Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Franklin's Bumble Bee as Endangered, 56381-56391 [2011-23282]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and allocation of current and future
contingencies.
(6) Subsequent to establishing these targets,
the risk assessor will evaluate the efficiency
and effectiveness of the sponsor organization
in mitigating risk, enhancing management
capacity and capability, and managing
contingency. Risk assessors will also evaluate
realized risks to determine if they were
contemplated within the original cost and
schedule baselines or were unanticipated,
and to trend such experience.
(7) Prior to an award of an FTA grant, the
risk assessor will reevaluate the baseline risk
mitigation assumptions for cost and schedule
to determine the on-going validity of the
baseline risk mitigation and management
capacity assumptions based upon adequate
forecast and trend data.
[FR Doc. 2011–23371 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0065; MO
92210–0–0008 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Franklin’s Bumble
Bee as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus
franklini) as endangered and to
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing this
species may be warranted. Therefore,
with the publication of this notice, we
are initiating a review of the status of
the species to determine if listing the
Franklin’s bumble bee is warranted. To
ensure that this status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding this species.
Based on the status review, we will
issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before
November 14, 2011. The deadline for
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
submitting an electronic comment using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on this date. After November 14,
2011, you must submit information
directly to the Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, below).
Please note that we might not be able to
address or incorporate information that
we receive after the above requested
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Go to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R1–ES–
2011–0065, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel at the top of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’
Please ensure that you have found the
correct rulemaking before submitting
your comment.
(2) U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–
ES–2011–0065; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we
receive on https://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post
any personal information you provide
us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave.,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266, by
telephone 503–231–6179, or by
facsimile 503–231–6195. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating listing a species
may be warranted, we are required to
promptly review the status of the
species (status review). For the status
review to be complete and based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we request information on
the Franklin’s bumble bee throughout
its range, which includes parts of
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine
counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56381
Trinity counties in California, from
governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information
on:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
(3) Information on pathogens and
parasites within and near the range of
the Franklin’s bumble bee and potential
pathways for introductions, including:
(a) Historical and recent records of
Nosema bombi, Crithidia bombi,
Apicystis bombi, Locustacarus buchneri,
deformed wing virus and other bee
pathogens and parasites within parts of
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine
counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and
Trinity counties in California, and
recent studies about known or potential
bumble bee pathogens and their effects
on bumble bees; and
(b) The transport and use of
commercial honey bees or bumble bees
including species, year(s) of use, type(s)
of use (e.g., greenhouse or open field
pollination) and any associated State or
Federal quarantine, inspection, permit,
compliance, and enforcement action
records related to the import and
transport of bees in and around parts of
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine
counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and
Trinity counties in California;
(3) Information on environmental
changes that have occurred within the
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee that
may be associated with climate change
or other factors.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing the Franklin’s
bumble bee is warranted, we will
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56382
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
propose critical habitat (see definition
in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under
section 4 of the Act, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable at the
time we propose to list the species.
Therefore, within the geographical range
currently occupied by the Franklin’s
bumble bee, we request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’
(2) Where these features are currently
found, and
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and
information on specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
Franklin’s bumble bee that are essential
to the conservation of the species.
Please provide specific comments and
information as to what, if any, critical
habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets
the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support
for or opposition to the action under
consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We
request that you send comments only by
the methods described in ADDRESSES. If
you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we received and
used in preparing this finding is
available for you to review at https://
www.regulations.gov, or you may make
an appointment, during normal business
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
fiscal year 2011, we received funding to
address this petition.
Background
On January 6, 1989, we published a
notice of review that assigned category
2 status to the Franklin’s bumble bee (54
FR 554). Category 2 candidates were
species for which we had information
indicating that protection under the Act
may be warranted, but the information
was insufficient to determine if
elevation to category 1 candidate status
was appropriate. Category 2 status was
maintained for the Franklin’s bumble
bee in Candidate Review notices
published on November 21, 1991 (56 FR
58804) and November 15, 1994 (59 FR
58982). We discontinued the practice of
maintaining the list of category 2
candidate species in 1996 (61 FR 64481;
December 5, 1996). Franklin’s bumble
bee has not held a Federal conservation
status designation since 1996.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly conduct a
species status review, which we
subsequently summarize in our 12month finding.
Petition History
On June 28, 2010, we received a
petition dated June 23, 2010, from The
Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation and Dr. Robbin W. Thorp,
Department of Entomology, University
of California, Davis, requesting that the
Franklin’s bumble bee be listed as
endangered and that critical habitat be
designated under the Act (hereafter
cited as ‘‘Petition’’). The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information
for the petitioners, as required by 50
CFR 424.14(a). In a letter to the
petitioners dated August 16, 2010, we
responded that we had reviewed the
information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted. Our
response also stated that we would not
be able to address the petition at that
time due to court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements with
specific deadlines, listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines, and highpriority listing actions that required us
to spend most of our listing and critical
habitat funding for fiscal year 2010. In
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Previous Federal Actions
Species Information
Taxonomy
Bombus (formerly Bremus) franklini
was originally described by Frison
(1921, pp. 144–148). Several studies
have been published on the taxonomic
relationship of the Franklin’s bumble
bee to other bumble bees ((Stephen
1957, pp. 79–81; Milliron 1971, pp. 58–
67; Plowright and Stephen 1980, pp.
475–479; Thorp et al. 1983, pp. 29–30;
Scholl et al. 1992, pp. 46–51; Cameron
et al. 2007, p. 173) (Note—common
names are used in this finding, when
presented in the petition or available in
our files; otherwise, only the scientific
names are used.). With the exception of
Milliron (1971), who assigned the
Franklin’s bumble bee subspecific status
under B. terricola occidentalis, all of
these studies have accorded the
Franklin’s bumble bee its own specific
rank. The Franklin’s bumble bee is also
recognized as a valid species in the
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS 2011). Therefore, we
recognize the Franklin’s bumble bee as
a valid species and, therefore, a
potentially listable entity under the Act.
Physical Description
As described by the petitioners
(Petition, pp. 5–6), the Franklin’s
bumble bees is readily distinguished
from other bumble bees in its range by:
(1) The extended yellow coloration on
the anterior thorax (the middle division
of an insect between the head and
abdomen), which extends well beyond
the wing bases and forms an inverted Ushape around the central patch of black;
(2) the lack of yellow on the abdomen;
(3) a predominantly black face with
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
yellow on the top of the head; and
(4) white coloration at the tip of the
abdomen. Other bumble bees with
similar coloration in the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee have the yellow
coloration extending back to the wing
bases or only slightly beyond, and
usually have one or more bands of
yellow either on the middle or slightly
behind the middle of the abdomen.
Females of most species have yellow
pubescence (fine hair-like structures) on
the face, in contrast to black on the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Females of the
western bumble bee (Bombus
occidentalis) and B. californicus that
have black pubescence on the face also
have the same coloration on the vertex
(the top or crown of the head), in
contrast to the yellow pubescence on
the vertex in the Franklin’s bumble bee.
