca
2003, Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a), Hylaeus assimulans was discovered
in 1997 near the high cliffs of Kamohio Bay in the center of the
southern coast of the island (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p 217). The
species was absent from one other site on the island in lowland habitat
on the east coast at Pali o Kalapakea where other Hylaeus species were
collected (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Lanai
On Lanai, Perkins found Hylaeus assimulans in low numbers within
uninhabited coastal habitat at Awalua in northwest Lanai, and in the
Koele mountains at an elevation of 2,000 ft (610 m) (Perkins 1899, p.
102). Between 1998 and 2006, seven sites with potentially suitable
habitat on private lands, including Mt. Koele and Awalua, were
surveyed, and H. assimulans was found only near Manele Road and Polihua
Road in small pockets of native vegetation (Magnacca, pers. comm.
2008b). Descriptions of these sites follow:
(A) Manele Road: In 1999, Hylaeus assimulans was collected in
lowland dry forest along Manele Road at 600 ft (180 m) in elevation,
north of Manele Beach in southern Lanai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p.
217). Researchers observed the canopy was dominated by invasive
Prosopis pallida trees and the understory had a dense stand of Sida
fallax, the likely primary host plant of H. assimulans (Magnacca, pers.
comm. 2008b). However, with the exception of a few stunted plants at
the roadside where moisture had accumulated, the rest of the stand of
Sida fallax had senesced (reached maturity) or possibly died. Native
plants at this site appeared to be drought-intolerant and probably did
not provide consistent habitat for Hylaeus throughout the year
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 183; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a).
(B) Polihua Road: In 1999, two specimens of H. assimulans were
collected in lowland dry forest along Polihua Road at 1,000 ft in
elevation (300 m) in central Lanai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58).
Both sites are on private land, and we are unaware of any recent or
current land management in these areas.
Maui
Perkins collected Hylaeus assimulans from coastal habitat at the
Wailuku sand hills, and from an unknown site labeled ``Maui'' (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 58). Although other rare Hylaeus spp. were collected
from the Waiehu dunes area during surveys conducted in 1999 and 2001,
H. assimulans, as well as several other species once collected there by
Perkins, were not found (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229; Magnacca,
pers. comm. 2008a). Between 1998 and 2006, researchers surveyed six
potentially suitable habitat locations island-wide, and H. assimulans
was found within small pockets of native plants in only two of these
sites (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 217; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a).
However, researchers believe H. assimulans may exist in potentially
suitable habitat in rugged and inaccessible portions of west Maui
(Magnacca, in litt., 2010, p. 1). Descriptions of these two sites
follow:
(A) Lahainaluna: In 1999, Hylaeus assimulans was collected in dry
lowland forest at 1,800 ft (550 m) in elevation on the west side of
Maui. The site is with the State's West Maui NAR. Established in 1986,
the NAR's management plan calls for the control and removal of feral
ungulates, and the control of selected priority invasive plant species
(http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dofaw/nars/reserves/maui/west-maui).
(B) Waikapu: In 2000, researchers collected Hylaeus assimulans in
lowland dry shrubland dominated by the native shrub, Dodonaea viscosa
(aalii) at 400 ft (120 m) elevation in Waikapu Valley, which is south
of Iao Valley on the east side of west Maui (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p.
217). The 10,000-square ft (.09-square-ha) site is privately owned and
surrounded by a fence to exclude nonnative axis deer (Axis axis). The
fence was built in the mid-1980s by the Native Hawaiian Plant Society,
and is currently managed by inspecting the fence for breaks; removing
nonnative, invasive weeds; and collecting seeds of native plants for
propagation. There have been two major fires in the past 5 years in the
vicinity of the fenced area, although neither fire has burned within
the enclosed area (H. Oppenheimer, Plant Extinction Prevention Program,
pers. comm. 2008).
Between 1997 and 2007, Hylaeus assimulans was not collected during
surveys of potentially suitable habitat at other locations on Maui
where other rare Hylaeus species were collected, including lowland dry
forest habitat in Kanaio NAR and coastal habitat at Manawainui Gulch
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a).
Oahu
Perkins found Hylaeus assimulans to be widespread but not
relatively abundant on Oahu (Magnacca 2005b, p. 2). His Oahu collection
sites included Honolulu (Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008a), the Kaala
mountains, the Waianae Mountains, and the Waianae coast (Perkins 1899,
p. 102; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58). There are also specimens
collected by Perkins from unknown locations labeled ``Oahu'' and ``w.
coast, near sea level'' (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58).
Hylaeus assimulans was not found during surveys conducted between
1998 and 2008, including surveys at one historical location (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 58, 217). Although H. anthracinus was recently found
on Mokuania (see Hylaeus anthracinus Range and Distribution), H.
assimulans was not found during surveys of potentially suitable habitat
on this off-shore islet (S. Plentovich, Service, pers. comm. 2008). The
absence of H. assimulans from potentially suitable

[[Page 55177]]

coastal habitat on Oahu suggests it has likely been extirpated from
this island (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58; H. Sahli, unpublished
data).
Summary of Hylaeus assimulans Range and Distribution
Hylaeus assimulans was historically known from numerous coastal and
lowland dry habitats up to 2,000 ft (610 m) in elevation, on the
islands of Lanai, Maui, and Oahu. Currently, this species is found in a
few small patches of coastal and lowland dry forest habitat in five
locations on Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui. The lands on which H.
assimulans occurs are under private and State (DLNR and KIRC)
ownership.
Specific Information on Hylaeus facilis
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus facilis is a member of the H. difficilis species group, and
is closely related to H. chlorostictus and H. simplex. Hylaeus facilis
was first described as Prosopis facilis by Smith in 1879 (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 80), based on a specimen erroneously reported from
Maui. According to Blackburn and Cameron (1886 and 1887), the species'
type locality was Pauoa Valley on Oahu (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 80).
The species was later transferred to the genus Nesoprosopis (Perkins
1899, pp. 75, 77). Nesoprosopis was subsequently reduced to a subgenus
of Hylaeus (Meade-Waldo 1923, p. 1). The species was most recently
recognized by Daly and Magnacca (2003, p. 80) as H. facilis. Hylaeus
facilis is a medium-sized bee with smoky colored wings. The male has an
oval yellow mark on its face that covers the entire clypeus (lower face
region), and a narrow stripe beside the eyes, but is otherwise
unmarked. The large, externally visible gonoforceps (paired lateral
outer parts of the male genitalia) distinguish H. facilis from the
closely related H. simplex (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 83). The female
is entirely black and indistinguishable from females of H. difficilis
and H. simplex (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 81-82).
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus facilis is unknown,
although the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the adult female. The nesting
habits of H. facilis have not been observed, but the species is thought
to nest underground as do the closely related species H. chlorostictus
and H. simplex (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 83; Magnacca 2005c, p. 2).
The native host plants of adult Hylaeus facilis are unknown, but it
is likely this species visits several plants other Hylaeus species are
known to frequent, including Acacia koa, Metrosideros polymorpha,
Styphelia tameiameiae, Scaevola spp., and Chamaesyce spp. (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 11). Hylaeus facilis has also been observed visiting
the nonnative Tourneforia argentea for nectar and pollen (Magnacca
2007a, p. 181).
Range and Distribution
Hylaeus facilis was historically known from Lanai, Maui, Molokai,
and Oahu, in dry shrubland to wet forest, from coastal to montane
habitat up to 3,281 ft (1,000 m) in elevation (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999,
p. 93; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 81, 83). Perkins (1899, p. 77)
remarked H. facilis was among the most common and widespread Hylaeus
species on Oahu and all of Maui Nui (Lanai, Maui, and Molokai)
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 183). The abundance of specimens in the collections
at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu demonstrates the historic prevalence
of this species in a diverse array of habitats and elevations (Magnacca
2007a, p. 183). Although the species was widely collected within a
diverse range of habitats historically, it probably prefers dry to
mesic forest and shrubland (Magnacca 2005c, p. 2), which are
increasingly rare and patchily distributed habitats (Smith 1985, pp.
227-233; Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 124; Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 66-67,
75; Magnacca 2005c, p. 2).
Hylaeus facilis has almost entirely disappeared from most of its
historical range (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 7; Magnacca 2007a, p.
183). Between 1998 and 2006, 39 sites on Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu
were surveyed, including 13 historical sites. Hylaeus facilis was
absent from each of the 13 historical localities (Magnacca 2007a, p.
183) and was also not observed at 26 other sites with potentially
suitable habitat, including many sites from which other native Hylaeus
species have been recently collected (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 7,
81-82; Magnacca 2007a, p. 183). Likely extirpated from Lanai, H.
facilis is currently only known from two locations, one each on the
islands of Molokai and Oahu (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 81-82;
Magnacca 2005c, p. 2). In addition, in 1990, a single individual was
collected on Maui in a residential area near Makawao at 1,500 ft (457
m) in elevation. However, this site is an urbanized area devoid of
native plants, and it is likely this collection was a single vagrant
individual and not from an established population on Maui.
Lanai
Perkins (1899) described Hylaeus facilis as ``common'' at two Lanai
locations. He noted H. facilis was collected from the Koele Mountains
at 2,000 ft (610 m) in elevation. Researchers believe the collection
locality was northwest of Puu Alii where the ridges are at an elevation
of approximately 2,000 ft (600 m). The Puu Alii summit itself is 2,800
ft (850 m) in elevation, and less likely to be the site of Perkins'
collection (Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 36). Today this area contains
mixed native and nonnative vegetation. Researchers collected three
other species of Hylaeus in the same general area, along the Munro
Trail and Kaiholena ridge in 1999 and 2001 (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp.
217-229). Perkins' second collection site was in montane habitat at
3,000 ft (900 m) in elevation at Haalelepaakai in the ``summit
mountains on Lanai'' (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 83). Researchers
surveyed this area in 1999 and 2001, and were unable to find H.
facilis, although they collected four other Hylaeus species (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229). Hylaeus facilis is likely extirpated from
Lanai because it has not been relocated in over 100 years, and its
potentially suitable habitat has been extensively surveyed (Magnacca
2007a, pp. 177, 183).
Maui
Perkins collected Hylaeus facilis from three different sites on
Maui, including coastal habitat at the Wailuku sand hills (Waiehu
dunes), montane mesic forest habitat on Haleakala, and lowland wet
habitat in Iao Valley. Although other species of Hylaeus were collected
from the Waiehu dunes in 1999 and 2001, H. facilis, as well as several
other species collected by Perkins in the late 19th century, were
absent (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus facilis in montane mesic forest
habitat on Haleakala at an elevation of 5,000 ft (1,524 m) on
Haleakala, in the Olinda area where he is known to have camped while
surveying for and collecting insects (Evenhuis 2009, pp. 199-200).
These native forests were once abundant in this area up to 6,000 ft
(1,818 m) in elevation across the west slope of Haleakala, but have now
been completely converted by agriculture and other land uses (Juvik and
Juvik 1998, pp. 123-124). Hylaeus facilis and other species with
similar habitat requirements (e.g., H. difficilis, H. volcanicus) are
absent from the native,

[[Page 55178]]

wetter forest across the eastern slope of Haleakala (Daly and Magnacca
2003, pp. 219-221, 228-229).
Perkins also collected Hylaeus facilis in lowland wet habitat at an
elevation of 2,000 ft (610 m) in Iao Valley in the west Maui Mountains
(H. V. Daly, unpublished data). The terrain in Iao Valley is especially
rugged and wet, and Perkins relied on assistants to collect specimens
from this area (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 351). Even today the
vegetation in this area is predominantly native (Liebherr and Polhemus
1997, p. 351).
Since the late 1960s, there have been only two collections of
Hylaeus facilis on Maui, but neither is from a distinct population that
can be relocated. One collection was made in 1967 (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 221; Magnacca 2005c, p. 2), but the location is unknown
(Xerces Society 2009c, p. 7). In 1990, a single individual was
collected at Kokomo at an elevation of 1,500 ft (457 m) near Makawao,
in a residential area devoid of native plants (Daly and Magnacca 2003,
p. 221). This individual may have been a straggler blown in from a
different site altogether (Magnacca 2005c, p. 2). Researchers question
whether any viable H. facilis populations still remain on Maui
(Magnacca 2007a, pp. 183-184).
Molokai
Perkins collected Hylaeus facilis in three locations within montane
mesic forest habitat in the east Molokai Mountains (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 83). These locations were probably between Makakupaia and the
rim of Pelekunu Valley, where Perkins did most of his collecting
(Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 347). Makakupaia is located within
TNC's Kamakou Preserve. Researchers have surveyed extensively in
similar, high-elevation habitat near Perkins' collecting area,
including Kamakou Road (3,200 ft (975 m)), Puu Kolekole (3,400 ft
(1,040 m)), and Kawela Gulch (3,600 ft (2,000 m)), and found other
Hylaeus species, but were unable to locate H. facilis (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
In 2005, researchers collected Hylaeus facilis in coastal habitat
at Kuololimu Point, within Kalaupapa National Historical Park (KNHP) on
the southeast coast of the Kalaupapa peninsula (Magnacca 2007b, pp. 44-
45). This area, located on the east side of the peninsula, is largely
rocky and devoid of vegetation, but contains scattered patches of
native coastal vegetation similar to habitat at Ka Lae on the island of
Hawaii (Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). The park is cooperatively managed by
the NPS, and the State of Hawaii's DHHL, DLNR, DOH, and DOT (NPS 2006
(http://www.nps.gov/kala/index.htm)).
Oahu
Perkins collected Hylaeus facilis from six sites on Oahu (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 83). One site described by Perkins was coastal
habitat in Honolulu. Although the exact location is unknown, Honolulu
coastal habitat has been completely developed for urban land use and
there is no potentially suitable coastal habitat remaining in Honolulu
for Hylaeus species. Perkins also described collecting Hylaeus species
from mountains in Honolulu, and although the exact locations are
unknown, these sites are presumed to be near known sites where he
collected, including Waiolani Ridge, Lanihuli Ridge, Nuuanu Valley, and
Konahuanui (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 348). While these mountain
areas are largely undeveloped, many are dominated by nonnative
vegetation. Researchers have surveyed potentially suitable native
habitat near Perkins' collection sites and found other species of
Hylaeus, but not H. facilis (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Descriptions of the five remaining suitable habitats follow:
(A) Makaha Valley: Perkins (1899) collected H. facilis at an
elevation of 3,000 ft (900 m) in the upper part of Makaha Valley, on
Oahu's northwest side. There have been no surveys for Hylaeus in this
area since Perkins' collections, but researchers have observed this
area now lacks suitable Hylaeus habitat due to development,
urbanization, and conversion of native habitat to nonnative vegetation
(Magnacca, pers. comm. 2008c). Some of the upper reaches of Makaha
Valley contain patches of native vegetation, but much of the native
vegetation has been destroyed by brush fires (Liebherr and Polhemus
1997, p. 347).
(B) Mount Kaala: Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus facilis at 2,000
ft (610 m) in elevation on Mt. Kaala, possibly within what is now Mt.
Kaala NAR. This area is a mix of dry and mesic forest communities (DLNR
1990, p. 3), and is generally characterized as predominantly native
vegetation (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 348). This area has not been
extensively resurveyed for Hylaeus spp. because much of it is either
inaccessible (due to either private or U.S. Army ownership), or too
rugged in general, requiring a long and steep approach along the Dupont
Trail on the north slope of Mt. Kaala.
(C) Waianae Mountains: Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus facilis in
the Waianae Mountains, ``upland from Waianae'', likely in dry lowland
forest, although the exact location is unknown. In 2008, researchers
surveyed potentially suitable habitat in the Waianae-Kaala Forest
Reserve (FR), but did not find H. facilis (Magnacca, pers. comm. July
2008c).
(D) Tantalus: Perkins collected Hylaeus facilis in lowland mesic
habitat on ``Tantalus'' (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 348), which
today is in close proximity to the urban core of Honolulu. This area is
a mix of residential development and undeveloped sites dominated by
nonnative plants, including various species of Phyllostachys spp.
(bamboo), Acacia confusa (Formosa koa), Eucalyptus robusta (swamp
mahogany), and Aleurites moluccana (kukui) (USDA 2001 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TANTALUS.html). Habitat
dominated by nonnative plants does not support viable populations of
Hylaeus, and no species have been reported from this area since
Perkins' collections despite more recent surveys in the few small,
widely separated areas containing native plant habitat (Magnacca in
litt. 2011, p. 41).
(E) Poamoho Trail: In 1975, Hylaeus facilis was collected in
lowland wet forest at an unknown elevation along the Poamoho Trail in
Oahu's Koolau Mountains. Located in central Oahu, the Poamoho Trail is
part of the Na Ala Hele trail and access system, and is within the Ewa
FR (DLNR 2008, p. 15). The land adjacent to the trail, including the
access road to the forest reserve, is State (DOFAW) and privately
owned. The Poamoho Trail traverses a public hunting area, and some of
the land surrounding the access road is leased to the Army for training
purposes (DLNR 2011--https://hawaiitrails.ehawaii.gov/
trail.php?TrailID=OA+08+007). Access is only allowed on weekends and
holidays, and by permit only. Dominant vegetation in the summit area
includes the indigenous fern, Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe), Acacia
koa, and Metrosideros polymorpha (DLNR 2011--http://
hawaiitrails.ehawaii.gov/trail.php?TrailID=OA+08+007).
Summary of Hylaeus facilis Range and Distribution
At the end of the 19th century, Hylaeus facilis was known from
numerous locations in coastal and lowland habitats, including lowland
dry, mesic, and wet forest habitat on the islands of Lanai, Maui,
Molokai, and Oahu. Currently, this species is only known from two
locations, one each on the islands of Molokai and Oahu (Magnacca 2007a,
p. 177), under State (DHHL, DLNR, DOFAW, DOH, DOT) and private (TNC and
others)

