[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