Females of B. californicus have a long
face in contrast to the round face of the
Franklin’s bumble bee and the western
bumble bee. The two types of females
(queens and workers), and the males
share similar characteristics, although
there are some differences.
Life History
As described in the petition (pp. 10–
11), the Franklin’s bumble bee is a
primitively eusocial bumble bee (i.e.,
the queen is not well-differentiated from
her workers). Eusocial organisms live in
cooperative groups with both
reproductive and nonreproductive
individuals, and different types of
individuals carry out different
specialized tasks such as reproduction,
defense, or foraging. Like all other
bumble bees, this species lives in
colonies consisting of a queen and her
female workers and male offspring.
Queens are responsible for initiating
colonies and laying eggs. Workers are
responsible for most food collection,
colony defense, nest construction, and
feeding of the young. The function of
male bumble bees is to mate with new
queens produced at the end of the
colony season. Bumble bee colonies
depend on floral resources for their
nutritional needs; nectar provides
carbohydrates and pollen provides
protein. The petitioners state that the
Franklin’s bumble bee is restricted to
habitat patches where its host species
are present, and its limited historical
distribution suggests that it probably has
a limited ability to disperse.
The nesting biology of the Franklin’s
bumble bee is unknown, but like other
Bombus species, it is believed to nest
underground in grassy areas,
presumably in abandoned rodent
burrows (Plath 1927, pp. 122–128;
Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. 1983,
p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). It may
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
occasionally nest on the ground (Thorp
et al. 1983, p. 1) or in rock piles
(Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 475).
Bumble bee colonies are annual
occurrences, starting from colony
initiation in spring by solitary, mated
queens that emerge out of hibernation to
search for appropriate nesting sites.
There are differences among various
bumble bee species in their foraging
ranges. Species such as B. terrestris and
B. lapidaries forage farther afield than
so-called ‘‘doorstep’’ foragers, such as B.
pascuorum, B. sylvarum, B. ruderarius,
and B. muscorum. It is perhaps
significant that the former two species
remain ubiquitous in much of Europe,
whereas three of the four doorstep
foragers have declined. In theory, a
larger foraging range gives a greater
chance of colony survival in areas
where the average density of floral
resources is highly patchy (Goulsen et
al. 2007, p. 11.12). Although the
maximum flight distance of B. franklini
is not known, as noted above, the
petitioners suggest that the species is
most likely not capable of long-distance
flight, based on its restricted range.
Franklin’s bumble bee has been
observed collecting pollen from lupine
(Lupinus spp.) and California poppy
(Eschscholzia californica), and
collecting nectar from horsemint or
nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache
urticifolia) and mountain monardella
(Monardella odoratissima) (Petition, p.
11).
In the early stages of colony
development, the queen is responsible
for all food collection and care of the
larvae. The queen collects nectar and
pollen from flowers to support the
production of her eggs, which are
fertilized by sperm she has stored since
mating the previous fall. As the colony
grows, the workers take over the duties
of food collection, colony defense, nest
construction, and larval care, while the
queen remains within the nest and
spends most of her time laying eggs
(Petition, pp. 10–11). Generally, bumble
bee colonies consist of multiple broods,
with the number of workers for some
species ranging from 50 to 400 at their
peak (Plath 1927, pp. 123–124; Thorp et
al. 1983, p. 2, Macfarlane et al. 1994, p.
7). Two colonies of Franklin’s bumble
bees that were initiated in the laboratory
and moved to a field location to
complete development contained over
60 workers each when censused
(counted) in early September, and may
have reached a total worker complement
of well over 100 individuals by the end
of the season (Plowright and Stephen
1980, p. 477).
The flight season of the Franklin’s
bumble bee is typically from mid-May
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56383
to the end of September (Thorp et al.
1983, p. 30), although a few individuals
have been encountered as late as
October (Petition, pp. 34–40).
Reproductive queens and males are
produced near the end of the colony
cycle. Queens usually mate with only
one male, but males may mate with
multiple queens. After mating, the
queens feed to build up their fat
reserves. The founding queen and all
workers and males from the colony die
by the end of the season, and
inseminated new queens go into
hibernation and are left to carry on the
line the following year (U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management 2009, p. 3).
Range and Distribution
The Franklin’s bumble bee is thought
to have the most limited distribution of
all known North American bumble bee
species (Plowright and Stephen, p. 479;
Petition, p. 6), and one of the most
limited geographic distributions of any
bumble bee in the world (Williams
1998, as cited in the petition (p. 6)). The
original description by Frison (1921, pp.
313–315) was based on two queens
reported from Nogales, Arizona. These
localities were later determined to be
outside of the distribution of all other
specimens subsequently assigned to the
species, and the location reports were
invalidated (Stephen 1957, p. 79; Thorp
1970, pp. 177–180). All other specimens
assignable to the species have been
found in an area about 190 miles (mi)
(306 kilometers (km)) to the north and
south and 70 mi (113 km) to east to west
between 122° to 124° west longitude
and 40° 58′ to 43° 30′ north latitude in
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine
counties in southern Oregon, and in
Siskiyou and Trinity counties in
northern California (Thorp 1999, p. 3;
Thorp 2005c, p. 1; IUCN 2009, p. 1).
Survey Efforts
A survey effort specifically focused on
the Franklin’s bumble bee began in 1998
and continued through 2009 at sites
representing both historical and
potential new localities for the species.
According to the information provided
in the petition (Thorp 2001, 2004,
2005a, 2005c), from 9 to 17 historical
sites (averaging 13.8 sites annually), and
from 2 to 23 additional sites were
surveyed each year during this period,
and some sites were visited more than
once per year, or in multiple years. As
presented in Table 1 of the petition,
these surveys appear to have been
conducted throughout the known range
of the species (Petition, p. 9).
During the surveys, the Franklin’s
bumble bee was observed at 11 sites,
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
56384
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
including 7 locations where it had not
been previously documented. According
to the petitioners, despite continued
surveys through 2009, no observations
of the Franklin’s bumble bee have been
reported since 2006, when a single
worker was observed at Mt. Ashland in
Oregon (Thorp 2008, p. 5). The number
of sightings was at its highest in 1998
when surveys were initiated and 94
individuals were documented (Petition,
p. 9), and then fluctuated between 0 and
20 individuals in subsequent years up
until 2006. In 2006, the Bureau of Land
Management conducted a survey of 16
sites that were believed to provide
optimal habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Each site was surveyed
twice by trained technicians, but no
Franklin’s bumble bees were found
(Code and Haney 2006, p. 3). While it
has been postulated that the species
may be extinct (Natural Research
Council 2007, p. 43; NatureServe 2010,
p. 1), we do not consider the available
evidence to be conclusive, since one
individual was observed during surveys
in 2006 even after none had been
observed in the previous 2 years
(Petition, p. 4), and there may be other
unknown populations. The failure to
detect a species during surveys is not
equivalent to a conclusive
demonstration of its absence, but may
simply reflect the detection probability
for that species, which decreases as a
function of rarity.
