[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41694-41699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500090022]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings
on Petitions To List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-
month findings on petitions to list eight species as endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time
to list the Arapahoe snowfly, brook floater, golden orb, Joshua tree,
seaside alder, smooth pimpleback, tricolored blackbird, and yellow-
banded bumble bee. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any
time any new information that becomes available relevant to the status
of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.
DATES: The findings in this document were made on August 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these
findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
under the following docket numbers:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe snowfly........................................... FWS-R6-ES-2019-0031
Brook floater.............................................. FWS-R5-ES-2019-0032
Golden orb................................................. FWS-R2-ES-2019-0034
Joshua tree................................................ FWS-R8-ES-2016-0088
Seaside alder.............................................. FWS-R5-ES-2019-0036
Smooth pimpleback.......................................... FWS-R2-ES-2019-0037
Tricolored blackbird....................................... FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138
Yellow-banded bumble bee................................... FWS-R5-ES-2016-0024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by
contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe snowfly............. Justin Shoemaker, Acting Regional
Liaison, Mountain-Prairie Regional
Office, 309-757-5800, ext. 214.
Brook floater................ David Stilwell, Field Supervisor, New
York Ecological Services Field Office,
607-753-9334.
Golden orb................... Chuck Ardizzonne, Field Supervisor, Texas
Coastal Field Office, 281-286-8282, ext.
26506.
Joshua tree.................. Ken Corey, Field Supervisor, Palm Springs
Field Office, 760-322-2070.
Seaside alder................ Cherry Keller, Senior Endangered Species
Biologist, Chesapeake Bay Field Office,
410-573-4532.
Smooth pimpleback............ Chuck Ardizzonne, Field Supervisor, Texas
Coastal Field Office, 281-286-8282, ext.
26506.
Tricolored blackbird......... Josh Hull, Recovery and Listing Division
Chief, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office, 916-414-6742.
Yellow-banded bumble bee..... Krishna Gifford, Endangered Species Act
Listing Coordinator, Northeast Regional
Office, 413-253-8619.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned
action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for
which we have determined contained substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted
(section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)) (``12-month
finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded.
``Warranted but precluded'' means that (a) the petitioned action is
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b)
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to
remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary. 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 that a subsequent finding be made within 12
months of
[[Page 41695]]
that date. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened species because of 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 considering whether a species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five
factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to
a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor
does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or
contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The
mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively
is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains
warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require
evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and
its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the
species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species
under the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Arapahoe snowfly
(Arsapnia arapahoe), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), golden orb
(Cyclonaias aurea), Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana (Joshua
tree), Alnus maritima (seaside alder), smooth pimpleback (Cyclonaias
houstonensis), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and yellow-
banded bumble bee (Bombus terricola) meet the definition of
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' we considered and
thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and
threats. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files,
and other available published and unpublished information. These
evaluations may include information from recognized experts; Federal,
State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign
governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment forms for the Arapahoe snowfly, brook
floater, golden orb, Joshua tree, seaside alder, smooth pimpleback,
tricolored blackbird, and yellow-banded bumble bee contain more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do
not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES, above). The following are informational summaries for each
of the findings in this document.
Arapahoe Snowfly
Previous Federal Actions
On April 6, 2010, we received a petition from the Xerces Society
for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Boris Kondratieff, Save the Poudre:
Poudre Water Keeper, Cache la Poudre River Foundation, WildEarth
Guardians, and Center for Native Ecosystems, requesting that the
Arapahoe snowfly be listed as an endangered species under the Act. On
April 26, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register
(76 FR 23256), concluding that the petition presented substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that listing Arapahoe
snowfly may be warranted. On May 10, 2012, we published a 12-month
finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 27386) in which we stated that
listing the Arapahoe snowfly as endangered or threatened was warranted.
However, listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions,
and the species was added to the candidate species list. From 2012
through 2016, we addressed the status of the Arapahoe snowfly annually
in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing
was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR
70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
Summary of Finding
The Arapahoe snowfly is a winter stonefly found in small streams
characterized by substrates of pebble, cobble, and bedrock along the
northern Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. At the time of
the preparation of the 12-month finding (77 FR 27386; May 10, 2012),
the Arapahoe snowfly was documented in only 2 small tributaries of the
Cache la Poudre River. Subsequently, the species has been documented in
a total of 19 streams along the northern Front Range of Colorado. The
number of Arapahoe snowfly individuals at these sites are consistently
low; in sampling studies targeted at Arapahoe snowfly, only 41 of
26,170 specimens were morphologically identified as that taxon, and all
were males. Arapahoe snowfly always co-occurred with two more-widely
distributed and common stoneflies, Arsapnia decepta and Capnia
gracilaria.