[[Page 55179]]

ownership. Researchers question whether viable populations of this
species remain on Maui because only two single individuals have been
collected in the past 100 years.
Specific Information on Hylaeus hilaris
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus hilaris was first described as Prosopis hilaris by Smith in
1879 (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 103-104), transferred to the genus
Nesoprosopis 20 years later (Perkins 1899, pp. 75), and then
Nesoprosopis was reduced to a subgenus of Hylaeus in 1923 (Meade-Waldo
1923, p. 1). In 2003, Daly and Magnacca described the species as
Hylaeus hilaris (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 103-104). Hylaeus hilaris
is distinguished by its large size (male wing length is 0.185 in (4.7
mm)) relative to other coastal Hylaeus species. The wings of this
species are slightly smoky to smoky-colored, and it is the most
colorful of the Hawaiian Hyaleus species. The face of the male is
almost entirely yellow, with yellow markings on the legs and thorax,
and the metasoma (middle portion of the abdomen) are usually
predominantly red. Females are drably colored, with various brownish
markings. As with other cleptoparasitic species (see Life History
below), H. hilaris lacks the specialized pollen-sweeping hairs of the
front legs (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 9, 106). It is also one of only
two Hawaiian Hylaeus species to possess apical (at the end or tip of a
structure) bands of fine white hairs on the segments of the metasoma.
Life History
Most adult Hawaiian Hylaeus species consume nectar for energy;
however, Hylaeus hilaris has yet to be observed actually feeding from
flowers. Hylaeus hilaris and the four species related to it (H.
hostilis, H. inquilina, H. sphecodoides, and H. volatilis) are known as
cleptoparasites or cuckoo bees. The mated female does not construct a
nest or collect pollen, but instead enters the nest of another species
and lays an egg in a partially provisioned cell. Upon hatching, the
cleptoparasitic larva kills the host egg, consumes the provisions,
pupates, and eventually emerges as an adult. As a result of this
lifestyle shift, H. hilaris bees have lost the pollen-collecting hairs
other species possess on the front legs. Cleptoparasitism is actually
quite common among bees, with approximately 25 percent of known bee
species having evolved to become cleptoparasites. Among the world's
bees, other than the Hawaiian Hylaeus group, no cleptoparasites are
known from the family Colletidae (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 9).
The larvae of Hylaeus hilaris and their diet are unknown (Magnacca
2005d, p. 2); however, the species is known to lay its eggs within the
nests of H. anthracinus, H. assimulans, and H. longiceps (Perkins 1913,
p. lxxxi). Although the species has never been observed at flowers, H.
hilaris adults presumably consume nectar as a food source (Michener
2000, pp. 26-37, 126). Hylaeus hilaris depends on a number of related
Hylaeus host species for its parasitic larvae, and its population size
is inherently much smaller than its host species (Magnacca 2007a, p.
181).
Range and Distribution
Hylaeus hilaris was historically known from coastal habitat on the
islands of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai. It is believed to have occurred
along much of the coast of these islands' as its primary hosts, H.
anthracinus, H. assimulans, and H. longiceps, likely extended
throughout this habitat. The majority of coastal habitat on these
islands has either been developed or degraded, and is no longer
suitable for H. hilaris (Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, pp. 346-347;
Magnacca 2007, pp. 186-188). Hylaeus hilaris was absent from three of
its historical population sites revisited by researchers between 1998
and 2006. It was also not observed at 10 additional sites with
potentially suitable habitat where other native Hylaeus species have
been recently collected (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 103, 106).
First collected on Maui in 1879, Hylaeus hilaris has been collected
only twice in the last 100 years, but as noted above, there is a gap of
about 50 to 100 years between major collecting efforts. Hylaeus hilaris
has recently been collected on two occasions: once in 1989 and again in
1999. On the islands of Lanai and Maui, the species was absent from
each of its historical Perkins-era localities revisited between 1998
and 2006 (Magnacca 2007a, pp. 177, 181-82). Currently, the only known
population of H. hilaris is located on TNC's Moomomi Preserve on
Molokai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 103, 106; Magnacca 2005d, p. 2).
Lanai
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus hilaris in coastal habitat at
Manele, on the southern coast of Lanai. This area is now both the site
of the ferry landing from Lahaina, Maui, and a small boat harbor, and
is in close proximity to a major resort. The area was surveyed in 1999,
but researchers noted little native vegetation aside from Scaevola
sericea and an absence of Hylaeus species. Additionally, the nonnative
bee, Lasioglossum impavidum (no common name (NCN)), was found at the
site. Three other potentially suitable locations were surveyed between
1999 and 2007 for Hylaeus species, but H. hilaris was not observed at
these sites, despite the presence of H. assimulans and H. longiceps, a
recorded host species (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 106; Magnacca 2007a,
pp. 177, 181).
Most native coastal habitats are now severely degraded across the
entire island, and it is believed Hylaeus hilaris has likely been
extirpated (Magnacca 2005d, p. 2; Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). Although
large areas of remote sandy beach on the north and east coasts remain
to be thoroughly surveyed for Hylaeus species, those that have been
inspected contain few native plants. Two of the three known host
species of H. hilaris occur on Lanai, but all recent (i.e., since 1999)
collections have primarily been made in lowland dry forest habitat
where H. hilaris has never been collected.
Maui
Perkins collected Hylaeus hilaris from three sites, including one
now unknown site possibly south of Wailuku and simply labeled ``Maui,''
and two sites in coastal habitat at the Wailuku sand hills (an area
noted as ``the sandy isthmus'') (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 106). In
addition, in 1880, Reverend Thomas Blackburn collected H. hilaris from
an unspecified location on the island (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 106).
Although other rare Hylaeus species were collected from the Waiehu
dunes in 1999 and 2001 (See H. anthracinus Range and Distribution), H.
hilaris, as well as several other species once collected there by
Perkins, was absent (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
All three known host species of Hylaeus hilaris occur on Maui.
However, H. anthracinus and H. assimulans are currently known only from
dry forest or shrubland, which are likely unsuitable habitat for H.
hilaris. The third known host species, H. longiceps, occurs in the
Wailuku sand hills (Magnacca 2007a, p. 182). In addition to its known
historical sites, several other potentially suitable sites were
surveyed between 1998 and 2006, but H. hilaris was not found at any of
these sites, despite the presence of two of its known host species
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229; Magnacca 2007a, p. 177).
Therefore, researchers believe it is likely H. hilaris has been
extirpated from the island (Magnacca 2005d, p. 2).

[[Page 55180]]

Molokai
Although Hylaeus hilaris was never collected on Molokai by Perkins,
in 1918, Fullaway (1918, p. 396) collected the species at an
unspecified site. As on all of the Hawaiian Islands, most of the
coastal habitat on Molokai is now dominated by nonnative vegetation.
Currently, the only known population of H. hilaris occurs on the
northwest coast within TNC's Moomomi Preserve. This site is part of a
large area of windswept calcified dunes, some of which are dominated by
native plants while other portions of the dunes are dominated by
nonnative plant species. Hylaeus anthracinus and H. longiceps, both
host species of H. hilaris, are presently known to occur in Moomomi
Preserve (Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). Only two collections of H. hilaris
have been made at Moomomi since it was discovered at this site in 1930.
Both collections, 1989 and 1999, were of a single male. Dunes to the
west of Moomomi Preserve are dominated by nonnative vegetation, and no
species of Hylaeus have been collected from those areas. While H.
anthracinus, one of the host species of H. hilaris, is currently known
from the Kalapapa peninsula, H. hilaris has never been collected there.
Summary of Hylaeus hilaris Range and Distribution
Hylaeus hilaris was historically known from coastal habitat on the
islands of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai. It is believed to have occurred
along much of the coast of these islands' as its known hosts, H.
anthracinus, H. assimulans, and H. longiceps, likely also occurred
throughout coastal habitat on these three islands. Currently, H.
hilaris is only known from one site on Molokai.
Specific Information on Hylaeus kuakea
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus kuakea was first described by Daly and Magnacca (2003, pp.
1, 125-1,127) from specimens collected in 1997 in the Waianae Mountains
on Oahu. Hylaeus kuakea is a small, black bee with slightly smoky-
colored wings. This species does not fit into any of the well-defined
Hylaeus species groups. Its facial marks are similar to those of the H.
difficilis group and to H. anthracinus, but it can be distinguished by
its unusual ivory facial marking covering the clypeus (the lower face
region). Hylaeus kuakea also resembles H. anthracinus, but has a
denser, more distinct arrangement of setae (sensory hairs) on the head
and generally narrower marks next to the compound eyes (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 125; Magnacca 2005e, p. 2). Only four adult male
specimens have been collected; females have yet to be collected or
observed.
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus kuakea is unknown, although
the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the adult female (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 9). The nesting habits of H. kuakea have not been
observed, but the species is believed to be related to other wood-
nesting Hawaiian Hylaeus species (Magnacca and Danforth 2006, p. 403).
The native host plants of the adult Hylaeus kuakea are unknown, but
it is likely this species visits several plants other Hylaeus species
are known to frequent, including Acacia koa, Metrosideros polymorpha,
Styphelia tameiameiae, Scaevola spp., and Chamaesyce spp. (Magnacca
2005e, p. 2).
Range and Distribution
In 1997, researchers collected 2 male individuals of Hylaeus kuakea
in lowland mesic forest at an elevation of about 1,900 ft (579 m) on
Moho Gulch Ridge at the northern end of the State's recently acquired
Honouliuli Preserve in the Waianae Mountains on Oahu. Researchers
surveyed the middle and southern portions of the Preserve, but they did
not find H. kuakea, although other species of Hylaeus are known from
these areas. In 2010, researchers collected this species (two males),
on the endangered plant Chamaesyce herbstii (akoko) in a remnant patch
of diverse lowland mesic forest in Makaha Valley on Oahu's west side
(Magnacca, in litt., 2010, p. 1). Phylogenetically, H. kuakea belongs
in a species-group primarily including mesic forest-inhabiting species
(Magnacca & Danforth 2006, p. 405).
Summary of Hylaeus kuakea Range and Distribution
Because the first collection of Hylaeus kuakea was not made until
1997, its historical range is unknown (Magnacca 2005e, p. 2; Magnacca
2007a, p. 184). Only four individuals (all males) of H. kuakea have
been collected at two different sites in lowland mesic forest habitat
in the Waianae Mountains on Oahu (Magnacca 2007a, p. 184; Magnacca, in
litt., 2010, p. 1), and the species has never been collected in any
other habitat type or area, including some that have been more
thoroughly surveyed (Magnacca in litt., 2011, p. 49). Researchers have
not exhaustively surveyed all potentially suitable lowland mesic forest
areas due their remote and rugged locations, small size, and distant
spacing among large areas of nonnative forest. Lowland mesic forest
habitat is becoming increasingly rare and patchily distributed on Oahu
(Smith 1985, pp. 227-233; Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 124; Wagner et al.
1999, pp. 66-67, 75).
Specific Information on Hylaeus longiceps
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus longiceps was first described in 1899 as Nesoprosopis
longiceps (Perkins 1899, pp. 75, 98), and then Nesoprosopis was reduced
to a subgenus of Hylaeus in 1923 (Meade-Waldo 1923, p. 1). Daly and
Magnacca (2003, pp. 133-134) most recently described the species as H.
longiceps. Hylaeus longiceps is a small to medium-sized, black bee with
clear to slightly smoky-colored wings. Its distinguishing
characteristics are its long head and the facial marks of the male. The
lower face of the male is marked with a yellow band that extends at the
sides of the face in a broad stripe above the antennal sockets. The
area above the clypeus (lower face region) is very long and narrow, and
the scape (the first antennal segment) is noticeably twice as long as
it is wide. The female is entirely black and unmarked (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 133).
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus longiceps is unknown,
although the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the female adult (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 9). The nesting habits of H. longiceps are unknown,
but the species is thought to nest underground, as in other closely
related species (Magnacca 2005f, p. 2).
Hylaeus longiceps adults have been observed visiting the flowers of
a wide variety of native plants, including Scaevola coriacea (dwarf
naupaka), Sida fallax, Scaevola spp., Sesbania tomentosa, Myoporum
sandwicense, Santalum ellipticum, Chamaesyce degeneri, and Vitex
rotundifolia (pohinahina) (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 135). It is also
likely H. longiceps visits several plant species other Hylaeus species
are known to frequently visit, including Scaevola spp., Chamaesyce
spp., Tournefortia argentea, Jacquemontia ovalifolia, and Sida fallax
(Magnacca 2005f, p. 2).
Range and Distribution
Hylaeus longiceps is historically known from coastal and lowland
dry shrubland habitat up to 2,000 ft (610 m)

[[Page 55181]]

in elevation in numerous locations on the islands of Lanai, Maui,
Molokai, and Oahu. Perkins (1899, p. 98) noted H. longiceps was locally
abundant, and probably occurred historically throughout much of the
leeward and lowland areas on Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, as its
host plants, Sida fallax, Chamaesyce spp., Scaevola spp., and
Jaquemontia ovalifolia, occurred throughout these areas (Magnacca
2005f, p. 2). Most of the habitat in these areas has been either
developed or degraded, and is no longer suitable for H. longiceps
(Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, pp. 346-347; Magnacca 2007a, pp. 186-188).
Hylaeus longiceps is now restricted to small populations in small
patches of coastal and lowland dry habitat on Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and
Oahu (Magnacca 2005f, p. 2). Twenty-five sites that were either
historical collecting localities for H. longiceps or contained
potentially suitable habitat for this species were surveyed between
1997 and 2008. Hylaeus longiceps was observed at only six of the
surveyed sites: three sites on Lanai and one site each on the islands
of Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Only one historical location, Waieu dunes
on Maui, still supports a population of H. longiceps (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 135).
Lanai
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus longiceps at Manele, and other
unspecified localities (labeled ``Lanai''). Between 1999 and 2001,
researchers surveyed seven sites for Hylaeus species, and were unable
to find H. longiceps at Manele Bay, although other rare Hylaeus species
were observed there (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229). In addition,
researchers did not find H. longiceps at three other sites within
potentially suitable lowland dry habitat, including the Kahue unit of
the privately owned Kanepuu Preserve, Garden of the Gods, and the Munro
Trail/Kaiholena area of the Koele mountains (Daly and Magnacca 2003,
pp. 217-229). Hylaeus longiceps is now known only from very small
pockets of native vegetation in three locations on private land,
including lowland dry forest habitat at Kahue and Polihua Road, and
coastal habitat at Shipwreck Beach. Descriptions of these three
locations follow:
(A) Kahue and Polihua Road: In 1999, Magnacca collected Hylaeus
longiceps in lowland dry forest at Kahue (south of Kanepuu Preserve) at
an elevation of 1,400 ft (427 m) (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 135).
Researchers also surveyed the Kanepuu Preserve for H. longiceps, but
were unable to find this species. In 1999, researchers collected H.
longiceps in lowland dry forest at 1,000 ft (300 m) in elevation, along
Polihua Road in central Lanai (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 135).
(B) Shipwreck Beach: Although he did not collect Hylaeus longiceps
at Shipwreck Beach, Perkins collected other species of Hylaeus at
Awalua, about 4 miles to the west (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 58). In
2001, researchers collected H. longiceps in native, coastal habitat at
Shipwreck Beach (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 135). Shipwreck Beach is a
popular tourist site on Lanai and accessible by four-wheel drive
vehicles.
Maui
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus longiceps at the Wailuku sand
hills (Waiehu Dunes) and on Haleakala. In addition, some of his
specimens were collected from unknown localities labeled ``Maui.''
Perkins collected H. longiceps in dry forest habitat at an elevation of
2,000 ft (610 m) on Haleakala, probably near the towns of Pukalani or
Makawao, where he stopped on his way to Wailuku (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 135). Native dry forests that supported populations of Hylaeus
were common in lowland areas when Perkins collected, but this habitat
has been greatly reduced and fragmented.
Hylaeus longiceps is now known from only one Maui location, at the
Wailuku sand hills (Waiehu dunes). Between 1999 and 2001, a total of
seven specimens were collected in native habitat in the northern
portion of the dunes (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 224). Researchers
surveyed for, but did not find, H. longiceps in the southern (Kahului)
portion of the dunes (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 224).
Hylaeus longiceps was not found in five other sites on Maui
surveyed between 1999 and 2001 (Daly and Magnacca, pp. 217-229). One
historical site, in dry forest habitat on the slopes of Haleakala, has
been developed and is overgrown with nonnative, invasive plants
(Magnacca, pers. comm., 2008f). Hylaeus longiceps was absent from four
sites (Kanaio NAR, Lahainaluna, Manawainui Gulch, and Waikapu near
Kaohonua) with potentially suitable habitat where other Hylaeus species
with similar habitat requirements were recently collected (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Molokai
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus longiceps at Kaunakakai, and at
unknown locations labeled ``Molokai coast and plains,'' the ``west
end'' [of the island], and the ``Molokai Mountains.'' Although
Kaunakakai is the primary urban area on Molokai, researchers surveyed
this area, noting any former Hylaeus habitat has been lost to urban
development and nonnative, invasive plants (Magnacca, pers. comm.,
2008f). Most coastal habitat on the west end of Molokai, with the
exception of TNC's Moomomi Preserve, has been degraded and converted to
nonnative, invasive plants (Magnacca, pers. comm., 2008f).
Researchers surveyed a total of six sites on Molokai over the last
several years for Hylaeus longiceps, and observed 8 individuals at
Moomomi Preserve (in 1999 and in 2001) (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p.
135). Hylaeus longiceps was notably absent from three sites on the
Kalaupapa peninsula (Kuololimu Point, Hoolehua Beach, and Kaupikiawa),
where other Hylaeus species have been recently collected (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229). Researchers were unable to find H.
longiceps in sand dune habitat near the Kaluakoi Resort on Molokai's
northwest coastline (Magnacca, pers. comm., 2008f).
Oahu
Perkins (1899) collected Hylaeus longiceps from only one site, in a
coastal area of southwest Waianae. In 1999, 2000, and 2002, researchers
found H. longiceps in coastal habitat at the State's Kaena Point NAR
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 224). Researchers did not find H. longiceps
during surveys conducted at other coastal sites with potentially
suitable habitat, including Makapuu in 1999, and Kalaeloa in 2002.
Although both areas contain vegetation similar to the vegetation in the
Kaena Point NAR, albeit more degraded, no species of Hylaeus were
observed in these areas (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229; Magnacca,
pers. comm., 2008f).
Summary of Hylaeus longiceps Range and Distribution
Hylaeus longiceps was historically known from numerous coastal and
lowland dry forest locations up to 2,000 ft (600 m) in elevation on the
islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Currently, H. longiceps is
restricted to a total of six populations in small patches of coastal
and lowland dry forest habitat: three sites on Lanai and one site each
on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (Magnacca 2005f, p. 2). The
lands on which H. longiceps occurs are under a variety of jurisdictions
including private (e.g., TNC) and State (NARS).