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424 set forth the procedures
for adding a species to, or removing a
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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 which factors might
constitute threats, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 may warrant listing as
threatened or endangered 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.
The mere identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding
that listing may be warranted. The
information shall contain evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of threatened or
endangered under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the Franklin’s
bumble bee, as presented in the petition
and other information available in our
files, is substantial, thereby indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Our evaluation of this
information is presented below. The
petitioner stated it is likely that disease
outbreak in commercial bee pollination
facilities in North America, such as the
one reported in 1998 (see below
discussion), is one major cause
responsible for the major severe
declines seen in the Franklin’s bumble
bee since that time, although their
current status is not known in detail
(Code et al. 2006, p. 2). There is some
information available on threats specific
to the Franklin’s bumble bee, although
much of the information presented in
the petition was extrapolated from what
is known about other bumble bee
species.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
The petition asserts that threats that
have altered Franklin’s bumble bee
habitat include agricultural
intensification (increases in farm sizes
and operating efficiencies related to
production (irrigation, tilling, etc.)),
water impoundments, livestock grazing,
urban development, fragmentation of
landscapes, natural and introduced fire,
and invasive species. The petitioners
believe these threats are even more
significant and can have a more
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pronounced impact on the extinction
potential of an animal that has been
reduced to just a few locations, which
they believe is the case with the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Petition, p. 12).
Many of the petitioner’s assertions
involve activities that may have
historically affected habitat for the
Franklin’s bumble bee, but may no
longer be acting on the species. Factor
A requires an evaluation of the present
(i.e., ongoing) or threatened (i.e.,
foreseeable) impacts to a species’ habitat
or range. Accordingly, although
historical habitat loss may be instructive
with regard to conditions leading to a
species’ current status, it does not
represent an ongoing or foreseeable
threat under Factor A. Each of the
petitioner’s assertions is described in
more detail below.
Agricultural Intensification
The petitioners reported one pre-2004
agricultural activity within the
Franklin’s bumble bee’s historical range
near Gold Hill in Jackson County,
Oregon, where significant excavation
and soil deposition altered
approximately 50 percent of the
available bumble bee foraging habitat
(Petition, p. 12). Several references
provided with the petition confirm that
agricultural intensification can
negatively impact wild bees by reducing
the floral resource diversity and
abundance needed for forage (Johansen
1977, p. 177; Williams 1986, p. 57;
Kearns et al. 1998, p. 89; Hines and
Hendrix 2005, p. 1477; Carvell et al.
¨
2006, p. 481; Diekotter et al. 2006, p. 57;
Fitzpatrick et al. 2007, p. 185; Kosior et
¨
al. 2007, pp. 81, 84–86; Ockinger and
Smith 2007, p. 50; Goulson et al. 2008,
´
p. 11.1; IUCN 2009, p. 2; Le Feon et al.
2010, p. 143) and causing loss of nest
sites (Johansen 1977, p. 177; Kearns et
¨
al. 1998, p. 89; Diekotter et al. 2006, p.
¨
57; Ockinger and Smith 2007, p. 50;
Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.4).
Agricultural intensification was
determined to be a primary factor
leading to the local extirpation and
decline of Illinois bumble bees (Grixti et
al. 2009, p. 75), and the decline of
bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Bombini
spp.) in countries across western and
central Europe (Kosior et al. 2007, pp.
81). The petition did not present any
information indicating impacts related
to agricultural intensification are
ongoing or foreseeable in currently
occupied habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Water Impoundments
The petitioners reported that two
historical Franklin’s bumble bee sites in
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Jackson County, Oregon, were
inundated following the completion of
Applegate Dam in 1980; historical
records for the Franklin’s bumble bee
were documented at this location in
1963 and 1968. The petition did not
present any information indicating that
impacts related to water impoundments
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently
occupied habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Livestock Grazing
The petitioners stated that U.S.
Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Forest Service lands historically
occupied by the Franklin’s bumble bee
are periodically subject to substantial
livestock impact (Petition, p. 13).
According to the petition, livestock
grazing may adversely impact bumble
bee populations by: (1) Depleting food
resources (Morris 1967, p. 472; Sugden
1985, p. 299; Kruess and Tscharntke
2002b, p. 1570; Vazquez and Simberloff
2003, p. 1081; Hatfield and LeBuhn
2007, p. 150); (2) trampling nesting sites
(Sugden 1985, p. 299); and (3)
negatively impacting ground-nesting
rodents (Johnson and Horn 2008, p. 444;
Schmidt et al. 2009, p. 1), which may
in turn reduce the number of nest sites
available for bumble bees.
The petition stated that livestock
grazing has differing impacts on flora
and fauna based on the type, habitat,
intensity, timing and length of grazing
(Gibson et al. 1992, p. 174; Carvell 2002,
p. 44; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002a, p.
293; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002b, p.
1577). Several studies of livestock
grazing impacts on bees suggest
increased intensity of livestock grazing
negatively affects the species richness of
bees (Morris 1967, p. 473; Sugden 1985,
p. 309; Vazquez and Simberloff 2003, p.
1080; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p.
156). Interestingly, one study cited by
the petitioners suggests that grazing,
especially by cattle (as opposed to sheep
or mowing), can play a key positive role
in maintaining the abundance and
species richness of preferred bumble bee
forage (Carvell 2001, p. 44). The petition
did not present any information
indicating that livestock grazing impacts
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently
or most recently occupied habitat for the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Urban Development
One study in Boston, Massachusetts,
concluded that human-built structures,
such as roads and railroads, can
fragment plant populations and restrict
bumble bee movement (Bhattacharya et
al. 2003, p. 37). Another study of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
factors adversely affecting bumble bees
and cuckoo bees in western and central
Europe found the expansion of urban
areas to be an important driver of
pollinator loss in approximately half of
the countries examined (Kosior et al.
2007, p. 81). The petitioners stated that
while urban parks and gardens may
provide habitat for some pollinators,
including bumble bees (Frankie et al.
2005, p. 227; McFrederick and LeBuhn
2006, p. 372), they tend not to support
the species richness that was either
present historically or found in nearby
wild landscapes (petition p. 13;
McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006, p. 378).
The petitioners reported that the
Franklin’s bumble bee has been found
in urban areas of Ashland, Oregon, and
that nests of a close relative, the western
bumble bee, have been found in urban
San Francisco, California (Petition, p.
13).
Thorp (1999, p. 12) stated that
increased urbanization in areas in
Oregon (Ashland, Medford-Central
Point, Grants Pass and Roseburg) may
have already reduced historical
populations of the Franklin’s bumble
bee. The author also stated that the
Franklin’s bumble bee was found on the
Southern Oregon University campus as
recently as spring 1998, and
acknowledged that most major urban
areas within the range of the species
have not been intensively surveyed
(Thorp 1999, p. 8). The petition did not
present any information indicating
urban development impacts are ongoing
or foreseeable in currently or most
recently occupied habitat for the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Habitat Fragmentation
The petitioners asserted that habitat
fragmentation from land uses such as
agriculture, grazing, urban development
and other factors is a threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Petition, p. 13).