Genetic analyses, involving two mitochondrial genes, one nuclear
gene, and thousands of individual nuclear polymorphisms, of 98
specimens from nine separate locations, demonstrated that all
individuals examined were the first-generation progeny of crosses
between female Arsapnia decepta and male Capnia gracilaria. No
backcrosses or later-generation hybrids were observed, indicating that
these progeny do not represent a self-sustaining lineage. Instead of
representing a distinct taxon, individuals formerly recognized as being
the distinct species Arsapnia arapahoe (the Arapahoe snowfly) are
actually first-generation hybrids between female A. decepta and male C.
gracilaria that appear in the narrow zone of range overlap between the
parental species in northern Colorado. Therefore, we find the Arapahoe
snowfly is not a valid taxonomic entity; does not meet the definition
of a species or subspecies under the Act; and, as a result, cannot
warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Arapahoe snowfly species assessment
form and other
[[Page 41696]]
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Brook Floater
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including the brook floater, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a
90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that
the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
the brook floater may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the brook floater
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The brook floater is a small freshwater mussel usually less than 75
millimeters (2.95 inches) in length. The species is an Atlantic slope
freshwater mussel historically native to the District of Columbia, 16
States in the eastern United States, and two Canadian provinces. The
mussel has a widespread distribution, is currently found in 14 of the
16 historically known States, and is considered extirpated in Delaware
and Rhode Island and in the District of Columbia.
The most robust populations of brook floaters inhabit creeks and
rivers of varying size with stable substrates, intact riparian buffers
(vegetated areas comprised of forest, shrub, or herbaceous plants
located adjacent to streams), excellent water quality, and little to no
anthropogenic influences. The species needs clean, low to moderately
flowing water, with stable substrate (sand, gravel, and cobble),
appropriate food levels, water temperatures above 14 [deg]C (57.2
[deg]F) for glochidia release, and interstitial chemistry and presence
of fish hosts for glochidia attachment and dispersal.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the brook floater, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the brook floater's biological status include disjunct
populations facing habitat loss or fragmentation; changes in water
flows; and degraded water quality from development, energy production,
and agriculture. We also assessed impacts to the brook floater from
effects of climate change. There are uncertainties in predicting
precipitation changes over such a wide range and assessing the species'
response, but we do not expect effects from climate change to be a
primary stressor affecting the species' viability. We examined a number
of other factors, including inherent factors (small population size and
low fecundity), predation, invasive species, and hybridization, and we
found that these factors did not rise to such a level that affected
multiple populations or the species as a whole.
Despite impacts from the primary stressors, the species has
maintained resilient populations throughout its range. Although we
predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we
anticipate the species will continue to maintain resilient populations
throughout the foreseeable future that are distributed widely
throughout each of its representative units. Therefore, we find that
listing the brook floater as endangered or threatened is not warranted.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
brook floater species assessment form and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above).
Golden Orb
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
(then Forest Guardians), to list 475 species in the Southwest Region,
including the golden orb, as endangered or threatened species under the
Act. On December 15, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (74 FR 66260), concluding that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that listing the golden orb may be
warranted. On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the
Federal Register (76 FR 62166) in which we stated that listing the
golden orb was warranted. However, listing was precluded at that time
by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate
species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status of the
golden orb annually in our candidate notice of review, with the
determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December
2, 2016).
Summary of Finding
Recent genetic studies revealed that individuals thought to be
golden orb are actually members of a more widespread, common species,
the pimpleback (Cyclonaias pustulosa). These studies have been widely
accepted by the relevant scientific community and the Service. Due to
being synonymized with pimpleback, golden orb is not a valid taxonomic
entity; does not meet the definition of a species or subspecies under
the Act; and, as a result, cannot warrant listing under the Act. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
golden orb species assessment form and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Joshua Tree
Previous Federal Actions
On September 29, 2015, we received a petition from Wild Earth
Guardians to list the Joshua tree as a threatened species under the
Act. On September 14, 2016, we published a 90-day finding in the
Federal Register (81 FR 63160), concluding that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that listing the Joshua tree may be
warranted. Recent research has suggested Joshua tree is comprised of
two species, based on morphological, pollinator, and genetic
differences: Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana. After reviewing
these genetic analyses and corresponding with experts on plant
taxonomy, we now consider that Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana
are two distinct species, and we conducted status reviews of both
entities separately. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on
the September 29, 2015, petition to list Joshua tree under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Joshua tree is a distinctive and iconic plant of the Mojave
Desert and surrounding areas. The two species of Joshua tree are
distinguished in the field by their respective vegetative and flora
morphology, and by their differing obligate yucca moth pollinator.