[[Page 55182]]

Specific Information on Hylaeus mana
Taxonomy and Description
Hylaeus mana was first described by Daly and Magnacca (2003, pp.
135-136) from four specimens collected in 2002 on the leeward side of
the Koolau Mountains on Oahu. This species is an extremely small,
gracile (gracefully slender) black bee with yellow markings on the
face. The smallest of all Hawaiian Hylaeus species, H. mana is a member
of the Dumetorum species group. The face of the male is largely yellow
below the antennae, extending dorsally in a narrowing stripe. The
female's face has three yellow lines, one against each eye, and a
transverse stripe at the apex of the clypeus (lower face region). The
female's other markings are the same as the male's (Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 135). Hylaeus mana can be distinguished from H. mimicus and H.
specularis, species with overlapping ranges, by its extremely small
size, the shape of the male's genitalia, the female's extensive facial
marks, and a transverse rather than longitudinal clypeal marking (Daly
and Magnacca 2003, p. 138).
Life History
The diet of the larval stage of Hylaeus mana is unknown, although
the larvae are presumed to feed on stores of pollen and nectar
collected and deposited in the nest by the adult female (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 9). The nesting habits of H. mana are not well known,
but it is assumed the species is closely related to other wood-nesting
Hawaiian Hylaeus species (Magnacca 2005g, p. 2; Magnacca and Danforth
2006, p. 403).
Adult specimens of Hylaeus mana were collected while they visited
flowers of Santalum freycinetianum var. freycinetianum (iliahi,
sandalwood), a native Hawaiian plant found only on Oahu and Molokai
(Wagner et al. 1999, p. 1,221). It is likely H. mana visits several
other native plant species, including Acacia koa, Metrosideros
polymorpha, Styphelia tameiameiae, Scaevola spp., and Chamaesyce spp.
(Magnacca 2005g, p. 2).
Range and Distribution
Hylaeus mana is only known from lowland mesic forest located along
the Manana Trail in the Koolau Mountains on Oahu, at an elevation of
about 1,400 ft (430 m). Few Hylaeus bees have been found in this type
of Acacia koa-dominated, lowland mesic forest on Oahu (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 138). This type of forest is increasingly rare and
patchily distributed on Oahu (Smith 1985, pp. 227-233; Juvik and Juvik
1998, p. 124; Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 66-67, 75).
The Manana Trail is part of the Na Ala Hele Hawaii Statewide Trail
and Access System (DLNR 2007), and is located within the State's Ewa
FR. Six miles in length, the beginning of the Manana Trail is dominated
by nonnative plant species, but leads into an area of native forest
where Acacia koa, Metrosideros polymorpha, and Scaevola spp. are common
(DLNR 2011--http://hawaiitrails.ehawaii.gov/
trail.php?TrailID=OA+09+008).
Summary of Hylaeus mana Range and Distribution
Because the first collection of Hylaeus mana was made in 2002, its
historical range and current distribution, other than the collection on
Manana Trail, are unknown at this time (Magnacca 2005g, p. 2).
Additional surveys in potentially suitable habitat may reveal
additional populations elsewhere on Oahu (Magnacca 2007a, p. 184).
However, the extreme rarity of this species, its absence from nearby
sites, and the fact it was not discovered until very recently, suggests
very few populations remain (Magnacca 2005g, p. 2).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the seven species
of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees in relation to the five factors provided
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether
the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts
to the species. If there is exposure and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine
how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may
drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that
the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms
are defined by the Act.

Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range

Degradation and loss of coastal and lowland habitat used by Hylaeus
bees on all of the main Hawaiian Islands is the primary threat to these
seven species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-61; Daly and Magnacca
2003, pp. 55, 173; Magnacca, pers. comm. 2010). Coastal and lowland
habitats have been severely altered and degraded, partly because of
past and present land management practices, including agriculture,
grazing, and urban development; the deliberate and accidental
introductions of nonnative animals and plants; and recreational
activities. In addition, fire is a potential threat to the habitat of
these seven species in some locations.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Urbanization and Land Use
Conversion
Destruction and modification of Hylaeus bee habitat by urbanization
and land use conversion leads to the direct fragmentation of foraging
and nesting habitat of these species. In particular, because native
host plant species are known to be essential to the yellow-faced bees
for foraging of nectar and pollen, any further loss of this habitat may
endanger their long-term chances for conservation and recovery.
Additionally, conversion and modification of the seven yellow-faced
bees' habitat is also likely to further exacerbate the introduction and
spread of nonnative plants into and within these areas (see Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants section below).
Coastal Habitat
Native coastal habitat is one of the rarest habitats on the main
Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and
Oahu) (Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 45, 54; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 94-
95; Magnacca 2007, p. 180). Coastal habitat is highly valued for
development, popular for recreation, typically dry on both the windward
and leeward sides of the islands, vulnerable to fire, and especially
susceptible to invasion by nonnative plants. Increased access to
coastal areas, and resulting habitat disturbance, has been facilitated
by development, road-building, and past agricultural activities
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 94-95). The native

[[Page 55183]]

coastal habitat that remains is in small remnant patches, and most of
these remnants have been overtaken by invasive plant species and have
relatively low diversity (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 94-95) (see
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants section
below). Most of the coastal areas of the main Hawaiian Islands now lack
significant amounts of native plants suitable for foraging by Hylaeus,
other than Scaevola sericea, which alone cannot support Hylaeus
populations (Magnacca 2007a, p. 187). The restricted and isolated
nature of coastal habitat places species that depend on these areas
even more at risk for a variety of reasons, including but not limited
to their increased susceptibility to random events (e.g., hurricanes
and wildfire), the reduced range of native plants including host
plants, and the reduced number of suitable sites for species to expand
their range (Sakai et al. 2002, p. 291).
Five species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus anthracinus, H.
assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, and H. longiceps) were once
widespread and common in coastal habitat (Perkins 1912, p. 688)
throughout the main Hawaiian Islands (see Table 1 above), with the
exception of Kauai. These five species are now absent from all of
Perkins' coastal collection localities (Kealakekua Bay and Keei and the
urban area near Kona on the island of Hawaii; the Awalua area on Lanai;
the Wailuku sand hills area on Maui; the northwest dunes and Kaunakakai
areas on Molokai; and Waikiki, the Waianae area, and the Honolulu
mountains on Oahu) (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229), although they
have recently been collected in disparate coastal habitat on one or
more of the islands of Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and
Oahu (Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 217-229).
Lowland Dry Habitat
Lowland dry forests and shrublands have been heavily impacted by
urbanization and conversion to agriculture or pasture throughout the
Hawaiian Islands, with the estimated loss of more than 90 percent of
dry forests and shrublands (Bruegmann 1996, p. 26; Juvik and Juvik
1998, p. 124). Less than 1 percent of lowland dry forest and shrubland
remains on Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai; less than 2 percent remains on
Maui; and less than 17 percent remains on Hawaii Island (Sakai et al.
2002, p. 296). Without greater conservation and restoration efforts, we
believe the remaining lowland dry forest and shrublands, which were
once abundant and perhaps the most diverse of all Hawaiian habitat
types (Medeiros 2006, p. 1), could completely disappear due to
continued development and other land use conversion, compounded by the
effects of nonnative species, wild fire, and stochastic events (see
following sections on Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative
Plants; by Nonnative Ungulates; by Fire; by Recreational Activities; by
Hurricanes and Drought; and by Climate Change) (Cabin et al. 2000, p.
449).
Four species (Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, and
H. longiceps) were once widespread (i.e., there were several
populations across two or more islands) and found within lowland dry
habitat on several islands, including Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and
Oahu. However, these species have not been observed during recent
surveys from their historical population sites on these islands
(Magnacca 2005a, b, c, f, pp. 1-2). Five of the seven Hylaeus bee
species (Hylaeus assimulans, H. facilis, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and
H. mana) are most often found in dry and mesic forest (see discussion
below) and shrubland habitat (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11), and the
greatest proportion of endangered or at-risk Hawaiian plant species are
also limited to these same habitats; 25 percent of Hawaiian listed
plant species are from dry forest and shrubland alone (Sakai et al.
2002, pp. 276, 291, 292). According to Magnacca (2007, pp. 186-187),
lowland dry and mesic forests now support less-diverse Hylaeus
communities because many native plants used for foraging are extirpated
from these habitats.
Lowland Mesic Habitat
Hawaii's lowland mesic forest habitat was once abundant and
considered the most diverse (in terms of number of species) of all
Hawaiian forest types (Rock 1913, p. 9). Lowland mesic forest habitat
is now very rare, and has been converted to pasture, military use,
agricultural use, or lost to urbanization. Development and land use
conversion is ongoing (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 61; Magnacca 2007, p.
187; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 75). Fire has also negatively impacted this
habitat type and remains a significant threat (see Habitat Destruction
and Modification by Fire section below).
Historically, Hylaeus facilis was found in a wide variety of
habitats including lowland mesic forest on Lanai, Maui, and Oahu and
montane mesic habitat on Molokai. However, this species no longer
occurs in these habitats on any of these four islands. Hylaeus kuakea
and H. mana are known from a total of three locations in lowland mesic
forest habitat on the island of Oahu. Because we lack information on
the historical range of H. kuakea and H. mana (they were only
discovered relatively recently), we are unable to determine the extent
of habitat loss these two species have experienced. However, because
the extent and the quality of lowland mesic forest has been reduced
throughout the Hawaiian Islands, it is reasonable to conclude H. kuakea
and H. mana now have less habitat because of urbanization and land use
conversion.
Lowland Wet Habitat
Native lowland wet forests were once one of the dominant ecosystem
types in lowland areas on the main Hawaiian Islands (Wagner et al.
1999, p. 45). Most of the original loss of this habitat type was due to
agricultural uses in the 18th and 19th centuries, and many remaining
areas were overtaken by aggressive nonnative plant species such as
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava), nonnative grasses such as
Brachiaria mutica (California grass), and Rubus spp. (e.g., prickly
Florida blackberry, thimbleberry). Remnants of native lowland wet
forest can be found in rocky or steep terrain, such as on some peaks
and summit ridges on Oahu, Molokai, and West Maui (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 105). Although these remaining remote and remnant native
lowland areas are now less likely threatened by land use conversion,
they remain very threatened by the impacts of nonnative plants (see
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants section
below). Furthermore, the original loss of lowland and montane wet
forest habitat on Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and Molokai was likely a
contributing factor to the decline of H. facilis, a species now known
only from coastal habitat on Molokai and wet forest habitat on Oahu's
Poamoho Trail. Researchers believe the site on Oahu likely once had
more open understory and the presence of H. facilis in this wet forest
habitat represents an outlier or residual population (Perkins 1899, p.
76; Liebherr and Polhemus 1997, p. 347).
In summary, destruction and modification by urbanization and land
use conversion of the coastal and lowland habitat of the seven Hylaeus
bees is continuing, and is expected to continue reducing and
fragmenting the remaining habitat available to the yellow-faced bees in
the future, endangering the species' long-term chances for conservation
and recovery. Because of the decreased amount of suitable native
coastal and lowland habitat remaining in the Hawaiian

[[Page 55184]]

Islands and the continued conversion of these native habitats by
development, road building, or agriculture, we conclude the ongoing
habitat loss and land modification is a significant ongoing threat to
H. anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
Native vegetation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands has undergone
extreme alteration because of past and present land management
practices, including ranching, agricultural development, and the
deliberate introduction of nonnative plants and animals (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, pp. 27, 58). The original native flora of Hawaii (species
that were present before humans arrived) consisted of about 1,000 taxa,
89 percent of which were endemic (species that occur only in the
Hawaiian Islands). Over 800 plant taxa have been introduced from
elsewhere, and nearly 100 of these have become pests (e.g., injurious
plants) in Hawaii (Smith 1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73;
Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). Some of these plants were brought to
Hawaii by various groups of people, including the Polynesians, for food
or cultural reasons. Beginning in the early 1900s, plantation owners
(and the territorial government of Hawaii), alarmed at the reduction of
water resources for their crops caused by the destruction of native
forest cover by grazing feral and domestic animals, introduced
nonnative trees for reforestation and continued the practice through
the late 1930s (Nature Conservancy of Hawaii 2003, p. 19). Ranchers
intentionally introduced pasture grasses and other nonnative plants for
agriculture, and sometimes inadvertently introduced weed seeds as well.
Other plants were brought to Hawaii for their potential horticultural
value (Scott et al. 1986, pp. 361-363; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73).
Nonnative plants adversely impact native Hawaiian habitat,
including that of the seven yellow-faced bees identified in this
finding, by modifying the availability of light, altering soil-water
regimes, modifying nutrient cycling, altering fire characteristics of
native plant communities (for example, successive fires that burn
farther and farther into native habitat, destroy native plants, and
remove habitat for native species by altering microclimatic conditions
to favor nonnative species), and ultimately converting native dominated
plant communities to nonnative plant communities (Smith 1985, pp. 180-
181; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73;
Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6). Nonnative plants directly and indirectly
affect the seven yellow-faced bees by modifying or destroying their
terrestrial and riparian habitat and reducing food sources.
The spread of nonnative plant species is one of the primary causes
of decline of the seven Hylaeus bee species, and a current threat to
their existing populations because these bees depend closely on native
vegetation for nectar and pollen. The bees are almost entirely absent
from habitat dominated by invasive, nonnative vegetation (Sakai et al.
2002, pp. 276, 291; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11; Liebherr 2005, p.
186). The native flora within most of lowland habitat in the Hawaiian
Islands is being replaced by aggressive, nonnative plant species
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 73-74; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 52). Many
native plant species communities that have been replaced by often
monotypic communities of nonnative plants were once foraging resources
for numerous species of Hylaeus bees (Cox and Elmqvist 2000, p. 1238;
Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11; USFWS 1999, pp. 145, 163, 171, 180;
USFWS 2008b, pp. 7, 9).
Many of the native plants that currently serve as foraging
resources for the adults of the seven Hylaeus bee species are declining
due to a lack of pollinators and competition with nonnative plants
(Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11; USFWS 2008b, pp. 7, 9; Smith 1985, pp.
180-181; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p. 74; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992,
p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6), and are found only in very small
populations (USFWS 1999, pp. 145, 163, 171, 180; Cox and Elmqvist 2000,
p. 1,238). For example, H. longiceps and H. anthracinus are known to
forage on the federally endangered plant Sesbania tomentosa. Both H.
longiceps and H. anthracinus also visit Chamaesyce celastroides var.
kaenana, a federally endangered plant endemic to coastal dry shrubland
on Oahu (Koutnik 1999, p. 606; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 55, 74).
Hylaeus longiceps is also known to forage on the endangered Scaevola
coriacea (USFWS 1999, p. 145; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 55, 135). In
addition, H. anthracinus has been collected from inside the fruit
capsule of Hedyotis coriacea, a federally endangered dry forest plant,
known from fewer than 200 individuals on the island of Hawaii (Center
for Environmental Management of Military Lands, 2010). Several other
widespread nonnative plant species threaten coastal habitats of the
five Hylaeus species known from these areas. Understory and sub-canopy
species include Asystasia gangetica (Chinese violet), Atriplex
semibaccata (Australian saltbush), Leucana leucocephala (koa haole),
Pluchea indica (Indian fleabane), P. symphytifolia (sourbush), and
Verbesina encelioides (golden crown-beard) (DOFAW 2007, pp. 20-22, 54-
58; HBMP 2008). Nonnative canopy species include Prosopis pallida
(kiawe) (DOFAW 2007, pp. 20-22, 54-58; HBMP 2008), an invasive,
nonnative, deciduous thorny tree (TNC 2009, p. 8). For example, in
Moomomi Preserve on Molokai, which represents the only known location
for Hylaeus hilaris, most of the sand dunes and areas adjacent to the
preserve are entirely covered in Prosopis pallida. The narrow coastal
strip in the Preserve itself is the only area that remains somewhat
intact with native plant species (TNC 2008, p. 8; Magnacca in litt.
2011, p. 65). In addition, several nonnative grasses such as Cenchrus
ciliaris (buffelgrass), Chloris barbata (swollen fingergrass),
Digitaria insularis (sourgrass), and Panicum maximum (guinea grass)
threaten the coastal habitats in which they are known to occur (DOFAW
2007, pp. 20-22, 54-58; HBMP 2008).
As noted in the Life History section, above, Hylaeus species almost
exclusively visit native plants to collect nectar and pollen (Daly and
Magnacca 2003, p. 11), pollinating those plants in the process (Sakai
et al. 1995, pp. 2,524-2,528; Cox and Elmqvist 2000, p. 1,238; Sahli et
al. 2008, p. 1). Hylaeus bees are very rarely found visiting nonnative
plants for nectar and pollen (Magnacca 2007a, pp. 186, 188).
Unpublished data on Hylaeus spp. pollen use (Magnacca in litt. 2011, p.
65) suggest only approximately 3 percent of pollen collected by yellow-
faced bees (although not exclusively the seven Hylaeus species
addressed in this finding) is from nonnative plant sources. These data
do not include observations regarding yellow-faced bee use of
Tournefortia argentea, which is a naturalized and relatively recent
arrival to the Hawaiian Islands, as a pollen resource (Magnacca in
litt. 2011, p. 65) (see additional information on this species below).
Other than Scaevola sericea, native vegetation is lacking along most of
the coastline of the main Hawaiian Islands. As Hylaeus spp. have not
been observed at coastal sites where Scaevola sericea represents the
only native plant species occurrence, researchers believe the yellow-
faced bees are unable to survive on this species alone (Magnacca 2007,
p. 187; Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 65).
In summary, the spread of nonnative plants throughout the coastal
and