One study found that populations of a
number of bumble bee species have
become increasingly small, making
them more vulnerable to local
extinctions and less able to recolonize
extirpated habitat patches (Goulsen et
al. 2008, pp. 11.6–11.7). Fragmentation
can alter pollinator community
composition, change foraging behavior
of bumble bees and reduce bee foraging
rates (Kearns and Inouye, 1997, p. 299;
¨
Ockinger and Smith 2007, p. 50;
Rusterholz and Baur 2010, p. 148).
Bumble bees have been found to be
susceptible to the disruption of healthy
metapopulation structures due to
fragmentation (National Research
Council 2007, p. 93; Goulson et al. 2008,
p. 11.7), and studies suggest fragmented
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56385
bumble bee populations can suffer from
inbreeding depression as a result of
geographic isolation (Darvill et al. 2006,
p. 601, Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7).
Fragmentation is believed to be one of
the factors contributing to the decline of
bumble bees and cuckoo bees in
countries across western and central
Europe (Kosior et al. 2010, pp. 81).
Information regarding the effects of
habitat fragmentation on the Franklin’s
bumble bee was not provided by the
petitioners, although they did present
conclusions from studies of other
bumble bee species (Petition, p. 13). We
have no information available in our
files regarding habitat fragmentation of
Franklin’s bumble bee habitat. However,
as stated earlier, there are differences
among bumble bee species in their
foraging range; some forage farther
afield than other species. A larger
foraging range gives a greater chance of
colony survival in areas where the
average density of floral resources
becomes highly patchy because of
habitat fragmentation (Goulsen et al.
2007, p. 11.12). Although further study
would be required, the threat of habitat
fragmentation would be expected to be
greater if the Franklin’s bumble bee’s
geographically limited range is related
to a limited foraging distance, as
suggested by the petitioners (Petition, p.
20).
Natural and Prescribed Fire
The petition asserted that current fuel
loads, including invasive trees and
shrubs, combined with reduction and
fragmentation of Franklin’s bumble bee
populations, and reduction in size of
native meadows, makes natural or
prescribed burning a potential threat
(Petition, p. 14). Generally, fire
suppression can lead to increased fuel
loads and tree densities that
dramatically increase the risk of severe
fire (Huntzinger 2003, p. 1), and
degradation and loss of native prairies
and grasslands can occur in the absence
of fire due to succession of plant
communities to habitats dominated by
invasive and woody vegetation (Schultz
and Crone 1998, p. 245). Using
prescribed fire is a common practice for
restoring and managing native prairie
and grassland plant communities
(Panzer 2002, p. 1297). Although the use
of prescribed fire is generally beneficial
to insect populations that rely on
grassland habitats by maintaining
suitable habitat conditions, some taxa
can be negatively affected, especially in
the short-term (Schultz and Crone 1998,
p. 244; Panzer 2002, p. 1296).
The petitioners believe that increased
fuel loads due to long-term fire
suppression could result in a large-
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
56386
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
scale, high-temperature fire that could
potentially extirpate an entire
population of the Franklin’s bumble bee
if it were to occur in an area where they
are concentrated (Petition, p. 14). The
petition did not present any information
indicating the extent to which natural or
prescribed fire has occurred in currently
or most recently occupied habitat for the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
The petition characterized natural or
prescribed fire as a threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee because of
current site fuel loads (invasive trees
and shrubs), combined with the
reduction and fragmentation of
populations and habitat (Petition, p. 14).
Because of current site fuel loads, as
characterized by the petitioner, we
consider this potential threat to be
reasonably foreseeable, even though the
timing, magnitude, and location of
natural fire events (or prescribed fires
that become wild fire events) is
unpredictable.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Invasive Species
The petitioners stated that the
‘‘invasion and dominance of native
grasslands by exotic plants is a common
issue’’ (Warren 1993, p. 47; Schultz and
Crone 1998, p. 244), which has likely
occurred at historical Franklin’s bumble
bee sites (Petition, p. 14). Invasive plant
species that displace native plant
communities have the potential to
negatively impact the Franklin’s bumble
bee if they provide less pollen or nectar
than the native species, or if they bloom
during a different time period than the
native plant species available for
foraging (Petition, p. 14; Kearns et al.
1998, p. 103). The petition did not
present any information indicating that
invasive species-related impacts are
occurring in currently or most recently
occupied habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Summary of Factor A
The publications cited by the
petitioners appear to support their
assertions that agricultural
intensification, livestock grazing, urban
development, fragmentation of
landscapes, natural and introduced fire,
and invasive species can pose threats to
bumble bees and other pollinators in
general; however, very little information
was presented with which to correlate
these potential threats to habitat
occupied specifically by the Franklin’s
bumble bee. In addition, one of the
petition references indicates that, during
surveys conducted from 1998 to 2004, it
was observed that most of the sites
surveyed remained suitable habitat,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
based on the constant abundance of
other bumble bee species (Thorp 2005c,
p. 4). The petition does not indicate
whether the sites surveyed from 1998 to
2004 encompass all areas potentially
habitable by the Franklin’s bumble bee,
and implies that at least some sites may
have become unsuitable habitat. We
have no information available in our
files that provides any additional
information in this regard.
We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
Franklin’s bumble bee may warrant
listing due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat, primarily due to
the potential impacts of natural or
prescribed fire to remaining
populations. Habitat fragmentation may
additionally pose a threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee, although at
present we do not have sufficient
information to assess the degree of
fragmentation that has occurred within
its range, or to determine the dispersal
limitations of the species. There is no
substantial information indicating that
agricultural intensification, water
impoundments, livestock grazing, urban
development, or invasive species
specifically, are currently impacting
Franklin’s bumble bee habitat, or will
impact the species’ habitat in the
foreseeable future. However, we will
assess each of these potential threats
more thoroughly during our status
review, in order to better quantify
potential effects on the Franklin’s
bumble bee.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted that, while
generally the collection of insects does
not present a threat to their populations,
the collection of a small number of
Franklin’s bumble bee queens could
significantly reduce the production of
offspring and pose a threat to the entire
species due to its rarity, small
populations, and relatively low
fecundity compared to most insects
(Petition, p. 14). Based on a table of
historical and recent records presented
by the petitioners, Franklin’s bumble
bee specimens (including queens) have
been collected as recently as 1998, and
deposited at several universities and
museums. There are records of 28
queens collected between 1950 and
1998; the records since 1998 are based
on observations only with no collections
of males, workers, or queens noted
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Petition, pp. 34–40). In 1998, the year
that the most recent surveys for the
Franklin’s bumble bee were initiated
and the last year for any documented
collections (i.e., where specimens were
retained), the highest number of
individuals ever documented was
recorded (94 individuals), and 4 queens
were collected by another individual.
We are unaware of any collections
beyond those documented in the table
of historical and recent records
provided in the petition (Petition, pp.
34–40). The petition did not present any
information indicating that the
collection of Franklin’s bumble bee
queens is currently occurring, and we
have no information in our files in this
regard.