Yucca brevifolia is a 5- to 12-meters (16- to 40-feet) tall, evergreen,
xerophytic monocot with a somewhat spongy, indehiscent (remaining
closed at maturity) fruit that is pollinated by Tegeticula synthetica,
a species of yucca moth. The leaves are between 19 to 37 centimeters
(7.5 to 14.6 inches) long, and are clustered in rosettes at the branch
ends. The flowers are nearly spherical with short, wide petals that
curve over the tip of the pistils and occur in dense, heavy panicles.
Yucca jaegeriana is a 3- to 6-meters (9- to 20-feet) tall, evergreen,
[[Page 41697]]
xerophytic monocot with spongy, indehiscent fruit that is pollinated by
Tegeticula antithetica, a species of yucca moth. Yucca jaegeriana
displays dichotomous branching and generally has shorter leaves (less
than 22 centimeters (8.7 inches)) and shorter height to first branching
at 0.75 to 1.0 meter (2.3 to 3.3 feet) than Y. brevifolia.
Joshua trees generally occur on flats, mesas, bajadas, and gentle
slopes (alluvial fans). Joshua trees grow on a wide variety of soil
types but generally on old alluvia of igneous, rather than sedimentary,
origin that consist of silty, loamy, or sandy soils that have minimal
runoff. Joshua trees are able to tolerate alkaline or saline soils in
soil temperatures that range from 4 [deg]C (39 [deg]F) in winter to 46
[deg]C (110 [deg]F) in summer.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Joshua
tree, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary stressors to Joshua trees
include wildfire, invasive plants, effects of climatic changes, and
habitat loss. While these threats are currently acting on Yucca
jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia individually, we did not find that they
were acting on the two species at either a population- or species-level
scale. With the two species still occupying their historical ranges,
which extend to over 2.2 million hectares (5.6 million acres) for Y.
brevifolia and 2.5 million hectares (6.4 million acres) for Y.
jaegeriana, as well as a hybrid zone of approximately 52,000 hectares
(130,000 acres), the current conditions of the two species still
provide for enough resiliency, redundancy, and representation despite
the identified threats acting on them. There is no evidence to indicate
recent population size reductions or range contractions for either
species over the last 40 years based on distribution mapping.
Recruitment of both Y. jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia is occurring across
their respective ranges.
Similarly, estimates of future resiliency, redundancy, and
representation for Yucca jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia are high. The two
species will most likely face the same threats they are currently
facing into the future (wildfire, invasive plants, effects of climatic
changes, and habitat loss). We evaluated environmental conditions and
threat factors acting on the two species into the future (approximately
80 years) and developed two future scenarios to assist in determining
the potential future conditions for the two species. Because the two
species are long-lived, have such large ranges and distributions,
mostly occur on Federal land, and occupy numerous ecological settings,
we have determined that future stochastic and catastrophic events would
not lead to population- or species-level declines in the foreseeable
future. As a result, we have determined that neither Yucca jaegeriana
nor Yucca brevifolia are in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the Joshua tree as an
endangered or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Joshua
tree species assessment form and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Seaside Alder
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch
Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list
404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including seaside alder, as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836),
concluding that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that listing the seaside alder may be warranted. Although
the petitioned entity is seaside alder, the best available information
indicates that seaside alder comprises three subspecies: Alnus maritima
ssp. maritima (Delmarva alder), A. maritima ssp. georgiensis (Georgia
alder), and A. maritima ssp. oklahomensis (Oklahoma alder). The Service
used its discretion to conduct the status review at the species and
subspecies levels. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the
April 20, 2010, petition to list seaside alder under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Seaside alder is a large, deciduous shrub or small tree, 16 to 23
feet (5 to 7 meters) tall that grows in multistemmed clumps, instead of
individual trees, in the wet soils of river, stream, or pond edges.
Despite its name, it is known to occur only in freshwater habitats and
prefers areas with full sun and soils that are at least periodically
saturated or inundated. The species is capable of both sexual and
asexual reproduction, but evidence of new plants from seedlings is
rare, and, like many other riparian shrubs, seaside alder primarily
reproduces asexually through clones and runners. Despite this, genetic
diversity appears to be adequate.