[[Page 55185]]

lowland habitat of the seven Hylaeus bees represents a serious and
ongoing threat to these species. Many of the native plant species being
replaced by invasive, nonnative plants provide foraging resources (e.g.
pollen, nectar) for Hylaeus bees, including these seven species. The
best available information indicates these seven bee species do not
characteristically forage on nonnative plants (Daly and Magnacca 2003,
p. 13). Only 14 of 820 recent (1998 to 2010) Hylaeus spp. observations
were on flowers of nonnative plant species; however, none of those
observations involved the seven Hylaeus species addressed in this
finding. We acknowledge those observations do not include records
documenting Hylaeus spp. using Tournefortia argentea (another nonnative
species). However, there are only 13 observations of Hylaeus spp. using
this species, including four records for H. anthracinus and one record
for H. facilis (Magnacca in litt. 2011, p. 66). Therefore, we conclude
that the ongoing spread of nonnative plants into the habitats of the
seven Hylaeus bees remains a significant threat due to manner in which
nonnative plants alter and fragment habitat, increase the likelihood of
fire, and attract nonnative insect species. This threat further
endangers the species' long-term chances for conservation and recovery.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Ungulates
The presence of nonnative mammals, such as feral pigs (Sus scrofa),
cattle (Bos taurus), goats (Capra hircus), and axis deer (Axis axis),
is considered one of the primary factors underlying the alteration and
degradation of native vegetation and habitat in the Hawaiian Islands
(Stone 1985, pp. 262-263; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-66; 73 FR
73801). Beyond the direct effects of trampling and consuming native
plants, nonnative ungulates contribute significantly to increased
erosion, and their behavior (i.e., rooting and moving across large
areas) facilitates the spread and establishment of competing, invasive,
nonnative plant species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65). Feral pigs
occur on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Kahoolawe and Lanai
(HEAR 1998; C. Kessler, USFWS, pers. comm. 2011); goats are found on
all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Lanai (HEAR 1998); feral cattle
are found on Hawaii and Maui (HEAR 1998); Mouflon sheep and hybrids are
found on Hawaii and Lanai (Hawaii Conservation Alliance (HCA) 2007);
and axis deer are found on Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (HCA 2007).
At least one endangered coastal and lowland plant species, Sesbania
tomentosa, threatened by the browsing, trampling, and digging
activities of nonnative ungulates (e.g., axis deer, goats, and cattle),
is a foraging source for Hylaeus anthracinus and H. longiceps (USFWS
1999, pp. 145, 163, 171, 180; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 11, 13).
The State of Hawaii provides game mammal (e.g., feral pigs, goats,
and deer) hunting opportunities on State-designated public hunting
areas on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu
(Hawaii Administrative Rules Sec. 13-123-14-13-123-20; DLNR 1999). The
State's management objectives for game animals ranges from maximizing
public hunting opportunities (e.g., ``sustained yield'') in some areas
to removal by State staff, or their designees, in other areas (Hawaii
Administrative Rules Sec. 13-123). Several of the seven Hylaeus bees
have populations in or adjacent to areas where terrestrial habitat may
be manipulated for game enhancement and where game populations are
maintained at certain levels for public hunting (Hawaii Administrative
Rules Sec. 13-123). Public hunting areas are predominantly not fenced,
and game mammals have unrestricted access to most areas across the
landscape, regardless of underlying land use designation. While fences
are sometimes built to provide protection from game mammals to the
natural resources within the fenced area, the current number and
locations of fences are not adequate to prevent habitat destruction and
degradation of the terrestrial habitat of the seven species of Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees.
In summary, feral pigs, cattle, goats, and axis deer continue to
alter and degrade native vegetation within Hylaeus habitat in the
Hawaiian Islands. We believe these ungulates represent a significant
and ongoing threat to the continued existence of the seven Hylaeus
bees, endangering the species' long-term chances for conservation and
recovery. Ungulates directly trample and consume native plants,
including plants used for foraging by H. anthracinus and H. longiceps.
The best available information indicates that other than the plant
Tournefortia argentea, none of the seven Hylaeus bees use nonnative
plants for foraging (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 13). While some
specific areas throughout the State, including some Hylaeus spp.
habitat sites, are managed to exclude the presence of or control
ungulates, we are unaware of any plans to entirely eradicate or
eliminate ungulates from the Hawaiian Islands. In addition, public
hunting areas maintain populations of nonnative ungulates and often do
not provide adequate fencing to prevent nonnative ungulates from
negatively impacting the habitat of the seven yellow-faced bees.
Therefore, the ongoing alteration and degradation of many of the native
coastal and lowland habitat where these seven Hylaeus bees occur by
ungulates is expected to further impact the bees' foraging and nesting
habitat through the direct consumption and trampling of native plants,
introduction and spread of nonnative plants, and increased erosion.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire
Fire is a relatively new, human-exacerbated threat to native
species and natural vegetation in Hawaii. The historical fire regime in
Hawaii was characterized by infrequent, low severity fires, as few
natural ignition sources existed (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith
and Tunison 1992, pp. 395-397). Natural fuel beds were often
discontinuous, with moderate to high rainfall in many areas on most
islands. Fires inadvertently or intentionally ignited by the original
Polynesians in Hawaii probably contributed to the initial decline of
native vegetation in the drier plains and foothills. These early
settlers practiced slash-and-burn agriculture that created open lowland
areas suitable for the later colonization of nonnative, fire-adapted
grasses (Kirch 1982, pp. 5-6, 8; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 30-31).
Beginning in the late 18th century, Europeans and Americans introduced
plants and animals that further degraded native Hawaiian ecosystems.
Pasture areas and ranching, in particular, created highly fire-prone
areas of nonnative grasses and shrubs (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p.
67). Fires of all intensities, seasons, and sources are destructive to
native Hawaiian ecosystems (Brown and Smith 2000, p. 172), and a single
grass-fueled fire can kill most native trees and shrubs in the burned
area (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 74). Although Vogl (1969) (in
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) suggests naturally occurring fires,
primarily from lightning strikes, have been important in the
development of the original Hawaiian flora, and many Hawaiian plants
might be fire-adapted, Mueller-Dombois (1981) (in Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 91) points out most natural vegetation types of Hawaii would
not carry fire before the introduction of nonnative grasses. Smith and
Tunison (in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) state native plant fuels
typically have low flammability.
Fire represents a threat to the seven Hylaeus species in coastal,
lowland dry,

[[Page 55186]]

and lowland mesic habitat. In addition, ordnance-induced fires have
periodically occurred on Hawaii's military installations, including the
Army's PTA, and are considered an ongoing threat to the montane dry
forest habitat that supports H. anthracinus (The Center for
Environmental Management of Military Lands 2002, Appendix 1 pp. 1-6;
USFWS 2004, p. 110). Fire threatens the seven Hylaeus species by
destroying the native plant species and communities on which the bees
depend and opening up habitat for increased invasion by nonnative
plants. Fire can destroy dormant seeds of native plants as well as the
plants themselves. Successive fires that burn farther and farther into
native habitat destroy native plants and remove habitat for native
plant and animal species by altering microclimate conditions favorable
to nonnative plants. Nonnative plant species most likely to be spread
as a consequence of fire are those that (1) produce a high fuel load;
(2) are adapted to survive and regenerate after fire; and (3) establish
rapidly in newly burned areas. Grasses (particularly those that produce
mats of dry material or retain a mass of standing dead leaves) that
invade native forests and shrublands provide fuels that allow fire to
burn areas that would not otherwise easily burn, including even the
edges of wetter forests (Fujioka and Fujii 1980, in Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 93; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70, 73-74; Tunison et al.
2002, p. 122). Native woody plants may recover from fire to some
degree, but fire tips the competitive balance toward nonnative species
(National Park Service 1989, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93).
For example, on a post-burn survey at Puuwaawaa on the island of
Hawaii, an area of native Diospyros forest with undergrowth of the
nonnative grass Pennisetum setaceum, Takeuchi noted ``no regeneration
of native canopy is occurring within the Puuwaawaa burn area''
(Takeuchi 1991, p. 2). Takeuchi also stated, ``burn events served to
accelerate a decline process already in place, compressing into days a
sequence which would ordinarily have taken decades'' (Takeuchi 1991, p.
4). The author concluded that in addition to increasing the number of
fires, the nonnative Pennisetum acted to suppress establishment of
native plants after a fire (Takeuchi 1991, p. 6).
There have been several recent fires on Oahu that have impacted
rare or endangered species in coastal, lowland dry, and mesic habitats.
Between 2004 and 2005, wildfires burned more than 360 ac (146 ha) of
mesic habitat in Honouliuli Preserve, home to more than 90 rare and
endangered plants and animals, and located along the windward side of
the Waianae Mountains (The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 2005). In 2006,
a fire at Kaena Point State Park burned 60 ac (24 ha) and encroached on
endangered plants in Makua Military Training Area. The area that burned
in this fire is near the Kaena Point NAR, where two of the yellow-faced
bees (Hylaeus anthracinus and H. longiceps) in this finding are still
known to occur. In 2007, there was a significant fire in lowland dry
and mesic habitat at Kaukonahua that crossed 12 gulches, eventually
encompassing 5,655 ac (2,289 ha), negatively impacting seven endangered
plant species. Occurrences of three of the species were extirpated as a
result of the fire. The Kaukonahua fire also provided pathways for
nonnative ungulates (cattle, goats, and pigs) to access previously
undisturbed areas. This fire opened gaps in previously densely
vegetated areas allowing the growth of the invasive grass Panicum
maximum (guinea grass), which is also used as a food source by cattle
and goats. An area infested by guinea grass burned, and the grass
resprouted blades over 2 feet in length only 2 weeks after the fire
(U.S. Army Garrison 2007, p. 3). In 2009, there were two smaller fires
which burned 200 ac (81 ha) at Manini Pali (Kaena Point State Park),
and 3.8 ac (1.5 ha) at Makua Cave (at the mouth of Makua Valley). These
examples of recent fires illustrate nonnative grass invasion leads to
grass/fire cycles that convert native vegetation to grassland
(D'Antonia and Vitousek 1992, p. 77)
Several areas in the State of Hawaii, including some areas
containing Hylaeus spp. habitat sites, are currently loosely addressed
under fire management plans. For example, in 2003, the Army completed
an Integrated Wildland Fire Management Plan (WFMP) for all of its Oahu
training installations. This plan is currently being updated (U.S. Army
2009, pp. 4-73). The goal of the WFMP is to reduce the threat of
wildfire that adversely affects listed and other rare species. Although
none of the Oahu yellow-faced bees are known from military lands, at
least one species, H. kuakea, occurs on lands roughly adjacent to
military lands and which could be impacted by fires caused by military
activities, or conversely, could benefit from activities to suppress
and control origination of fires either on or adjacent to military
lands.
Additionally, DOFAW maintains a fire management program tasked with
fire suppression activities targeted toward the protection of watershed
areas, forest reserves, public hunting areas, wildlife and plant
sanctuaries, and NARS. Their activities include the maintenance of fire
break roads, signage, and helicopter dip tanks; active fire control
during fire outbreak; controlled burns when and where deemed necessary;
fire training efforts, including education; and maintenance of a State
fire management program Web site (http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/fmp). According to their Web site, DOFAW is involved in the protection
of 3,360,000 acres Statewide, which is approximately 81percent of the
State's land area.
In summary, while we are aware of fire management in some areas of
the State, including some Hylaeus spp. habitat sites, there is evidence
that the repeated outbreak of fire within Hawaii's native coastal,
lowland dry, and lowland mesic forests often leads to the irrevocable
conversion of native to nonnative habitat (i.e., nonnative plant
species). These nonnative habitats are unsuitable for nesting and
foraging by the seven Hylaeus bees. Therefore, we conclude fire is a
significant ongoing threat to the habitat of all seven species of
Hylaeus bees in coastal, lowland dry, and lowland mesic habitat.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Recreational Activities
Some of the best habitat areas for Hylaeus species are also popular
recreational sites, particularly those areas located within coastal
habitat (Magnacca 2007a, p. 180). Suitable remaining habitat for H.
anthracinus and H. longiceps are also popular hiking areas, including
coastal sites such as Kaena Point (on Oahu); the Mahaiula section of
Kekaha Kai State Park, Makalawena, Mokuauia, and Kalauna Bay (on the
island of Hawaii); and Kahu, Polihua Road, and Shipwreck Beach on
Lanai. Human impacts at recreational sites can include removal or
trampling of vegetation on or near trails and the compaction of
vegetation by off-road vehicles (Magnacca 2007a, p. 180). None of these
areas, however, are known to be currently impacted by recreational
activities (Magnacca pers. comm. 2010).
In summary, while trampling and compaction of vegetation from human
activities may negatively impact the habitat of some populations of the
seven Hylaeus bees, we have no basis to conclude these impacts would be
at a scale that represents a threat to the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees. While some areas, particularly coastal sites, are undoubtedly
popular recreational sites, we believe this is a local rather a
rangewide problem for each of the seven species. Therefore, we