Summary of Factor B
Neither the petition nor information
available in our files presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information that collection of Franklin’s
bumble bee queens is still occurring, or
if so, occurring at a level that impacts
the overall status of the species. In
addition, we have no information
indicating pre-1998 collections may
have been a factor resulting in the
Franklin’s bumble bee’s current
population status, although queen
specimens have been retained for
scientific collections in the past (last
recorded in 1998). Therefore, we find
that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes may present a threat such that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
However, we will assess this factor more
thoroughly during our status review for
the species.
C. Disease or Predation.
Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted there is
potential for the spread of an exotic
strain of the microsporidium (parasitic
fungus) Nosema and other disease
organisms, such as the protozoan
parasite Crithidia bombi, tracheal mite
Locustacarus buchneri, or deformed
wing virus through wild populations of
the Franklin’s bumble bee and other
species in the subgenus Bombus in
North America. While no specific
examples were provided within the
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee, the
petitioners hypothesize that the main
cause of the decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee is due to a disease organism
introduced through the use of
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
commercially reared bumble bee
colonies (Petition, p. 14).
Commercial bumble bee production
started in North America in the early
1990s (Petition, p. 15). The petitioners
stated that commercially produced
bumble bee colonies that were potential
carriers of pests or disease were
distributed throughout much of North
America, when the Franklin’s bumble
bee and other closely related wild
bumble bees started to decline. In
addition to being used for commercial
pollination, western bumble bee
colonies were used in field research
between 1991 and 2000 in California,
Washington, and Alberta, Canada
(Mayer et al. 1994, p. 21; Mayer and
Lunden 1997, p. 283; Richards and
Myers 1997, p. 293; Mayer and Lunden
2001, p. 277; Thomson 2004, p. 460).
The petition referenced a news story
published by the Associated Press that
highlighted a strawberry and vegetable
grower in Grants Pass, Oregon (within
the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee),
who purchased Bombus impatiens hives
in 2007 to pollinate his crop (Associated
Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). In 2007,
there was also a proposal by a
commercial bee company to import
nonnative bumble bees (B. impatiens)
for the pollination of field crops in the
State of California (California
Department of Food and Agriculture
2006, pp. 1–59).
The Service found that bees were
proposed for use less than 150 mi (241
km) from the southern extent of the
historical range of the Franklin’s bumble
bee and raised concerns about potential
impacts to the species. In a comment
letter to the California Department of
Agriculture dated January 17, 2007, the
Service specifically mentioned the risk
of potential disease transmission that
could occur if infected hives were
shipped through or used in areas where
commercial bees could come into
contact with Franklin’s bumble bee, and
requested that an analysis of potential
effects to the species be conducted in
accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 1–2).
Information about the outcome is not
available in our files. Parasites and
pathogens have been found to spread
from commercial bee colonies to native
bee populations through a process
sometimes referred to as ‘‘pathogen
spillover’’ (Colla et al. 2006, p. 461;
Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1).
Pathogens specifically addressed in the
petition are discussed below.
Nosema bombi
Nosema bombi has been detected in
native bumble bees in North America,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
but whether it is an introduced species
or occurs naturally is uncertain
(Petition, p. 16). As described by the
petitioners, N. bombi is a
microsporidian that infects bumble
bees, primarily in the malpighian
tubules (small excretory or water
regulating glands), but also in fat bodies,
nerve cells, and sometimes the tracheae
(Macfarlane et al. 1995, as cited by the
petitioners, Petition, p. 15). Colonies
can appear to be healthy but still carry
N. bombi and transmit it to other
colonies. The effect of N. bombi on
bumble bees varies from mild to severe
(Macfarlane et al. 1995, as cited by the
petitioners (Petition, pp. 15–16); Otti
and Schmid-Hempel 2007, p. 118;
Larson 2007, as cited by the petitioners
(Petition, pp. 15–16); Rutrecht et al.
2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel
2008, p. 577).
The petition described the probable
route of introduction and spread as
follows: In the early 1990s, queens of
both the western bumble bee and
Bombus impatiens were shipped from
the United States to rearing facilities in
Belgium that were also likely rearing B.
terrestris, a close relative of the western
bumble bee and the Franklin’s bumble
bee. The commercially-reared colonies
produced from these queens were
shipped back into the United States
between 1992 and 1994. The petitioners
hypothesize that a virulent strain of
Nosema bombi from B. terrestris spread
to B. impatiens and the western bumble
bee prior to their shipment back into the
United States, and once in this country
the commercially reared colonies of the
western bumble bee may have spread
this virulent strain of N. bombi to wild
populations of the Franklin’s bumble
bee (Petition, p. 15).
Bumble bee producers experienced
major problems with Nosema bombi
infection in commercial western bumble
bee colonies in 1997 (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 108; Velthius and van Doorn
2006, p. 432), and eventually stopped
producing_the western bumble bee. In
addition, the morphology of N. bombi
found in a native bumble bee in China,
Bombus leucorum, was found to be the
same as that found in B. terrestris
imported from New Zealand (Jilian et al.
2005, p. 53), suggesting the disease may
have been introduced to native bumble
bee populations in China by commercial
bees.
Researchers at the University of
Illinois recently identified a strain of
Nosema bombi in multiple species of
North American bumble bees (Petition,
p. 16). Studies suggest the disease can
spread from commercial bumble bees to
nearby wild bumble bees (Niwa et al.
2004, p. 60; Whittington et al. 2004, p.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56387
599; Jilian et al. 2005, p. 53; Colla et al.
2006, p. 461), even when commercial
bumble bees are used for pollination in
greenhouses, because commercial
bumble bees frequently forage outside
greenhouse facilities (Petition, p. 15),
and can transmit disease at shared
flowers (Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599;
Colla et al. 2006, p. 461). The extent to
which this pathogen occurs within the
current range of the Franklin’s bumble
bee was not described in the petition,
and we have no information in our files
in this regard.
Crithidia bombi
The petitioners believe the internal
protozoan parasite, Crithidia bombi,
could also be leading to the decline of
the Franklin’s bumble bee. C. bombi has
been shown to have detrimental effects
on colony founding success of queens,
the fitness of established colonies, and
the survival and foraging efficiency of
bumble bee workers (Brown et al. 2000,
p. 421; Brown et al. 2003, p. 994;
Otterstatter et al. 2005, p. 388; Gegear et
al. 2005, p. 1; Gegear et al. 2006, p.
1073).
As with Nosema bombi, studies
suggest that Crithidia bombi can spread
from commercial bumble bees to nearby
wild bumble bees through shared use of
flowers, even when commercial bumble
bees are used for pollination in
greenhouses, because they can escape to
forage outside and transmit the disease
(Durrer and Schmid-Hempel 1994, p.
299; Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599;
Colla et al. 2006, p. 461; Otterstatter and
Thompson 2008, p. 1). Although C.
bombi is considered to be a bumble bee
parasite, honey bees have also been
shown to be possible vectors (Ruiz´
Gonzalez and Brown 2006, p. 621). This
parasite has been shown to be present
in higher frequencies in bumble bees
near greenhouses where commercial
colonies of Bombus impatiens are used
than in bumble bees remote from these
facilities (Colla et al. 2006 in litt., p. 3).