The species currently occurs in three regional populations that
have been described and accepted as subspecies: Delmarva alder (A.
maritima spp. maritima) in Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and
Worcester Counties in Maryland, and Kent and Sussex Counties in
Delaware; Georgia alder (A. maritima spp. georgiensis) in Bartow
County, Georgia; and Oklahoma alder (Alnus maritima spp. oklahomensis)
in Pontotoc and Johnston Counties of south-central Oklahoma. The
seaside alder occupies at least 35 known watersheds, and the species'
current distribution is similar to its historical distribution. We are
aware of additional records of occurrence on private lands; however,
supporting information on those records is not available to us, and,
therefore, these records are not included in our assessment.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to seaside alder, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors to seaside
alder, which vary depending on the subspecies, include changes to
natural processes such as drought cycles, air temperature,
precipitation patterns, flooding regimes, and sea level rise, or human-
mediated actions (e.g., human population growth, development, and
mining) that cause decreased water quantity and water quality
degradation. Despite effects from these stressors, seaside alder has
maintained resilient populations throughout its range and in each of
the subspecies' ranges, and is expected to continue to do so into the
foreseeable future. The species is represented by three genetically
diverse subspecies, which occur in many types of freshwater habitat
(tidal rivers, marshes and ponds, and spring-fed streams and rivers)
that are adapted to three distinct climates (mid-Atlantic, Southeast,
and Southwest); thus, the species is expected to retain its ability to
adapt to changes in its environment. In summary, our review of the best
available scientific and commercial information indicates that seaside
alder does not meet the definition of an endangered species or
threatened species. We also find that Delmarva
[[Page 41698]]
alder, Georgia alder, and Oklahoma alder do not meet the definition of
endangered species or threatened species. Therefore, we find that
listing seaside alder or any of its subspecies as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the seaside
alder species assessment form and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Smooth Pimpleback
Previous Federal Actions
On October 15, 2008, we received a petition from WildEarth
Guardians, to list six species of freshwater mussels, including the
smooth pimpleback, as endangered or threatened species under the Act.
On December 15, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (74 FR 66260), concluding that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that listing the smooth pimpleback
may be warranted. On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month finding
in the Federal Register (76 FR 62166) in which we stated that listing
the smooth pimpleback was warranted. However, listing was precluded at
that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the
candidate species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status
of the smooth pimpleback annually in our candidate notice of review,
with the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77
FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR
72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246,
December 2, 2016).
Summary of Finding
Recent genetic studies revealed that smooth pimpleback is
synonymous with pimpleback, a wide-ranging species that is very common.
These studies have been widely accepted by the relevant scientific
community and the Service. Due to being synonymized with pimpleback,
smooth pimpleback is not a valid taxonomic entity; does not meet the
definition of a species or subspecies under the Act; and, as a result,
cannot warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the smooth pimpleback species
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tricolored Blackbird
Previous Federal Actions
On February 3, 2015, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the tricolored blackbird as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On September 18, 2015, we
published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423),
concluding that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that listing the tricolored blackbird may be warranted. This
document constitutes the 12-month finding on the February 3, 2015,
petition to list the tricolored blackbird under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The tricolored blackbird occurs throughout most of lower-elevation
California and additional smaller nesting colonies in Oregon,
Washington, and Nevada in the United States, and in Baja California,
Mexico. The tricolored blackbird exhibits a unique breeding behavior
that is a combination of colonial, nomadic, and itinerant behaviors.
Its colonial and generally highly synchronous nesting behavior is
thought to be an adaptation to unpredictable insect outbreaks and/or
high rates of predation pressure, as well as allowing the species to
exploit available nesting and foraging opportunities in a changing
environment. The species requires a protected nesting substrate (a
vegetative substrate that is sturdy enough for nest placement and is
protected by being surrounded by water, by having spines, and/or by
being dense), such as wetland habitats with cattails and/or bulrushes;
spiny, nonnative plants such as Himalayan blackberry or thistle; or
silage crops grown for dairy cattle feed. Young tricolored blackbirds
are fed a diet comprised almost entirely of insects, and adult
blackbirds consume both native insects and other plant material such as
grains and seeds.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
tricolored blackbird, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The tricolored
blackbird is currently facing many threats throughout its range, and
the species has undergone a substantial decline in recent decades.