[[Page 55187]]

conclude that recreational activities are not a threat to the seven
yellow-faced bees at this time.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes and Drought
Stochastic (random, naturally occurring) events, such as hurricanes
and drought, can alter or degrade the habitat of Hawaiian Hylaeus bees
directly by modifying and destroying native coastal and lowland dry and
mesic habitats (e.g., by mechanical damage to vegetation). Indirect
effects include creating disturbed areas conducive to invasion by
nonnative plants, which out-compete the native plants used by the bees
for foraging of nectar and pollen. We presume these events also alter
microclimatic conditions (e.g., opening the tree canopy leading to an
increase in habitat temperature, soil erosion, and decreasing soil
moisture) so that the habitat no longer supports the native host plants
necessary to the Hylaeus bees for nectar and pollen foraging, as well
as nesting.
Hurricanes affecting Hawaii were only rarely reported from ships in
the area from the 1800s until 1949. Between 1950 and 1997, 22
hurricanes passed near or over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused
serious damage (Businger 1998, pp. 1-2). In November 1982, Hurricane
Iwa struck the Hawaiian Islands, with wind gusts exceeding 100 miles
per hour (mph) (161 kilometers per hour (kph)), causing extensive
damage, especially on the islands of Niihau, Kauai, and Oahu (Businger
1998, pp. 2, 6). Many forest trees were destroyed (Perlman 1992, pp. 1-
9), which opened the canopy and facilitated the invasion of nonnative
plants (Kitayama and Mueller-Dombois 1995, p. 671). Habitat alteration
and degradation by nonnative plants is a threat to the habitat of each
of the seven yellow-faced bees addressed in this finding, as described
in the Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants section
above. In September 1992, Hurricane Iniki, a category 4 hurricane with
maximum sustained wind speeds recorded at 140 mph (225 kph), passed
directly over the island of Kauai and close to the island of Oahu,
causing significant damage to areas along Oahu's southwestern coast
(Barber's Point or Kalaeloa, through Kaena) (Blake et al. 2007, p. 20),
where populations of two of the seven bee species (H. anthracinus and
H. longiceps) are found. Damage by future hurricanes could further
decrease the remaining native-plant-dominated habitat areas that
support the yellow-faced bees (Bellingham et al. 2005, p. 681).
All seven of the Hylaeus bees may also be affected by temporary
habitat loss (e.g., desiccation of habitats, die-off of host plants)
associated with droughts, which are not uncommon on the Hawaiian
Islands. Between 1860 and 2002, the Hawaiian Islands were affected by
approximately 49 periods of drought (Giambelluca et al. 1991, pp. 3-4;
Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management 2009a and 2009b). These
drought events lead to an increase in the number of forest and brush
fires (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v), causing a reduction of native
plant cover and habitat (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 77-79). With
populations that have already been severely reduced in both abundance
and geographic distribution, and particularly in the case of H.
hilaris, with only one known population, even such a temporary loss of
habitat can have a severe negative impact on the species if, for
example, the host plants for nectar and pollen foraging are lost for
one or more seasons. Because small populations are demographically
vulnerable to extinction caused by random fluctuations in population
size and sex ratio, stochastic events such as hurricanes pose the
threat of immediate extinction of a species with a very small and
geographically restricted distribution such as the seven species of
Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Lande 1988).
In summary, natural disasters, such as hurricanes and drought,
represent a significant threat to coastal and lowland dry and mesic
habitats and the seven Hylaeus species addressed in this finding,
endangering their chances for conservation and recovery. These types of
events are known to cause significant habitat damage, and because the
species addressed in this finding now persist in low numbers or occur
in restricted ranges, they are more vulnerable to these events and less
resilient to such habitat disturbances. Hurricanes and drought, even
though unpredictable, have been and are expected to continue to be
threats to the Hawaiian yellow-faced bees, and they therefore pose
immediate and ongoing threats to the seven Hylaeus species and their
habitat.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity
because the interaction of additional stressors may push species beyond
their ability to survive (Lovejoy et al. 2005, pp. 325-326). The
synergistic implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation
are the most threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity
(Lovejoy et al. 2005, p. 4). The magnitude and intensity of the impacts
of global climate change and increasing temperatures on native Hawaiian
ecosystems are unknown; we are not aware of climate change studies
specifically related to the coastal and lowland habitat areas occupied
by the seven Hylaeus bees, or to other Hylaeus bee species. Based on
the best available information, climate change impacts could include
the loss of native plant species that comprise the habitats in which
the seven Hylaeus bees occur (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et
al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and 14,248); however,
because there have been no climate change studies looking at effects to
coastal and lowland habitat, we have no way of predicting the amount or
extent of any such possible habitat loss. Because the host plant
habitat of the five coastal species in this finding are outside of the
tidal and immediate near shore zone, we do not expect any direct
effects to their habitat from sea level rise itself.
In addition, the seven yellow-faced bees may be vulnerable to
changes in precipitation caused by global climate change. However,
future changes in precipitation are uncertain because they depend in
part on how El Ni[ntilde]o (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric
system in the tropical Pacific having important global consequences for
weather and climate) might change, and reliable projections of changes
in El Ni[ntilde]o have yet to be made (Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,248-
14,249). Oki (2004, p. 4) has noted long-term evidence of decreased
precipitation and stream flow in the Hawaiian Islands, based upon
evidence collected by stream gauging stations. This long-term drying
trend, coupled with periodic El Ni[ntilde]o-caused drying events, has
created a pattern of severe and persistent stream dewatering events (D.
Polhemus, in litt 2008, p. 26). Future changes in precipitation and the
forecast of those changes are highly uncertain because they depend, in
part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a (a different disruptive
extreme weather and climate pattern that can alternate with El
Ni[ntilde]o) weather cycle might change (Hawaii Climate Change Action
Plan 1998, pp. 2-10).
If precipitation is significantly reduced, the seven yellow-faced
bees may be among the species most vulnerable to extinction, with
possible impacts expected to include habitat loss and alteration or
changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes), in
addition to possible direct physiological

[[Page 55188]]

stress of an unknown nature, which could potentially cause the species
to seek out less suitable habitats as their preferred habitats become
degraded. The probability of a species going extinct as a result of
these factors increases when ranges are restricted, habitat decreases,
and population numbers decline (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2007, p. 8). Such is the case for each of the seven yellow-faced
bees, which are characterized by limited climatic ranges and restricted
habitat requirements, small population size, and low number of
individuals. However, without reliable predictions of the amount and
extent of anticipated precipitation change, we are unable to determine
whether precipitation changes would result in negative impacts to any
of the seven yellow-faced bees at this time.
In summary, the seven Hylaeus bees, like most insects, are presumed
to have limited environmental tolerances. They also have limited ranges
and restricted habitat requirements (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 11).
Four species (H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, and H. mana) have
small population sizes (i.e., a limited number of populations
restricted to relatively small habitat sites), and low numbers of
individuals. The projected effects of global climate change and
increasing temperatures on the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees would
likely be related to changes in microclimatic conditions in their
habitats. These changes may also lead to the loss of native plant
species due to direct physiological stress, the loss or alteration of
habitat, increased competition from nonnative bee species, and changes
in disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, storms, and hurricanes). Therefore,
we believe all seven species will be exposed to projected environmental
impacts that may result from changes in climate, and subsequent impacts
to their habitats (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999,
p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246 and 14,248), and we do not
anticipate a reduction in this ongoing threat any time in the near
future. However, because the specific and cumulative effects of climate
change on these seven species are presently unknown, we are not able to
determine the magnitude of this potential threat with confidence or
precision.
Summary of Factor A
The seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees are dependent upon
the persistence of native Hawaiian plants and their increasingly rare
associated habitat types, particularly coastal, lowland dry, and
lowland mesic areas. As identified above in our Factor A analysis, the
native habitats on which the Hylaeus bees depend have been drastically
directly altered during the last century, with many areas either
converted for development or agriculture, or indirectly altered due to
the effects of nonnative ungulates, nonnative plants, and fire. Habitat
conversion and loss of host plants, and other stochastic events (e.g.,
hurricanes and drought), are all contributing factors to the present
and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of the
habitat and range of the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees.
Land conversion and fragmentation of remaining coastal, lowland
dry, and lowland mesic habitat is continuing throughout these species'
known ranges, particularly due to the effects of feral ungulates, fire,
and nonnative plants. We anticipate habitat conversion and
fragmentation to continue, and likely increase, throughout their known
ranges. As discussed above, at least five of the seven bees have
experienced significant habitat losses. It is reasonable to presume the
substantial reduction in lowland mesic habitat has similarly impacted
the populations of Hylaeus kuakea and H. mana (Magnacca in litt. 2011,
p. 78). As more habitats become unsuitable, we expect their population
declines to continue or accelerate.
We have evaluated the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees'
habitat or range. Based on the current and ongoing habitat issues
identified, their synergistic effects, and their likely continuation,
we have determined this factor poses a significant threat to Hylaeus
anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana.
Available Conservation Measures
Some historic and current collection localities are protected from
development, urbanization, and conversion to agriculture by Federal,
State, or private agencies: one of two known populations of H. facilis
and two of three known populations of H. anthracinus occur at Kalaupapa
NHP on Molokai; three species (H. anthracinus, H. assimulans, and H.
kuakea) occur in the State's Kaena Point NAR (Oahu), Kanaio NAR (Maui),
West Maui NAR, and the recently acquired Honouliuli Preserve (Oahu);
and three species (H. anthracinus, H. hilaris, and H. longiceps) are
found on TNC's Moomomi Preserve. These areas are actively managed to
restore native habitat and to reduce or eliminate many of the common
threats to the native plant communities found there, including feral
ungulates and wildfire. However, existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to provide the necessary active management needed to protect
the habitat of the populations outside of these protected TNC, NHP or
NAR areas (see discussion under Factor D, below). Conservation of the
seven Hylaeus bees will require active management of their known
population sites, involving exclusion and removal of feral ungulates,
control and removal of nonnative plant and insect species, and the
restoration of native vegetation (Magnacca 2007, p. 185).

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

We are unaware of any collections of the seven yellow-faced bees by
recreational or insect enthusiast collectors. However, insect
collecting is a valuable component of research, including taxonomic
work, and is often necessary to document the existence of populations
and population trends. Based on comments received in response to the
90-day finding, six of the yellow-faced bees are not believed to be
particularly vulnerable to over-collection; however, one species (H.
hilaris) may be vulnerable (Magnacca, in litt. 2010, p. 2). This
species is a cleptoparasite on other rare bees, and has an inherently
smaller population size and lower reproductive rate than most Hylaeus
species, including the other six species in this finding. However, as
both sexes of H. hilaris are readily recognizable to Hylaeus
researchers, experts believe there will be little need to retain
individuals collected during field surveys in the future (Magnacca, in
litt. 2010, p. 2). Additionally, while this species is known from only
one population site, the area where this population is found occurs
within the Moomomi Preserve and is actively managed by TNC for common
habitat threats such as feral ungulates, wild fire, and nonnative plant
species.
Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana because we could find no evidence they are being
collected by insect collection enthusiasts or over-collected by
researchers for scientific purposes. We examined whether H. hilaris was
directly or indirectly

[[Page 55189]]

vulnerable to over-collection due to its small population size (one
known location), low reproductive rate, and biological dependence upon
other rare Hylaeus host species. However, as both sexes are easily
recognizable in the field and it does not collect pollen (which
differentiates it from all other species), researchers believe there is
little reason to retain individuals observed during surveys (Magnacca,
in litt. 2010, p. 2). Therefore, we find over-collection of H. hilaris
is not a threat to this species.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease
We are not aware of any information indicating disease presents a
threat to Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris,
H. kuakea, H. longiceps, or H. mana. Therefore, based on the best
available information, we do not find that disease is a threat to the
seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees.
Predation
Predation by Nonnative Ants
Ants are known to prey upon Hylaeus species (Medeiros et al. 1986,
pp. 45-46; Reimer 1994, p. 17), thereby directly eliminating them from
specific areas. In this study, nests of Nesoprosopis sp., an endemic
ground-nesting bee, could not be found in ant-infested plots but were
commonly encountered in ant-free sites of the same habitat.
Nesoprosopis was reduced to a subgenus of Hylaeus in 1923 (Meade-Waldo
1923, p. 1). Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod
fauna, and the native Hylaeus species of the islands evolved in the
absence of predation pressure from ants. Ants can be particularly
destructive predators because of their high densities, recruitment
behavior, aggressiveness, and broad range of diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 17-
18). The threat of ant predation on the seven Hylaeus bee species is
amplified by the fact that most ant species have winged reproductive
adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and can quickly establish new
colonies in suitable habitats (Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 55). In
addition, these attributes allow some ants to destroy otherwise
geographically isolated populations of native arthropods (Nafus 1993,
pp. 19, 22-23). Ants have not been observed preying upon any of the
seven species addressed in this finding. However, at least one or more
of the most aggressive and widespread species (discussed below) occur
in every known population site of the seven Hylaeus species and are
presumed to be a serious threat due to the impact of predation.
At least 47 species of ants are known to be established in the
Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii Ants 2008, pp. 1-11). Native insect fauna,
likely including Hylaeus bees (Zimmerman 1948, p. 173; Reimer et al.
1990, pp. 40-43; HEAR database 2005, pp. 1-2), have been severely
impacted by at least four particularly aggressive ant species: the big-
headed ant (Pheidole megacephala), the long-legged ant (also known as
the yellow crazy ant) (Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis papuana
(NCN), and Solenopsis geminata (NCN). Numerous other species of ants
are recognized as threats to Hawaii's native invertebrates, and an
unknown number of new species of ants are established every few years
(Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 53). Due to their preference for drier
habitat sites, ants are more likely to occur in high densities in the
coastal, dry, and mesic habitat currently occupied by the seven bees
(Reimer 1994, p. 12).
The big-headed ant originated in central Africa (Krushelnycky et
al. 2005, p. 24) and was first reported in Hawaii in 1879 (Krushelnycky
et al. 2005, p. 24). This species is considered one of the most
invasive and widely distributed ants in the world (Krushelnycky et al.
2005, p. 5). In Hawaii, this species is the most ubiquitous ant species
found, from coastal to mesic habitat up to 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in
elevation, including within the habitat areas of the seven Hylaeus
species addressed in this finding. With few exceptions, native insects
have been eliminated in habitats where the big-headed ant is present
(Perkins 1913, p. xxxix; Gagne 1979, p. 81; Gillespie and Reimer 1993,
p. 22). Consequently, big-headed ants represent a threat to populations
of all seven Hylaeus bee species in coastal to dry and mesic areas
Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, and Oahu (Reimer 1993, p. 14; Reimer 1994, p. 17;
Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 9-10).
The long-legged ant appeared in Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on
Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42; http://www.antweb.org 2011). It inhabits low-to-mid-elevation (less than 2,000
ft (600 m)) rocky areas of moderate rainfall (less than 100 in (250 cm)
annually) (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Although surveys have not been
conducted to ascertain this species' presence in each of the known
habitat sites occupied by the seven Hylaeus species addressed in this
finding, we may presume that the long-legged ant likely occurs within
some of the identified population sites based upon anecdotal evidence
of their expanding range and their preference (as indicated where the
species is most commonly collected) for coastal and dry forest habitats
(antweb.org 2011). Direct observations indicate Hawaiian arthropods are
susceptible to predation by this species; Gillespie and Reimer (1993,
p. 21) and Hardy (1979, pp. 37-38) documented the complete extirpation
of several native insects within the Kipahulu area on Maui after this
area was invaded by the long-legged ant. Lester and Tavite (2004, p.
391), found that long-legged ants in the Tokelau Atolls (New Zealand)
can form very high densities in a relatively short period of time with
locally serious consequences for invertebrate diversity. Densities of
3,600 individuals collected in pitfall traps within a 24-hour period
were observed, as well as predation upon invertebrates ranging from
crabs to other ant species. On Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean,
numerous studies have documented the range of impacts to native
invertebrates, including the red land crab (Gecarcoidea natalis), as a
result of predation by supercolonies of the long-legged ant (Abbott
2006, p. 102). Long-legged ants have the potential as predators to
profoundly affect the endemic insect fauna in territories they occupy.
Studies comparing insect populations at otherwise similar ant-infested
and ant-free sites found extremely low numbers of large endemic noctuid
moth larvae (Agrostis spp. and Peridroma spp.) in ant-infested areas.
Nests of ground-nesting cottelid bees (Nesoprosopis spp.) were
eliminated from ant-infested sites (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42).
Although only cursory observations exist in Hawaii (Reimer et al. 1990,
p. 42), we believe long-legged ants are a threat to populations of all
seven yellow-faced bees, in dry to mesic areas within their elevation
ranges.
Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has
invaded intact mesic to wet forest, as well as coastal and lowland dry
habitats. This species occurs from sea level to over 2,000 ft (600 m)
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still expanding its range
(Reimer 1993, p. 14). Although surveys have not been conducted to
ascertain this species' presence in each of the known habitat sites
occupied by the seven Hylaeus species addressed in this finding,
because of this species' expanding range and its widespread occurrence
in coastal, dry lowland, and mesic habitats, it may threaten
populations of all seven Hylaeus bees with predation pressure on the
islands of Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, and Oahu over 2,000 ft (600
m) in elevation (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42; Reimer 1993, p. 14).