The extent to which this pathogen
occurs within the current range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee was not
described in the petition, and we have
no information in our files in this
regard. However, as described above,
the petition referenced a news story
published by the Associated Press that
highlighted a strawberry and vegetable
grower in Grants Pass, Oregon (within
the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee),
who purchased B. impatiens hives in
2007 to pollinate his crop (Associated
Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). We are also
aware of a proposal to use commercial
B. impatiens for field pollination at a
site in California within 150 mi (241
km) of the historical range of the
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
56388
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Franklin’s bumble bee (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 1). As B.
impatiens is a potential carrier of C.
bombi, B. impatiens would be a
potential vector for transmission to the
Franklin’s bumble bee.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Locustacarus buchneri
The petition stated that Locustacarus
buchneri is a tracheal mite that affects
bumble bees (Petition, p. 17), and that
bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus,
such as the Franklin’s bumble bee, may
be more susceptible to tracheal mite
infestation than other bumble bees,
based on a study in southwestern
Alberta, Canada, by Otterstatter and
Whidden (2004, p. 351). One of the
cited references (Goka et al., 2001, pp.
2095–2099) documents the presence of
this mite in bumble bee (Bombus spp.)
populations in Japan, the Netherlands,
and Belgium. The petitioners did not
describe the specific effects of L.
buchneri on bumble bees, but
Ottersatter and Whidden (2004) found
bumble bees containing tracheal mites
to have significantly reduced lifespans
in the laboratory. Otterstatter and
Whidden (2004, p. 351) and Goka et al.
(2001) cite a study that found heavy
mite infestation can severely injure
bumble bees (Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098).
In that study, diarrhea was observed,
and some bees became lethargic and no
longer able to forage.
Commercially raised bumble bees
from Europe were found to be infested
with tracheal mites at higher rates than
detected in wild bees (Goka et al. 2001,
p. 2098). The petitioners stated that the
method of mite dispersal is not well
understood, but they could spread from
commercial to wild colonies through
drifting workers or contact on shared
flowers. The petitioners cited a study of
parasitic mites in native and
commercial bumble bees in Japan,
cautioning that the transportation of
bumble bee colonies will cause overseas
migration of parasitic mites (Goka et al.
2001, p. 2098). The extent to which this
pathogen occurs within the current
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee was
not described in the petition, and we
have no information available in our
files in this regard.
Deformed Wing Virus
The petitioners stated that deformed
wing virus, a honey bee pathogen that
results in crippled wings, may also be
a threat to the Franklin’s bumble bee.
Deformed wing virus (DWV) was
thought to be specific to honey bees
until 2004, when dead Bombus terrestris
and B. pascuorum queens with
deformities resembling those in honey
bees were observed. These DWV-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
infected specimens were observed in
European commercial bumble bee
breeding facilities at a frequency of
approximately ten percent (Genersch et
al. 2006, p. 63). In addition to the
potential transmission of this and other
diseases from honey bees in apiaries to
bumble bees, commercial bumble bee
rearing may also provide an opportunity
for transmission. Commercial bumble
bee producers sometimes introduce
young honey bees to nesting bumble bee
queens to stimulate egg-laying, thus
providing a potential interface that
exposes bumble bees to diseases carried
by the honey bees (Genersch et al. 2006,
pp. 61–62).
DWV infection could pose a serious
threat to bumble bee populations, as
infected bumble bees with deformed
wings are not able to forage. Those
found with the observed deformities
were also not viable (Genersch et al.
2006, p. 61). The petitioners are aware
of unpublished personal observations of
DWV symptoms in commercially raised
Bombus impatiens colonies in North
America, but stated that research has
not been conducted to determine if
other species of bumble bees are also
susceptible to this disease (Petition, p.
17). The petitioners did not present any
information linking DWV to the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information available in our files in this
regard.
infected bumble bees with deformed
wings are unable to forage.
There is no information presented in
the petition indicating the Franklin’s
bumble bee is threatened by the tracheal
mite L. buchneri, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Although this mite has been known to
attack at least 25 bumble bee species
across the holarctic region (the
geographic region that includes the
northern areas of the earth), it typically
occurs in only a small fraction of the
host species available at a site
(Otterstatter et al. 2004, p. 351). The
mite has also parasitized B. vagans and
B. bimaculatus in the eastern United
States (Otterstatter et al. 2004, p. 351);
however, there are no indications it
occurs within the known geographic
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee or
within the western United States. The
petitioners did not present any
information indicating predation was an
ongoing or foreseeable threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Accordingly, we find that the petition
does not present substantial information
indicating that predation is a threat to
the species. However, we will assess
this factor more thoroughly during our
status review for the species.
Summary of Factor C
Information specific to the occurrence
of Nosema bombi, Crithidia bombi,
Locustacarus buchneri or deformed
wing virus within the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee was not provided
by the petitioners, and we have no
information in our files regarding these
pathogens. However, the studies cited
by the petitioners appear to support
their assertions related to the threats of
the diseases and parasites to bumble
bees in general, and it appears each of
these diseases may be readily
transferred from commercial to wild
bumble bees. We, therefore, find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the Franklin’s bumble bee may
warrant listing due to disease, since (1)
a microsporidian pathogen genetically
identical to N. bombi in European
bumble bees has been found in bumble
bees in the United States (Solter et al.
2007, p. 15; Thorp 2008, p. 7); (2)
studies on the effects of N. bombi
generally demonstrate bumble bees are
negatively affected; (3) Bombus
impatiens is a potential carrier of C.
bombi, and would be a potential vector
for transmission to Franklin’s bumble
bee; and (4) studies have demonstrated
Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition stated there are currently
no Federal regulations that limit the
interstate transportation of bumble bees,
even outside their native range (Petition,
p. 18). The petitioners also stated the
Franklin’s bumble bee has no
substantive protection for habitat or take
under Federal law or State laws in
Oregon or California, and neither
Oregon nor California allows listing of
insects under their State endangered
species statutes (Petition, p. 17).
The petitioners believe the spread of
disease introduced by commercial bees
may be the primary threat to the species,
and existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect against this threat
(Petition, pp. 21–22). They stated that
few precautions are taken to prevent
commercially reared colonies from
interacting with wild populations.
While bumble bee colonies imported to
commercial rearing facilities are
typically subject to inspection, typical
inspections only include honey bee
parasites and diseases, even though
honey bee diseases and pests are not
transmitted to bumble bees (Velthius
and van Doorn 2006, p. 430).
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) is responsible for
implementing the Honey Bee Act (HBA)
(Petition, p. 18). According to the
petition, sections 322.4 and 322.5 of the
HBA allow the transport of two species
of bumble bees from Canada (Bombus
impatiens and the western bumble bee)
to all U.S. States except Hawaii, and
section 322.12 of the HBA provides for
requests to import bumble bees from
other countries. The petitioners stated
that APHIS is responsible for evaluating
applications and making importation
determinations (Petition, p. 18). One
reference cited by the petitioners stated
that the HBA has helped protect the
U.S. beekeeping industry from exotic
parasites and pathogens, and
undesirable bee species and strains of
honey bees (Flanders et al. 2003, p.