Still, more than 100,000 tricolored blackbirds were recorded in the
most recent Statewide surveys, and individuals in the central portions
of the species' range are well-connected, with birds frequently
shifting their use of nesting sites and regions based on availability
of suitable habitat.
Many threats are continuing to impact the tricolored blackbird and
its habitat, and drought may result in a decrease in habitat quality
across the species' range. Furthermore, several researchers have
indicated that, as a colonial nesting species, the tricolored blackbird
may undergo a similarly rapid decline as have other colonial nesting
birds. However, the tricolored blackbird has shown high nesting success
in both small and large colonies, indicating that they may be adaptable
to changing colony size as well as changing nesting habitat types.
Additionally, regulatory mechanisms such as the California Endangered
Species Act are currently acting to ameliorate the severity of some
existing threats, such as impacts to colonies nesting in silage fields.
Furthermore, the most likely future scenarios project that the
tricolored blackbird will maintain its current resiliency,
representation, or redundancy, or undergo only a slight decrease in
habitat and population condition in some regions in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we find that listing the tricolored blackbird as
endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the tricolored blackbird species
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee
Previous Federal Actions
On September 15, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of
Wildlife requesting that the yellow-banded bumble bee be listed as an
endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated for
this species under the Act. On March 16, 2016, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (81 FR 14058), concluding that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the yellow-banded bumble bee may be warranted.
This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 15,
2015, petition to list the yellow-banded bumble bee under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The yellow-banded bumble bee is an early-spring emerging bumble bee
living in colonies that include a queen, worker bees (sterile females),
and reproductives (new queens and fertile males). Colonies are annual,
and the founding queen, workers, and males all die in the late summer
or early fall. The mated new queens overwinter in a state of dormancy.
Adult yellow-banded bumble bees have black hairs on their heads, legs,
and base of the abdomen; yellow hairs on the front of the thorax and
[[Page 41699]]
second and third segments; and slightly brown wings.
The yellow-banded bumble bee's current range includes Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin in the United States; and Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and
Yukon Territory in Canada. The species inhabits a variety of forest
types, including riparian woodland, mature deciduous and conifer
forests, and treeline conifer forests. The species also uses wetlands,
undisturbed bogs, alpine tundra, and prairies. The yellow-banded bumble
bee requires diverse and abundant floral resources in proximity to
nesting habitat throughout the spring, summer, and fall. It also
requires suitable nesting and overwintering habitat.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
yellow-banded bumble bee, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, as well as existing conservation measures and
the synergistic effects of the threats. The primary stressors are
habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticide use, pathogens and parasites,
the effects of small and isolated populations, and the effects of
climate change.
In the species' current condition, there is representation (i.e.,
occupancy) across the majority of the yellow-banded bumble bee's
historical range. Although there has been a reduction in range with the
apparent extirpation of the species from three ecoregions, the species
continues to be found across 15 ecoregions, spanning much of the
northern United States and much of Canada. Also, while the relative
abundance has declined, there remains relatively consistent numbers of
yellow-banded bumble bees captured across multiple States since the
1950s. The continued captures of the yellow-banded bumble bee indicate
ongoing resiliency and redundancy supporting multiple populations of
the species across its range. The continued persistence of occupied
habitat across the species' range provides sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to sustain the species beyond the near
term.
We evaluated four future scenarios for the yellow-banded bumble
bee. The future scenarios all retain resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to a sufficient degree such that the risk is low that
the species will be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The large range that the yellow-banded bumble bee inhabits provides for
redundancy, as populations are distributed across the species' range
such that it can withstand a catastrophic event. The species will
continue to exhibit high or moderate resiliency in at least four
ecoregions that are spread across the species' range; in two of the
four future scenarios, seven ecoregions are projected to be in high or
moderate resiliency in 20 years. Finally, the species would exhibit
representation by continuing to occur across its range in various
ecoregions to maintain ecological and genetic diversity. Taking into
account the effects of the most likely threats and the potential for
cumulative effects to the yellow-banded bumble bee's resource needs,
our projections for the viability of the yellow-banded bumble bee in
the future are that it will continue to be represented throughout its
range, albeit at likely reduced occupancy and relative abundance
percentages than currently found.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the yellow-banded bumble bee is not in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we
find that listing the yellow-banded bumble bee is not warranted. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
yellow-banded bumble bee species assessment form and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the
Arapahoe snowfly, brook floater, golden orb, Joshua tree, seaside
alder, smooth pimpleback, tricolored blackbird, and yellow-banded
bumble bee to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about
their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts.
References Cited
Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets
provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 25, 2019
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17536 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P