[[Page 55190]]

Like Solenopsis papuana, S. geminata is also considered a
significant threat to native invertebrates (Gillespie and Reimer 1993)
and occurs on all the main Hawaiian Islands (Reimer et al. 1990;
Nishida 1997). Found in drier areas of the Hawaiian Islands, it has
displaced Pheidole megacephala as the dominant ant in some areas (Wong
and Wong 1988, p. 175). Known to be a voracious nonnative predator in
many areas to where it has spread, the species was documented to
significantly increase fruit fly mortality in field studies in Hawaii
(Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175). In addition to predation, S. geminata
workers tend honeydew-producing members of the Homoptera suborder,
especially mealybugs, which can impact plants directly and indirectly
through the spread of disease (Manaaki Whenua--Landcare Research 2011:
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biocons/invertebrates/Ants/invasive_ants/solgem_info.asp).
Solenopsis geminata was included among the eight species ranked as
having the highest potential risk to New Zealand in a detailed pest
risk assessment for the country (Global Invasive Species Database 2011:
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=169&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN), and is included as one of five
ant species listed among the ``100 of the World's Worst invaders''
(Manaaki Whenua--Landcare Research 2011: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biocons/invertebrates/Ants/invasive_ants/solgem_info.asp).
Although surveys have not been conducted to ascertain this species'
presence in each of the known habitat sites occupied by the seven
Hylaeus species addressed in this finding, because of this species'
expanding range and its widespread occurrence in coastal, dry lowland,
and mesic habitats, it may threaten populations of all seven Hylaeus
bees with predation pressure on the islands of Hawaii, Kahoolawe,
Lanai, Maui, and Oahu from sea level up to 1,000 ft (300 m) in
elevation (Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175).
The Hylaeus egg, larvae, and pupal stages are more vulnerable to
attack by ants than the mobile adult bees (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p.
10). Invasive ants have severely impacted ground-nesting Hylaeus
species in particular (Cole et al. 1992, pp. 1317, 1320; Medeiros et
al. 1986, pp. 45-46), because their nests are easily accessible and in
or near the ground. Because Hylaeus anthracinus, H. facilis, H.
hilaris, and H. longiceps are believed to be ground-nesting species,
they may also be more susceptible to ant predation (Magnacca 2005g, p.
2).
Hylaeus populations are known to be drastically reduced in ant-
infested areas (Medeiros et al. 1986, pp. 45-46; Stone and Loope 1987,
p. 251; Cole et al. 1992, pp. 1313, 1317, 1320; Reimer 1994, p. 17).
The presence of ants in nearly all of the low-elevation habitat sites
historically and currently occupied by the seven Hylaeus bee species
may increase the uncertainty of Hylaeus recovery within these areas
(Reimer 1994, pp. 17-18; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp. 9-10). Although
the primary impact of ants on the native invertebrate fauna is via
predation (Reimer 1994, p. 17), they also compete for nectar (Howarth
1985, p. 155; Hopper et al. 1996, p. 9; Holway et al. 2002, pp. 188,
209; Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 9; Lach 2008, p. 155) and nest sites
(Krushelnycky et al. 2005, pp. 6-7). Some ant species may impact
Hylaeus bees indirectly as well, by preying on seeds of native plants,
thereby reducing the plant's recruitment and fecundity (Bond and
Slingsby 1984, p. 1,031). Several studies (Krushelnycky 2005, p. 9;
Lach 2008, p. 155) suggest a serious ecosystem-level effect of invasive
ants on pollination. Where ranges overlap, ants compete with native
pollinators such as Hylaeus bees and preclude them from pollinating
native plants. For example, the big-headed ant is known to actively rob
nectar from flowers without pollinating them (Howarth 1985, p. 157).
Lach (2008, p. 155) found that Hylaeus bees that regularly collect
pollen from flowers of Metrosideros polymorpha were entirely absent
from trees with flowers exposed to foraging by big-headed ants.
The rarity or disappearance of native Hylaeus species from
historically documented localities over the past 100 years (including
the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bee species) is due to a variety of
factors. Although we have no direct information that conclusively
correlates the decrease in populations of these seven Hylaeus bees due
to the establishment of nonnative ants, severe predation of other
Hylaeus species by ants has been documented, resulting in clear
reductions in populations. We expect similar predation impacts to these
seven Hylaeus bees to continue as a result of the widespread presence
of ants throughout the Hawaiian Islands, their highly efficient and
non-specific predatory behavior, and their ability to quickly disperse
and establish new colonies. Therefore, we conclude that predation by
nonnative ants represents a serious threat to the continued existence
of H. anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana now and into the future.
Predation by Nonnative Western Yellow Jacket Wasps
The western yellow jacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica) is a
potentially serious threat to the seven Hylaeus bees (Gambino et al.
1987, p. 170; Wilson et al. 2009, pp. 1-5). The western yellow jacket
wasp is a social wasp species native to the mainland of North America.
It was first reported from Oahu in the 1930s (Sherley 2000, p. 121),
and an aggressive race became established in 1977 (Gambino et al. 1987,
p. 170). In temperate climates, the western yellow jacket wasp has an
annual life cycle, but in Hawaii's tropical climate, colonies of this
species persist through a second year, allowing them to have larger
numbers of individuals (Gambino et al. 1987, p. 170) and thus a greater
impact on prey populations. Most colonies are found between
approximately 2,000 and 3,500 ft (approximately 600 and 1,050 m) in
elevation (Gambino et al. 1990, p. 1,088), although they can also occur
at sea level. The western yellow jacket wasp is known to be an
aggressive, generalist predator (Gambino et al. 1987, p. 170), and has
been documented preying upon Hawaiian Hylaeus species (although not
specifically upon any of the seven species addressed in this finding)
(Wilson et al. 2009, p. 2). However, predation by the western yellow
jacket wasp is a potentially significant threat to all seven of the
yellow-faced bees because of the wasp's presence in habitat occupied by
the seven Hylaeus bees combined with their small population sizes. This
may present a particular threat to H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea,
and H. mana, because each species is known from only two or fewer
sites. It has been suggested the western yellow jacket wasp may compete
for nectar with Hylaeus species, but we have no information to suggest
this represents a threat to the seven Hylaeus bees.
Predation by Nonnative Parasitoid Wasps
Native and nonnative parasitoid wasps are known to parasitize some
Hylaeus species on Oahu (although not upon any of the seven species
addressed in this finding), and may pose a threat to five of the seven
yellow-faced bees (H. anthracinus, H. facilis, H. kuakea, H. longiceps,
and H. mana) (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 10) because they occur on Oahu
as well. While the available information indicates some Oahu Hylaeus
larvae have been parasitized (and subsequently killed) by parasitoid
wasps from the Encyrtidae

[[Page 55191]]

and Eupelmidae families, it is unknown whether these wasps also utilize
H. anthracinus, H. facilis, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana as
nutritional hosts for their larvae (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 98). We
are concerned that H. anthracinus, H. facilis, H. kuakea, H. longiceps,
and H. mana may be exposed to wasp parasitism, but we are unaware of
any information to indicate this is a threat to these five Hylaeus
bees.
Summary of Factor C
We do not find evidence that disease is currently impacting the
seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees, nor do we have information to
indicate disease outbreaks will occur in the future. Although we have
no direct information that conclusively correlates the decrease in
populations of these seven Hylaeus bees due to the establishment of
western yellow jacket wasps, severe predation of other Hylaeus species
by yellow jacket wasps has been documented, resulting in clear
reductions in populations. We expect similar predation impacts to these
seven Hylaeus bees to continue as a result of the widespread presence
of yellow jacket wasps in many areas throughout the Hawaiian Islands,
their highly efficient and non-specific predatory behavior, and their
ability to quickly disperse and establish new colonies.
While we are concerned that Hylaeus anthracinus, H. facilis, H.
kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana may be threatened by wasp parasitism
on Oahu, we are unaware of any information to indicate this is a threat
to these five Hylaeus bees at this time, or that it is likely to become
so in the future. The presence of nonnative ants in nearly all lowland
habitat historically and currently occupied by the seven Hylaeus bees,
combined with the near extirpation of native insects in these areas,
suggest predation by nonnative ants is a serious threat to the seven
Hawaiian yellow-faced bees. Observations and reports have documented
that ants are particularly destructive predators because of their high
densities, broad ranges of diet, and ability to establish new colonies
in otherwise geographically isolated locations because the reproductive
adult ants are able to fly. Because the ranges of the big-headed ant,
long-legged ant, Solenopsis geminata, and Solenopsis papuana overlap
the ranges of the seven Hylaeus bees, and based on their observed
predatory behavior at other locations where they occur, these nonnative
predators represent an imminent and serious threat to H. anthracinus,
H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H.
mana. Unless these aggressive, nonnative ant predators are eliminated
or controlled, we expect this threat to continue or increase.
Furthermore, a decrease in the amount and distribution of suitable host
plants for foraging could indirectly impact these seven species by
forcing them to seek less optimal, but predator-free, foraging sites.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Currently, there are no Federal, State, or local laws, treaties, or
regulations that specifically conserve or protect the seven Hylaeus bee
species from the threats described in this finding. There are some
regulations that potentially address the threats posed by introduced,
nonnative species; these are discussed below.
Inadequate Protection from Nonnative Ungulates
Nonnative ungulates pose a major ongoing threat to the seven
Hylaeus bees through destruction and degradation of their habitat.
Although some public hunting areas are fenced to prevent the incursion
of nonnative ungulates, there are currently no Federal, State, or local
laws, treaties, or regulations that adequately address the threats from
nonnative ungulates to the seven yellow-faced bees' terrestrial
habitat. The existing regulatory mechanisms do not address the threats
from nonnative ungulates to the seven yellow-faced bee species or their
habitat. The absence of regulatory mechanisms exacerbates the threats
discussed under Factor A.
Inadequate Protection from Introduction of Nonnative Species
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) is the lead State
agency in protecting Hawaii's agricultural and horticultural
industries, animal and public health, natural resources, and
environment from the introduction of nonnative, invasive species (HDLNR
2003, p. 3-10). While there are several State agencies (Hawaii
Department of Agriculture (HDOA), Hawaii Department of Lands and
Natural Resources (HDLNR), Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH))
authorized to prevent the entry of pest species into the State, the
existing regulations are inadequate for the reasons discussed in the
sections below.
In 1995, a partnership, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species
(CGAPS), comprised primarily of managers from every major Federal,
State, county, and private agency and organization involved in invasive
species work in Hawaii, was formed in an effort to influence policy and
funding decisions, improve communication, increase collaboration, and
promote public awareness (CGAPS 2009). This group facilitated the
formation of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council (HISC), which was
created by gubernatorial executive order in 2002 to coordinate local
initiatives for the prevention and control of invasive species by
providing policy-level direction and planning for the State departments
responsible for invasive species issues. In 2003, the governor signed
into law Act 85, which conveys statutory authority to the HISC to
coordinate approaches among the various State and Federal agencies, and
international and local initiatives, for the prevention and control of
invasive species (HDLNR 2003, p. 3-15; HISC 2009a; Haw. Rev. Stat.
section 194-2(a)). Some of the recent priorities for the HISC include
interagency efforts to control nonnative species such as the plants
Miconia calvescens (miconia) and Cortaderia sp. (pampas grass), coqui
frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui), and ants (HISC 2009). However, in
October 2009, HISC approved a 2010 budget that, due to a tighter
economy in Hawaii and anticipated budget cuts in State funding support,
resulted in a 50 percent reduction in funding with an anticipated
setback in conservation achievements and the loss of experienced,
highly trained staff (HISC 2009b).
Inadequate Regulatory Control of Nonnative Invertebrate Species
As noted above (see Factor C, Disease and Predation), predation by
nonnative ants and the nonnative yellow jacket wasp is a potentially
significant threat to the seven species. Commercial shipping and air
cargo, as well as biological introductions to Hawaii, have resulted in
the establishment of over 3,372 species of nonnative insects (Howarth
1990, p. 18; Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 52), with an estimated
continuing establishment rate of 20 to 30 new species per year
(Beardsley 1962, p. 101; Beardsley 1979, p. 36; Staples and Cowie 2001,
p. 52). The prevention and control of introduced pest species in Hawaii
is the responsibility of Hawaii State government and Federal agencies,
along with a few private organizations. Even though these agencies have
regulations and some controls in place, complete control of introduced
pest species is difficult to achieve. Consequently, the introduction
and movement of nonnative invertebrate pest species, including
nonnative ants and yellow jacket wasps, between islands and from one
watershed to the next, continues.

[[Page 55192]]

Inadequate Regulatory Control of Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative plants destroy and modify habitat throughout the ranges
of each of the seven Hylaeus species addressed in this 12-month
finding. As such, they represent a significant and immediate threat to
each of these species. In addition, nonnative plants have been shown to
out-compete native plants and convert native-dominated plant
communities to nonnative plant communities (see Factor A--Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants). The HDOA regulates
the import of plants into the State from domestic origins under Hawaii
State law (Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 150A). While all plants require
inspection upon entry into the State and must be ``apparently free'' of
insects and diseases, not all plants require import permits. Parcels
brought into the State by mail or cargo must be clearly labeled as
``Plant Materials'' or ``Agricultural Commodities,'' but, given budget
constraints and an insufficient number of personnel, it is unlikely
that all of these parcels are inspected or monitored prior to delivery
in Hawaii. Shipments of plant material into Hawaii must be accompanied
by an invoice or packing manifest listing the contents and quantities
of the items imported, although it is unclear if all of these shipments
are inspected or monitored prior to delivery (HDOA 2009). There are
only 12 plant crops regulated (H.A.R. chapter 4-70) to some degree:
sugarcane and grasses, pineapple and other bromeliads, coffee,
cruciferous vegetables, orchids, banana, passion fruit, pine, coconut,
hosts of European corn borer, palms, and hosts of Caribbean fruit fly
(HDLNR 2003, p. 3-11). The HDOA also maintains the State list of
noxious weeds, and these plants are restricted from entry into the
State except by permit from the HDOA's Plant Quarantine Branch.
Although the State has general guidelines for the importation of
plants, and regulations are in place regarding the plant crops
mentioned above, the intentional or inadvertent introduction of
nonnative plants outside the regulatory process and movement of species
between islands and from one watershed to the next continues, which
represents a threat to native flora and fauna for the reasons described
above. In addition, government funding is inadequate to provide for
sufficient inspection services and monitoring. One study concluded
plant importation laws virtually ensure new invasive plants will be
introduced via the nursery and ornamental trade, and outreach efforts
cannot keep up with the multitude of new invasive plants being
distributed. The author states the only thing wide-scale public
outreach can do in this regard is to let the public know new invasive
plants are still being sold, and suggest that people should ask for
noninvasive or native plants instead (C. Martin, in litt. 2007, p. 9).
On the basis of the above information, existing regulatory
mechanisms do not adequately protect the seven Hylaeus species from the
threat of new introductions of nonnative species, and the continued
expansion of nonnative species populations on and between islands and
watersheds. Nonnative species may directly compete with, prey upon, or
modify or destroy the habitat of one or more of the seven yellow-faced
bees for food, space, and other necessary resources. Because current
Federal, State, and local laws, treaties, and regulations are
inadequate to prevent the introduction and spread of nonnative species
from outside the State of Hawaii, as well as between islands and
watersheds, the threats from these introduced species remain immediate
and significant due to an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Summary of Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
We found that existing regulatory mechanisms and agency policies do
not address the primary threats to the seven yellow-faced bee species
and their habitat from nonnative ungulates. The State's current
management of nonnative game mammals does not prevent the degradation
and destruction of habitat of Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H.
facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana (see
discussion under Factor A).
We consider the threat from inadequate regulatory mechanisms to be
immediate and significant for the following reasons:
(1) Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not
preventing the introduction and spread of nonnative species between
islands and watersheds. Habitat-altering nonnative plant species
(Factor A) and predation by nonnative animal species (Factor C) pose
major ongoing threats to the seven Hylaeus species.
Because existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to maintain
habitat for the seven species of Hylaeus and to prevent the spread of
nonnative species, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is
considered to be a significant and immediate threat to Hylaeus
anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence

Small Number of Populations and Individuals
Species endemic to single islands or known from few, widely
dispersed locations are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than
widespread species because of the higher risks from genetic
bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change, and
localized catastrophes such as hurricanes, landslides, and drought
(Lande 1988, p. 1,455; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988,
p. 757). These problems can be further magnified when populations are
few and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process
described as an extinction vortex (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp.
24-25). Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level of
genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental
changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence
(Frankham 2003, pp. S22-S29; Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 31-34). The
negative impacts associated with small population size and
vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural
catastrophes can be further magnified by synergistic interactions with
other threats.
The seven Hylaeus bee species have very small populations and are
likely more vulnerable to habitat change and stochastic events due to
low genetic variability (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 3; Magnacca 2007,
p. 173). According to Magnacca (2007, p. 3), five species have not been
collected recently from one or more islands from which they were
historically known, all seven species are restricted to rare habitat,
and two are particularly rare and potentially endangered. Hylaeus
facilis and H. hilaris have not been recently observed at some
historical collection sites; H. facilis is currently known from two
populations, and H. hilaris is known from only a single population. In
addition, H. kuakea, first collected in 1997, is only known from two
populations, and H. mana, just collected in 2002, is known from a
single population. Although H. kuakea and H. mana were only discovered
relatively recently, researchers believe these two species were once
more widespread