101). The petitioners also stated the
California Department of Food and
Agriculture allows B. impatiens to enter
the State for greenhouse pollination (but
not for open field pollination), although
the law may not be regularly enforced
or growers may not be aware of it
(Petition, p. 18)). They stated that the
Oregon State Department of Agriculture
currently does not allow B. impatiens to
enter the State (Petition, p. 18), but
acknowledge a 2007 news story
published by the Associated Press that
documented a strawberry grower in
Oregon who purchased colonies of B.
impatiens for pollination (Associated
Press, 2007; Petition, p. 18).
Accordingly, the petitioners asserted
that existing regulations and authorities
do not effectively protect against the
threat of exposure to disease that may be
carried by commercial bumble bees
(Petition, p. 18), since B. impatiens has
apparently been successfully imported
into the State, despite the existing
regulations.
One study cited by the petitioner
stated that nearly all laws and
regulations addressing the importation,
movement, and release of bees in the
United States focus almost exclusively
on bee diseases and parasites, with little
or no consideration for possible adverse
environmental impacts associated with
the bees themselves (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 99). One reference cited by the
petitioners stated ‘‘current federal laws
pertaining to bees restrict APHIS’
oversight to preventing the introduction
of parasites and pathogens that may
harm bees. Except for the provisions in
the HBA about undesirable species and
strains of honey bees, it remains unclear
whether APHIS has a basis for
restricting the release of exotic bee
species. Similarly, APHIS has little
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
jurisdiction over the interstate
movement and release of native bees,
even when that movement is to an area
previously unoccupied by the species’’
(Flander et al. 2003, p. 109). As an
example, even though APHIS has
regulations in place, problems
associated with heavy infestations of
Nosema bombi in the western bumble
bee were discovered in rearing facilities
in 1996 (Velthuis and van Doorn 2006,
p. 432), and Flanders et al. (2003, p.
108) reported disease was found in
commercially produced western bumble
bees in 1997 (Flanders et al. 2003, p.
108). The petitioners reported that
bumble bee producers in North America
eventually stopped producing the
western bumble bee due to the N. bombi
infestation.
Summary of Factor D
Factor D concerns whether the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address the current threats
identified under Factors A, B, C, or E.
We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating (1) the existing
regulatory mechanisms may be
inadequate to protect against the spread
of disease introduced by commercial
bumble bees; (2) that few precautions
appear to be taken to prevent
commercially reared colonies from
interacting with wild bumble bee
populations; (3) inspections of bumble
bee colonies imported to commercial
rearing facilities may be ineffective; and
(4) open field pollination restrictions
may not be regularly enforced by the
California Department of Food and
Agriculture, which may exacerbate the
potential for commercially raised
bumble bees to transfer disease to the
Franklin’s bumble bee. We will assess
this factor more thoroughly during our
status review for the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
The petitioners assert that several
other natural or manmade factors may
be threats to the Franklin’s bumble bee,
including the use of pesticides,
population dynamics and structure,
global climate change and competition
from honey bees and other nonnative
bees. Each of the petitioner’s assertions
is described in more detail below.
Pesticides
The petitioners asserted the
application of pesticides, including
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides,
may negatively affect remaining
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56389
populations of the Franklin’s bumble
bee (Petition, p. 18–20). Numerous
studies were cited related to pesticide
use for various purposes in varied
environments, including wild,
agricultural, urban, and forested areas.
Some of the references cited in the
petition identify a concern that, while
data related to the toxicity of pesticides
to honey bees is considered to be
generally applicable to other bees
(Kevan and Plowright 1995, p. 609),
pesticide risk assessments conducted for
honey bees may be inadequate for
evaluating the risks to bumble bees due
to differences in foraging behavior and
phenology (Thompson and Hunt 1999,
p. 147; Thompson 2001, p. 305; Goulson
et al. 2008, p. 11.4). Phenology refers to
the relationships between regularly
recurring biological phenomenon and
climatic or environmental influences
(i.e., bumble bees and honey bees may
have different biological schedules with
regard to their ecological needs or
behaviors).
Bumble bee exposure can occur from
direct spray or drift (Johansen and
Mayer 1990, as cited by the petitioners
(Petition, p. 19)), or from gathering or
consuming contaminated nectar or
pollen (Morandin et al. 2005, p. 619).
Lethal and sublethal effects on bumble
bee eggs, larvae, and adults have been
documented for many different
pesticides under various scenarios
(Kevan 1975, p. 301; Johansen 1977, p.
178; Plowright et al. 1978, p. 1145;
Plowright et al. 1980, p. 765; Kearns and
Inouye 1997, p. 302; Kearns et al. 1998,
p. 91–92; Kevan 1999, p. 378;
Thompson 2001, p. 305; Gels et al.
2002, p. 722; Morandin et al. 2005, p.
619; Mommaerts et al. 2006, p. 752;
Goulson et al. 2008, pp. 11.4–11.5).
Studies have also found evidence of
adverse impacts to bumble bee habitat
associated with pesticides due to
changes in vegetation and the removal
or reduction of flowers needed to
provide consistent sources of pollen,
nectar, and nesting material (Johansen
1977, p. 188; Plowright et al. 1978, p.
1145; Williams 1986, 54; Kearns and
Inouye 1997, p. 302; Smallidge and
Leopold 1997, p. 264; Kearns et al.
1998, p. 91–92; Shepherd et al. 2003, as
cited by the petitioners (Petition, p. 19)).
Declines in bumble bees in parts of
Europe have been at least partially
attributed to the use of pesticides
(Williams 1986, p. 54; Kosior et al.
2007, p. 81).
The petition did not present any
information indicating that impacts
related to pesticide application are
occurring or are foreseeable in currently
or most recently occupied habitat for the
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
56390
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Population Dynamics and Structure
The petitioners asserted that small
populations are generally at greater risk
of extirpation from normal population
fluctuations due to predation, disease,
and changing food supply, as well as
from natural disasters such as droughts
(Petition, p. 20), and small and isolated
populations can experience a loss of
genetic variability (Cox and Elmqvist
2000, p. 1237). The petitioners believe
the Franklin’s bumble bee is rare and
has very small populations, and likely
has low genetic diversity. They believe
this population structure likely makes
the species more vulnerable to habitat
change or loss, parasites, diseases,
stochastic events, and other natural
disasters such as droughts (Petition, p.
20).
Between 1998 and 2009 (when
surveys specifically for the Franklin’s
bumble bee were conducted and for
which we have data), the number of
Franklin’s bumble bee observations
declined precipitously from 94
individuals in 1998 to 20 in 1999. Nine
individuals were observed in 2000, and
one individual in 2001. Although 20
were observed in 2002, only 3 were
observed in 2003 (at a single locality),
and a single worker was observed in
2006. There were no observations
documented in 2007, 2008, or 2009
(Petition, p. 7).