[[Page 55193]]

when their lowland mesic habitat was not highly fragmented and degraded
by invasive species, as is currently the case (Magnacca in litt. 2011,
p. 95). The small number of populations known for each of these four
Hylaeus species increases their risk of extinction due to stochastic
events such as hurricanes, wildfires, or prolonged drought (Jones et
al. 1984, p. 209; Smith and Tunison 1992, p. 398).
The recurrence intervals for stochastic events, for example,
wildfires, prolonged drought, and hurricanes, cannot be predicted,
which introduces some uncertainty regarding potential effects to H.
facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, and H. mana (the four species most at
risk of the seven Hylaeus bees). However, because Hylaeus hilaris is
cleptoparasitic and restricted to one known population, it is at
particularly high risk of extinction because of the rarity of its hosts
and the fact it is the most habitat-specific of all Hawaiian bees
(Magnacca 2007a, p. 181). The fact that a species is potentially
vulnerable to stochastic processes does not necessarily mean it is
reasonably likely to experience or have its status affected by a given
stochastic process within timescales meaningful under the Act. Because
of their small number of populations, negative impacts to H. facilis,
H. hilaris, H. kuakea, and H. mana from hurricanes, wildfires, and
drought would be likely if these events occur. Because these events
have been documented on Oahu and other Hawaiian islands in the past, we
believe that they represent an ongoing threat to these four species,
although the specific timing, location, or magnitude is unknown. The
threat from fire is unpredictable, but omnipresent in habitats that
have been invaded by nonnative, fire-prone grasses. Hurricanes and
drought conditions present an ongoing and ever-present threat, because
they can occur at any time, although the incidence and magnitude of
specific events is not predictable.
Competition With Nonnative Insects
There are 15 known species of nonnative bees in Hawaii (Snelling
2003, p. 342), including two nonnative Hylaeus species (Magnacca 2007,
p. 188). Most nonnative bees inhabit areas dominated by nonnative
vegetation and do not compete with native Hawaiian bees for foraging
resources (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 13). The European honey bee (Apis
mellifera) is an exception; this social species is often very abundant
in areas with native vegetation and aggressively competes with Hylaeus
for nectar and pollen (Hopper et al. 1996, p. 9; Daly and Magnacca
2003, p. 13; Snelling 2003, p. 345).
The European honey bee was first introduced to the Hawaiian Islands
in 1875, and currently inhabits areas from sea level to the upper tree
line boundary (Howarth 1985, p. 156). European honey bees have been
observed foraging on Hylaeus host plants such as Scaevola spp. and
Sesbania tomentosa (Hopper et al. 1996, p. 9; Daly and Magnacca 2003,
p. 13; Snelling 2003, p. 345). Although we lack information indicating
Hawaiian Hylaeus populations have declined because of competition with
European honey bees for nectar and pollen, the European honey bee does
forage in Hylaeus spp. habitat and may exclude Hylaeus spp. (Magnacca
2007, p. 188; Lach 2008, p. 155). Hylaeus species do not occur in
native habitat where there are large numbers of honey bees, although
the impact of moderate populations of honey bees is not known (Magnacca
2007, p. 188). Nonnative, invasive bees are widely documented to
decrease nectar volumes and usurp native pollinators (Lach 2008, p.
155). There are also indications that populations of the European honey
bee are not as vulnerable as Hylaeus bees to predation by nonnative ant
species (see Factor C. Disease and Predation). Lach (2008, p. 155)
observed that Hylaeus bees that regularly collect pollen from the
flowers of Metrosideros polymorpha trees were entirely absent from
trees with flowers visited by the big-headed ant, while visits by the
European honey bee were not affected. As a result, the European honey
bee may have a competitive advantage over Hylaeus spp., as it is not
excluded by the big-headed ant (Lach 2008, p. 155).
Other nonnative bees found in areas of native vegetation include
carpenter bees (Ceratina species), Australian colletid bees (Hylaeus
albonitens), and Lasioglossum impavidum (NCN) (Magnacca 2007, p. 188).
While it has been suggested these nonnative bees may impact native
Hylaeus bees through competition for pollen based on their similar size
and flower preferences, there is no information that demonstrates these
nonnative bees forage on Hylaeus host plants (Magnacca 2007, p. 188).
It has also been suggested parasitoid wasps may compete for nectar with
native Hylaeus species (Daly and Magnacca 2003, p. 10); however,
information demonstrating nonnative parasitoid wasps forage on the same
host plants as the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees is unavailable.
We acknowledge the potential for negative impacts on Hylaeus
anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana from competition with the European honey bee for
nectar and pollen (Magnacca 2007, p. 188). In addition, one study in
Hawaii suggests the European honey bee may have an additional advantage
for collecting pollen and nectar because it may not be negatively
affected by the presence of predatory big-headed ants on native
vegetation (Lach 2008, p. 155). Competition with the European honey bee
may be a potential threat to the seven Hylaeus species, because (1)
Honey bees forage on Hylaeus host plant species; (2) they may exclude
Hylaeus spp. from those resources (Hylaeus spp. are never found
foraging in the presence of European honey bees); and (3) honey bees
may have a competitive advantage over Hawaiian Hylaeus ssp., as one
study suggests honey bees are not negatively affected by the presence
of big-headed ants on native vegetation to the extent the Hylaeus
species may be. Honey bees have been known to exclude other Hylaeus
species, and it is well-documented that they forage in native plant
areas. However, the best available scientific information indicates
that competition with the European honey bee may represent a threat to
these seven Hylaeus species, but the threat is of unknown magnitude,
and additional research would be helpful to better understand this
interaction.
We have no information indicating other species of nonnative bees
or parasitoid wasps negatively impact populations of the seven species
of Hylaeus bees due to competition for nectar and pollen. Therefore, we
have determined that competition with other species of nonnative bees
or parasitoid wasps is not a threat.
Summary of Factor E
The small number of populations of Hylaeus facilis, H. hilaris, H.
kuakea, and H. mana increase their risk of extinction due to stochastic
events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and drought, which, although
unpredictable, represent an ongoing and significant threat to H.
facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, and H. mana. We have no information
indicating other nonnative bees or parasitoid wasps compete for nectar
and pollen on Hylaeus host plants. Therefore, we have determined that
competition with these species does not present a significant threat to
the seven Hylaeus species. Honey bees forage in native plant areas and
have been known to exclude other Hylaeus species. However, the best
available information does not indicate competition between honey bees
and the seven Hylaeus

[[Page 55194]]

species addressed in this finding is a significantly quantifiable
threat.

Finding

As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether Hylaeus
anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H.
longiceps, and H. mana are endangered or threatened throughout their
ranges. We examined the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by
these seven Hylaeus species. We reviewed the petitions, information
available in our files, information submitted to us following
publication of our 90-day petition finding (75 FR 34077; June 16,
2010), and other available published and unpublished information, and
we consulted with Hylaeus bee experts and other Federal and State
resource agencies. In considering what factors might constitute a
threat, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively,
the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how
significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are
defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof
of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. However,
the mere identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the point the species meets the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
In this review of the status of the seven Hylaeus species, we
identified a number of threats under the five-factor analysis
including: destruction or modification of coastal and lowland habitats
from urbanization and land conversion, nonnative plants, nonnative
ungulates, and wildfire (Factor A); predation by nonnative ants and the
western yellow jacket wasp (Factor C); inadequate protection from
threats by existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and other natural
or manmade factors, such as small population size (Factor E).
Under Factor A (``Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of the Habitat or Range''), we evaluated the effects of:
(1) Urbanization and land use conversion; (2) nonnative plant species;
(3) nonnative ungulates; (4) fire; (5) recreational activities; (6)
stochastic events, such as hurricanes and droughts; and (7) climate
change.
Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimilans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H.
kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana are known from native coastal,
lowland dry, and lowland mesic habitats. These habitats have been
severely altered and degraded over the past 200 years due to land
management practices such as agriculture and urban development, and
from the impacts of nonnative species, fire, recreational activities,
and stochastic events (e.g., hurricanes and drought). The loss of
native coastal and lowland dry habitats in the main Hawaiian Islands is
estimated to be more than 75 percent and 90 percent, respectively
(Bruegmann 1996, p. 26; Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 124; Xerces Society
2009, p. 23). Additionally, native coastal and lowland habitats
continue to become increasingly fragmented due to a variety of factors,
thereby reducing the ability of the seven Hylaeus species to locate
host plants to forage for nectar and pollen and to locate suitable
nesting sites. In particular, coastal and lowland dry habitats remain
popular for land use and development. During surveys conducted between
1998 and 2007, the five Hylaeus species collected by Perkins over 100
years ago (Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimilans, H. facilis, H. hilaris,
and H. longiceps), were largely absent from almost all of their
historically known locations. Hylaeus kuakea and H. mana were
discovered relatively recently, and we lack information that would
conclusively establish their historical range. Based on our assessment
of the best available information, we believe degradation and
destruction of native coastal and lowland habitats due to past and
present land management practices, such as agriculture and urban
development, pose a significant threat to the seven Hylaeus species
throughout their ranges now and will likely continue for the
foreseeable future.
The spread of nonnative plants and the conversion of coastal and
lowland native habitat to nonnative habitat are believed to be primary
causes of the decline of, and current threats to, the known populations
of each of the seven Hylaeus species. The seven Hylaeus species depend
on native plants for nectar and pollen and are almost entirely absent
from habitat dominated by nonnative plants. Many of the native plants
used as foraging resources by the adults of the seven Hylaeus species
are declining due to competition with nonnative plants and a lack of
native pollinators that actually pollinate while collecting nectar. For
example, H. anthracinus and H. longiceps forage on three federally
endangered plants (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana, Hedyotis
coriacea, and Sesbania tomentosa). To compound our concerns, inadequate
regulatory control (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms) has led to and continues to contribute to an ever
increasing number of nonnative plant species introductions to the
Hawaiian Islands. Once established, nonnative plant species are quickly
spread by intrastate commerce, birds, people, feral ungulates, and on
their own, and result in the rapid alteration and degradation of the
native plant communities upon which these seven Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees depend. Therefore, based on our assessment of the best available
information, we believe degradation and destruction of native coastal
and lowland habitat due to nonnative plants poses a significant threat
to the seven Hylaeus species throughout their ranges now and will
likely continue for the foreseeable future.
Nonnative ungulates (e.g., pigs, goats, axis deer, and cattle) are
one of the primary causes of the alteration and degradation of native
vegetation and habitat in the Hawaiian Islands. Because feral ungulate
populations are managed by the State for the enhancement of State Game
Management Units and because there is no regulatory mechanism for their
control or elimination (see Factor A. Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Nonnative Ungulates), it is expected that this threat
will continue to impact the habitat of the seven yellow-faced bees
addressed in this finding. Habitat degradation and destruction, due to
their direct effects of trampling and consuming native plants and
indirect effects of rooting, erosion, and spreading seeds and fruits of
nonnative plants, pose a significant threat to the seven Hylaeus
species throughout their ranges now and will likely continue for the
foreseeable future.
Fire is a human-exacerbated threat to native species and natural
vegetation in Hawaii. Fire can kill most native trees and shrubs, and
in a burned area native plants are usually replaced by nonnative plants
adapted to survive and regenerate after fire. The seven Hylaeus bees

[[Page 55195]]

primarily occur in coastal, lowland dry, and lowland mesic habitat
areas that are particularly prone to the impacts of fire. Repeated
fires in these areas often result in the conversion of native-dominated
vegetation to nonnative-dominated vegetation. Fires enable fire-
adapted, nonnative plants to gain a competitive edge over native
plants, resulting in the replacement of native plants used for foraging
by Hylaeus bees with nonnative plants that are not used by the bees for
foraging. Although there are management plans in place to address the
threat of fire in many areas of the State, fires continue to occur
annually across the State and threaten the future existence of known
yellow-faced bee habitat and population sites (see Factor A. Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Fire). For these reasons, we conclude
fire remains a significant threat to the seven Hylaeus species
throughout their ranges in coastal, lowland dry, and lowland mesic
habitats, and will likely continue for the foreseeable future.
While trampling and compaction of vegetation from human activities
may negatively impact the habitat of some populations of the seven
Hylaeus bees, we conclude recreational activities are not a threat to
Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea,
H. longiceps, and H. mana throughout their ranges.
We are concerned about the effects of projected climate change,
particularly rising temperatures and their impact on Hylaeus spp. host
plants; however, we recognize there is limited information on the exact
nature of impacts from climate change. Because the specific and
cumulative effects of climate change on the seven Hylaeus bees are
presently unknown, any conclusion regarding the immediacy and
significance of the threat from climate change would be speculative.
However, the effects of climate change are expected to exacerbate and
compound the many ongoing threats facing these species and their
habitat (e.g., frequency of wildfire, reduced precipitation, etc.).
Based on our evaluation of Factor A, using the best available
scientific and commercial information as summarized above, we conclude
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the habitat or range of Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimilans, H. facilis,
H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana presents a significant
threat to these seven Hylaeus species across their ranges.
Under Factor B (``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes''), we determined six of the seven
Hylaeus species are not threatened by over-collection. We examined
whether H. hilaris was potentially vulnerable to over-collection
because it is inherently rare, known from only one location, and has a
cleptoparasitic life history. However, because this species is easily
recognizable, we see little reason for scientists to retain specimens
observed in the field during future collections. In addition, because
it occurs in habitat that is protected and managed by TNC, we find
overutilization is not a threat to H. hilaris throughout its range.
Furthermore, recreational or insect enthusiast collection of the seven
Hylaeus bees does not appear to be a threat to any of these species.
Under Factor C (``Disease or Predation''), we found no evidence
that disease is currently impacting the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees, or that disease outbreaks will increase in the future. Ants are
found in habitats throughout the Hawaiian Islands, are known to prey
upon Hylaeus bees, and are reported to have eliminated Hylaeus species
from specific areas where their ranges overlap. Because ants are easily
able to widely disperse and are efficient predators, and because
Hylaeus species are not adapted to avoid ant predation, we believe this
threat will continue to threaten all populations of all seven yellow-
faced bees. Therefore, we conclude predation by ants is an ongoing and
significant threat to the seven Hylaeus bees across their entire
ranges, and this threat is likely to continue into the future.
Yellow jacket wasps are aggressive, generalist predators found in
the same types of habitats as these seven Hylaeus species, and have
been documented preying upon other Hawaiian Hylaeus bees. Therefore, we
conclude yellow jacket wasp predation is a significant threat to the
seven Hylaeus bees across their entire ranges and particularly to those
species known from two or fewer population sites. The best available
information does not suggest predation by native and nonnative
parasitoid wasps is a significant threat to the seven Hylaeus bees.
Under Factor D (``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms''),
we consider the threat from inadequate regulatory mechanisms to be
immediate and significant. The State of Hawaii's current management of
nonnative game mammals does not adequately address the primary threats
to Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H.
kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana or their habitat (Factor A). Existing
State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not adequately preventing
the introduction and spread of nonnative animal and habitat-altering
plant species between islands and watersheds (Factor A), and predation
by nonnative animal species (Factor C) poses a major ongoing threat to
the seven Hylaeus species. In addition, existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to prevent the introduction and spread of nonnative
insect predators, or competitors that directly compete with one or more
of the seven bee species for food, space, and other necessary resources
(see Factors C and E). Based on our evaluation of Factor D, we conclude
that the seven Hylaeus bee species are threatened by inadequate
existing regulatory mechanisms across their ranges.
Under Factor E (``Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the
Species' Continued Existence''), we determined that small population
size is a significant threat to Hylaeus facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea,
and H. mana. These species are each only known from one or two
populations, and the risk of extinction from stochastic events (e.g.,
hurricanes, wildfires, and drought) is high. We have also determined
that competition with the European honey bee is a potentially
significant threat to all seven species. While we lack information
indicating Hawaiian Hylaeus populations have declined because of
competition with the European honey bee for nectar and pollen, the
native Hylaeus and the European honey bee are competing for the same
pollen and nectar resources. However, we have no information indicating
that competition is at a level that represents a threat to the seven
Hylaeus species addressed in this finding.
We found that competition for nectar and pollen with other species
of nonnative bees or parasitoid wasps is not a threat to the seven
Hylaeus bees at this time. Based on our evaluation under Factor E as
summarized above, we conclude Hylaeus facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea,
and H. mana are threatened because of their small population size
across their ranges.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action, listing the seven
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus anthracinus, H.
assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H.
mana) as endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of these species as endangered or
threatened when we prepare a proposed listing determination. However,
as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority
listing actions, and

[[Page 55196]]

progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render any of the seven Hawaiian yellow-faced
bee species at risk of extinction now such that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act is warranted. We determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing these species is not warranted at this time for the
following reasons. Although populations are small, five of the seven
species occur in several discrete localities, and we do not believe
there are any potential threats of such great immediacy, severity, or
scope that would simultaneously threaten all of the known populations
of these five species with the imminent risk of extinction. Although
Hylaeus hilaris is known from one population on the northwest coast
within TNC's Moomomi Preserve on Molokai, and H. mana is known from one
population along the Manana Trail in the Koolau Mountains on Oahu,
within the State's Ewa Forest Reserve, we are unaware of any potential
threats in either of these areas that would threaten these populations
with the imminent risk of extinction. However, if at any time we
determine that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing any
of these seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees is warranted, we
will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of
vertebrates). We assigned the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2, based on our finding that
the seven species face threats that are of high magnitude and are
imminent. This is the highest priority that can be provided to a
species under our guidance.
Threats to the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees include
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
their habitat, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors. One or more of the
threats are occurring in each of the seven species' known populations
in the Hawaiian Islands. These threats are ongoing and, in some cases
(such as nonnative species), are considered irreversible. Our rationale
for assigning each of the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees
an LPN 2 is outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. The
threats facing the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees are high
in magnitude because the major threats (destruction or modification of
their habitat, predation, inadequate protection from threats by
existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors)
occur throughout all of the ranges of each of the seven species.
Based on an evaluation of the effects of urbanization and land use
conversion, nonnative plants and ungulates, fire, and stochastic events
on the coastal and lowland habitat of each of the seven Hylaeus bees,
we determined these effects occur throughout the range of each species
and will continue to occur into the future. While habitat degradation
and destruction continues to reduce the amount of potentially suitable
habitat available for foraging, predation by nonnative ants and likely
predation by yellow jacket wasps are a significant threat to the seven
species throughout their ranges, and, lacking any viable means of their
control, will continue to occur into the future. Regulations are not in
place at the local, State, or Federal level to adequately minimize the
threat of habitat degradation and destruction from nonnative plants and
ungulates. In addition, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to prevent the introduction and spread of nonnative insect predators or
competitors. We determined these threats occur throughout the range of
each of the seven species of Hylaeus bees and will continue to occur
into the future unless restriction on the introduction and the control
of, nonnative plants and animals, are put in place. We believe the
ability of the populations of the seven Hylaeus bees to stabilize or
increase over the long term is highly diminished given the widespread
landscape-level changes and the threats from predation and competition
that are occurring. Thus, we believe the available information
indicates the magnitude of threats is high.
Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure species that face actual, identifiable
threats are given priority over those for which threats are only
potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not known to be
presently facing such threats. The threats to the seven Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees are imminent because we have factual information that
the threats are identifiable, and that all of the seven species are
currently facing these threats throughout all portions of their ranges.
The identifiable threats are covered in detail under the discussion of
Factors A and E of this finding and include destruction or modification
of their habitat, predation, inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms,
and other natural or manmade factors such as small population size. In
addition to their current existence, we expect these threats to
continue and likely intensify into the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The seven Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees are valid taxa at the species level, and therefore receive a
higher priority than subspecies or distinct population segments, but a
lower priority than species in a monotypic genus.
The seven Hawaiian yellow-faced bees face high magnitude, imminent
threats, and are valid taxa at the species level. Thus, in accordance
with our LPN guidance, we have assigned each of the seven Hawaiian
yellow-faced bees an LPN of 2. We will continue to monitor the threats
to the seven Hylaeus bees and the species' status on an annual basis;
should the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will
revisit our assessment of the LPN.
Work on a proposed listing determination for Hylaeus anthracinus,
H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H.
mana is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and
final listing

[[Page 55197]]

determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work includes all the actions listed
in the tables below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we plan to use some
of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Pub. L. 97-304 (Endangered Species Act
Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory deadlines
and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the amendments
were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the
rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of
pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater
degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition
[that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10), which provides funding
through September 30, 2011. The Service has $20,902,000 for the listing
program. Of that, $9,472,000 is being used for determinations of
critical habitat for already listed species. Also $500,000 is
appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. The Service
thus has $10,930,000 available to fund work in the following
categories: Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance
effort among listing duties

[[Page 55198]]

under existing funding levels, the Service is only able to initiate a
few new listing determinations for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table
(part of our record).
We assigned each of the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees
an LPN of 2, based on our finding that each species faces immediate and
high magnitude threats from the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat, the threat of predation
from and competition with nonnative species, and from the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. In addition, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H.
kuakea, and H. mana are each significantly threatened by small
population size. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a ``species'' facing
imminent high-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3
depending on its taxonomic status. Because H. anthracinus, H.
assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H.
mana are species, we assigned each an LPN of 2 (the highest category
available for a species). For the above reasons, funding a proposed
listing determination for the seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced
bees is precluded by court-ordered and court-approved settlement
agreements, listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and work
on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species with a
higher listing priority.
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, or distinct
population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher
the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have
the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed
species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined
deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far
during FY 2011, we have completed delisting rules for three species.)
Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are
making expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This
progress included preparing and publishing the following
determinations:

FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010.................. Endangered Status for the Proposed Listing..... 75 FR 61664-61690
Altamaha Spinymussel and Endangered...........
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
10/7/2010.................. 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition To list the petition finding,
Sacramento Splittail as Not warranted.
Endangered or Threatened.
10/28/2010................. Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Critical Endangered
Habitat for Spikedace and (uplisting).
Loach Minnow.
11/2/2010.................. 90[dash]Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition To List the Bay Petition Finding,
Springs Salamander as Not substantial.
Endangered.

[[Page 55199]]

11/2/2010.................. Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for the Endangered.
Georgia Pigtoe Mussel,
Interrupted Rocksnail,
and Rough Hornsnail and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
11/2/2010.................. Listing the Rayed Bean and Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
Snuffbox as Endangered. Endangered.
11/4/2010.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition To List Cirsium petition finding,
wrightii (Wright's Marsh Warranted but
Thistle) as Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
12/14/2010................. Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Endangered.
12/14/2010................. 12[dash]Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition To List the petition finding,
North American Wolverine Warranted but
as Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
12/14/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-Month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition To List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population of the Warranted but
Desert Tortoise as precluded.
Endangered or Threatened.
12/15/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition To List petition finding,
Astragalus microcymbus Warranted but
and Astragalus schmolliae precluded.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
12/28/2010................. Listing Seven Brazilian Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Bird Species as Endangered.
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
1/4/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 304-311
Petition To List the Red Petition Finding,
Knot subspecies Calidris Not substantial.
canutus roselaari as
Endangered.
1/19/2011.................. Endangered Status for the Proposed Listing 76 FR 3392-3420
Sheepnose and Endangered.
Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 7634-7679
Petition To List the petition finding,
Pacific Walrus as Warranted but
Endangered or Threatened. precluded.
2/17/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 9309-9318
Petition To List the Sand Petition Finding,
Verbena Moth as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
2/22/2011.................. Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status for the Threatened.
New Zealand-Australia
Distinct Population
Segment of the Southern
Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9722-9733
Petition To List Solanum petition finding,
conocarpum (marron Warranted but
bacora) as Endangered. precluded.
2/23/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9991-10003
Petition To List Thorne's petition finding,
Hairstreak Butterfly as Not warranted.
Endangered.
2/23/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 10166-10203
Petition To List petition finding,
Astragalus hamiltonii, Warranted but
Penstemon flowersii, precluded & Not
Eriogonum soredium, Warranted.
Lepidium ostleri, and
Trifolium friscanum as
Endangered or Threatened.
2/24/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10299-10310
Petition To List the Wild Petition Finding,
Plains Bison or Each of Not substantial.
Four Distinct Population
Segments as Threatened.
2/24/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10310-10319
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Unsilvered Fritillary Not substantial.
Butterfly as Threatened
or Endangered.
3/8/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 12667-12683
Petition To List the Mt. petition finding,
Charleston Blue Butterfly Warranted but
as Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
3/8/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 12683-12690
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Texas Kangaroo Rat as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
3/10/2011.................. Initiation of Status Notice of Status 76 FR 13121-13122
Review for Longfin Smelt. Review.
3/15/2011.................. Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule 76 FR 14210-14268
Rule To List the Flat- withdrawal.
Tailed Horned Lizard as
Threatened.
3/15/2011.................. Proposed Threatened Status Proposed Listing 76 FR 14126-14207
for the Chiricahua Threatened; Proposed
Leopard Frog and Proposed Designation of
Designation of Critical Critical Habitat.
Habitat.
3/22/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 15919-15932
Petition To List the petition finding,
Berry Cave Salamander as Warranted but
Endangered. precluded.
4/1/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18138-18143
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Substantial.
Endangered.
4/5/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 18684-18701
Petition To List the petition finding,
Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Not Warranted and
Byrne Resort Warranted but
Mountainsnail, and precluded.
Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as Endangered or
Threatened.
4/5/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18701-18706
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Peary Caribou and Dolphin Substantial.
and Union Population of
the Barren-Ground Caribou
as Endangered or
Threatened.
4/12/2011.................. Proposed Endangered Status Proposed Listing 76 FR 20464-20488
for the Three Forks Endangered; Proposed
Springsnail and San Designation of
Bernardino Springsnail, Critical Habitat.
and Proposed Designation
of Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20613-20622
Petition To List Spring Petition Finding,
Mountains Acastus Substantial.
Checkerspot Butterfly as
Endangered.
4/14/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20911-20918
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Prairie Chub as Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
4/14/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 20918-20939
Petition To List Hermes petition finding,
Copper Butterfly as Warranted but
Endangered or Threatened. precluded.
4/26/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23256-23265
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Arapahoe Snowfly as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
4/26/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23265-23271
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Smooth-Billed Ani as Not substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
5/12/2011.................. Withdrawal of the Proposed Proposed Rule, 76 FR 27756-27799
Rule To List the Mountain Withdrawal.
Plover as Threatened.

[[Page 55200]]

5/25/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 30082-30087
Petition To List the Spot- Petition Finding,
Tailed Earless Lizard as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
5/26/2011.................. Listing the Salmon-Crested Final Listing 76 FR 30758-30780
Cockatoo as Threatened Threatened.
Throughout Its Range With
Special Rule.
5/31/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 31282-31294
Petition To List Puerto petition finding,
Rican Harlequin Butterfly Warranted but
as Endangered. precluded.
6/2/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31903-31906
Petition To Reclassify Petition Finding,
the Straight-Horned Substantial.
Markhor (Capra falconeri
jerdoni) of Torghar Hills
as Threatened.
6/2/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31920-31926
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Golden-Winged Warbler as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
6/7/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 32911-32929
Petition To List the petition finding,
Striped Newt as Warranted but
Threatened. precluded.
6/9/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 33924-33965
Petition To List Abronia petition finding,
ammophila, Agrostis Not Warranted and
rossiae, Astragalus Warranted but
proimanthus, Boechera precluded.
(Arabis) pusilla, and
Penstemon gibbensii as
Threatened or Endangered.
6/21/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36049-36053
Petition To List the Utah Petition Finding,
Population of the Gila Not substantial.
Monster as an Endangered
or a Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
6/21/2011.................. Revised 90-Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36053-36068
a Petition To Reclassify Petition Finding,
the Utah Prairie Dog From Not substantial.
Threatened to Endangered.
6/28/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 37706-37716
Petition To List Castanea petition finding,
pumila var. ozarkensis as Not warranted.
Threatened or Endangered.
6/29/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 38095-38106
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Eastern Small-Footed Bat Substantial.
and the Northern Long-
Eared Bat as Threatened
or Endangered.
6/30/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 38504-38532
Petition To List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Not warranted.
Segment of the Fisher in
Its United States
Northern Rocky Mountain
Range as Endangered or
Threatened With Critical
Habitat.
7/12/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 40868-40871
Petition To List the Bay Petition Finding,
Skipper as Threatened or Substantial.
Endangered.
7/19/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42631-42654
Petition To List Pinus petition finding,
albicaulis as Endangered Warranted but
or Threatened With precluded.
Critical Habitat.
7/19/2011.................. Petition To List Grand Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42654-42658
Canyon Cave petition finding,
Pseudoscorpion. Not warranted.
7/26/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44547-44564
Petition To List the petition finding,
Giant Palouse Earthworm Not warranted.
(Drilolerius americanus)
as Threatened or
Endangered.
7/26/2011.................. 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44566-44569
Petition To List the petition finding,
Frigid Ambersnail as Not warranted.
Endangered.
7/27/2011.................. Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 45054-45075
Endangered Status for Endangered,
Ipomopsis polyantha Threatened.
(Pagosa Skyrocket) and
Threatened Status for
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue)
and Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia).
7/27/2011.................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 45130-45162
Petition To List the petition finding,
Gopher Tortoise as Warranted but
Threatened in the Eastern precluded.
Portion of Its Range.
8/2/2011................... Proposed Endangered Status Proposed Listing 76 FR 46218-46234
for the Chupadera Endangered.
Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
chupaderae) and Proposed
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
8/2/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 46238-46251
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Straight Snowfly and Not substantial.
Idaho Snowfly as
Endangered.
8/2/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 46251-46266
Petition To List the petition finding,
Redrock Stonefly as Not warranted.
Endangered or Threatened.
8/2/2011................... Listing 23 Species on Oahu Proposed Listing 76 FR 46362-46594
as Endangered and Endangered.
Designating Critical
Habitat for 124 Species.
8/4/2011................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 47123-47133
Petition To List Six Sand Petition Finding,
Dune Beetles as Not substantial and
Endangered or Threatened. substantial.
8/9/2011................... Endangered Status for the Final Listing 76 FR 48722-48741
Cumberland Darter, Rush Endangered.
Darter, Yellowcheek
Darter, Chucky Madtom,
and Laurel Dace.
8/9/2011................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 48777-48788
Petition To List the petition finding,
Nueces River and Plateau Not warranted.
Shiners as Threatened or
Endangered.
8/9/2011................... Four Foreign Parrot Proposed Listing 76 FR 49202-49236
Species [crimson shining Endangered and
parrot, white cockatoo, Threatened; Notice
Philippine cockatoo, of 12-month petition
yellow-crested cockatoo]. finding, Not
warranted.
8/10/2011.................. Proposed Listing of the Proposed Listing 76 FR 49408-49412
Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered
Endangered, and Proposed Similarity of
Listing of the Cassius Appearance.
Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as Threatened
Due to Similarity of
Appearance to the Miami
Blue Butterfly.

[[Page 55201]]

8/10/2011.................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 49412-49417
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Saltmarsh Topminnow as Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered
Under the Endangered
Species Act.
8/10/2011.................. Emergency Listing of the Emergency Listing 76 FR 49542-49567
Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered
Endangered, and Emergency Similarity of
Listing of the Cassius Appearance.
Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as Threatened
Due to Similarity of
Appearance to the Miami
Blue Butterfly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of
them in the future.

Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military macaw, 12-month petition finding.
yellow-billed parrot, red-
crowned parrot, scarlet macaw)
\5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed 12-month petition finding.
macaw, great green macaw, grey-
cheeked parakeet, hyacinth
macaw) \5\.
Longfin smelt.................... 12-month petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle.............. Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia............. Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Final listing determination.
Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.......... Final listing determination.
Ozark hellbender \4\............. Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\......... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru and Bolivia.... Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries
Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), Final listing determination.
snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\.............. 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross........... 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\.... 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish 12-month petition finding.
population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\. 12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog............ 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander..... 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero.................... 12-month petition finding/Proposed
listing.
Dusky tree vole.................. 12-month petition finding.
Leatherside chub (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \5\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, 12-month petition finding.
Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
galbina) (from 475 species
petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron 12-month petition finding.
piscaticus, Astragalus
hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii)
(from 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 12-month petition finding.
from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)..... 12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\....... 12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern......... 12-month petition finding.
HI yellow-faced bees............. 12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon 12-month petition finding.
oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\............ 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald................. 12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop. snowy plover & 90-day petition finding.
wintering pop. of piping plover
\1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\............. 90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusk 90-day petition finding.
species (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada and 90-day petition finding.
Utah).
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
10 species of Great Basin 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
404 Southeast species............ 90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\........ 90-day petition finding.

[[Page 55202]]

American eel \4\................. 90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\.......... 90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\.................. 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\....... 90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel 90-day petition finding.
\5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\............ 90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee....................... 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\........... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami and
Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\........................ 90-day petition finding.
Humboldt marten.................. 90-day petition finding.
Desert massasauga................ 90-day petition finding.
Western glacier stonefly (Zapada 90-day petition finding.
glacier).
Thermophilic ostracod 90-day petition finding.
(Potamocypris hunteri).
Sierra Nevada red fox \5\........ 90-day petition finding.
Boreal toad (eastern or southern 90-day petition finding.
Rocky Mtn population) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ Proposed listing.
(17 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy
pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean
(LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN =
5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and Proposed listing.
white bluffs bladderpod (LPN =
9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
\4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Proposed listing.
Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2). Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Proposed listing.
Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia
texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus Proposed listing.
(Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN
= 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
(LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\.... Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida Proposed listing.
semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus (Harrisia
(= Cereus) aboriginum (=
gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable
thoroughwort (Chromolaena
frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ Proposed listing.
(includes 8 candidate species--6
plants and 2 animals; 4 with LPN
= 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN
= 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 Proposed listing.
subspecies of pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =
3), streaked horned lark (LPN =
3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN =
3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))
\3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. facilis, H. hilaris, H.
kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana will be added to the list of
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will
continue to monitor the status of these species as new information
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the seven species of
Hawaiian yellow-faced bees will be as accurate as possible. Therefore,
we will continue to accept additional information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning this finding.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available on the

[[Page 55203]]

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: August 22, 2011.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22433 Filed 9-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P