The petitioners cited several papers
that discuss the particular susceptibility
of bumble bees to threats related to
small population size and low genetic
diversity, in part because bumble bees
exhibit a haplodiploidy sex
determination system, as do all other
hymenopterans (bees, wasps, ants). In a
haplodiploidy sex determination
system, unfertilized, or haploid, eggs
become males that carry a single set of
chromosomes, and fertilized, or diploid,
eggs become females that carry two sets
of chromosomes. This may result in
lower levels of genetic diversity than the
more common diploid-diploid sex
determination system, in which both
males and females carry two sets of
chromosomes (Petition, p. 20).
Haplodiploid organisms may be more
prone to population extinction than
diploid-diploid organisms, due to their
susceptibility to low population levels
and loss of genetic diversity (Packer and
Owen 2001, p. 26; Zayed and Packer
2005, p. 10742; Darvill et al. 2006, p.
601; Ellis et al. 2006, 4375; Goulson et
al. 2008, p. 11.7–11.9). Inbreeding
depression in bumble bees can lead to
the production of sterile diploid males
(Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7), and has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
been shown to negatively affect bumble
bee colony size (Herrmann et al. 2007,
p. 1167), which are key factors in a
colony’s reproductive success. Until
recently, diploid male production had
not been detected in naturally occurring
populations of bumble bees, and recent
modeling work has shown that diploid
male production, where present, may
initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a
situation where genetic traits and
environmental conditions combine to
make a species gradually become
extinct) (Goulsen et al. 2008, p. 11.8).
Global Climate Change
The petitioners asserted that global
climate change may threaten the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Petition, pp. 20–
21). For example, changing climate may
cause shifts in the range of host plant
species, which can be especially
detrimental to dependent pollinators
when combined with habitat loss
(Petition p. 20). The petitioners state
that the Franklin’s bumble bee is
restricted to habitat patches where its
host species are present, and its limited
historical distribution suggests that it
probably has a limited ability to
disperse. The petition did not clarify
which plant species represent host
species for the Franklin’s bumble bee,
and we have no information in our files
in this regard. The petition
characterized the Franklin’s bumble bee
as a generalist forager, meaning they
gather pollen and nectar from a wide
variety of flowering plants (Petition, p.
11), which may somewhat mitigate any
potential impacts of climate change
relative to food resources. Darvell et al.
(2010) suggest the decline of another
bumble bee species, Bombus muscorum,
from the United Kingdom mainland has
been severe because of its limited ability
to disperse, although in this study the
stressor was agricultural intensification
(Petition, pp. 20–21). The petitioners
believe the ecology of the Franklin’s
bumble bee, combined with the patchy
distribution of its remaining habitat,
might similarly hinder dispersal made
necessary by climate change and cause
the extirpation of the remaining
populations (Petition, p. 21), although
no specific supporting information was
presented and we have no information
in our files in this regard.
The petitioners asserted that an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
from global climate change may alter
plant nectar production, which could
negatively impact bumble bees (Petition,
p. 21). They also believe the reduction
in ozone, as a result of climate change,
could delay flowering in plants and
reduce the amount of flowers plants
produce, which could have negative
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
effects on all bumble bees (Petition, p.
21). However, no specific supporting
information was presented correlating
these potential impacts to the Franklin’s
bumble bee or its host plants, and we
have no information in our files in this
regard.
Competition From Honey Bees
The petitioners believe European
honey bees (Apis mellifera), which are
not native to North America, could be
a threat to the Franklin’s bumble bee
(Petition, p. 21). The honey bee was first
introduced to eastern North America in
the early 1620s, and introduced to
California in the early 1850s. The
petition acknowledges that honey bees
have been present without noticeable
declines in bumble bee populations over
large portions of their ranges (Petition,
p. 21), but cited several studies on the
effects of honey bees on native bumble
bees, which found: (1) Resource overlap
and competition for resources (Thomson
2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, p. 407); (2)
decreased foraging activity and lowered
reproductive success of Bombus
(bumble bee) colonies nearest honey bee
hives (Evans 2001, p. 32–33; Thomson
2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, p. 407);
and (3) reduced native bumble bee
worker sizes where honey bees were
present, which may be detrimental to
bumble bee colony success (Goulson
and Sparrow 2009, p. 177).
The petitioners stated it is likely that
the effects discussed in these studies are
local in space and time, and most
pronounced where floral resources are
limited and large numbers of
commercial honey bee colonies are
introduced (Petition, p. 21). They also
stated that due consideration should be
given to when, where, and how many
honey bee colonies should be imported
to areas with sensitive bumble bee
populations (Petition. p. 21), to
minimize competition for floral
resources. The petition did not present
information related to the placement of
commercial honey bee colonies in or
near Franklin’s bumble bee habitat, and
we have no information in this regard.
Competition From Other Nonnative
Bumble Bees
The petitioners asserted there is
potential for nonnative commercially
raised bumble bees to naturalize and
outcompete native bumble bees for
limited resources such as nesting sites
and forage areas. Five commercially
reared Bombus impatiens workers and
one queen were captured in the wild
near greenhouses where commercial
bumble bees are used, suggesting this
species has naturalized outside of its
native range. In this study, B. impatiens,
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
which has a native range in eastern
North America, was detected in western
North America (Ratti and Colla 2010,
pp. 29–31). A study of bumble bees in
Japan found that nonnative B. terrestris
colonies founded by bees that had
escaped from commercially produced
colonies had over four times the mean
reproductive output of native bumble
bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p. 93). A
study in England found that
commercially raised B. terrestris
colonies had higher nectar-foraging rates
and greater reproductive output than a
native subspecies of B. terrestris (Ings et
al. 2006, p. 940). The petitioners stated
commercial bumble bee producers have
likely selected for colonies that are
highly productive to ensure strong
colony populations for use in
pollination. They expressed concern
that while this is a desirable quality for
commercial rearing, this practice could
introduce nonnative bumble bees that
could outcompete native bumble bee
populations (Petition, pp. 21–22). As
stated earlier, the petitioners cited a
2007 Associated Press story on the
importation of B. impatiens colonies to
pollinate agricultural crops and
strawberries in Grants Pass, Oregon,
which is within the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Associated Press
2007; Petition, p. 18).
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Factor E
The assertions made by the
petitioners appear to be supported by
the cited references and information
available in our files for bumble bees
and other pollinators in general.
Pesticides, global climate change, small
population size, and low genetic
variability are of concern for other rare
invertebrates for reasons similar to those
outlined by the petitioners for the
Franklin’s bumble bee. The potential
adverse impacts of honey bee
competition on declining Bombus
species in western and central Europe
have been recognized by surveyed
experts from several European countries
(Kosior et al. 2007, p. 85). Possible
negative effects of introduced bees on
native organisms may include
competition with native pollinators for
floral resources, competition for nest
sites, and introduction of pathogens
(Goulsen 2003, pp. 1, 18).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Sep 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
56391
It remains uncertain whether or to
what extent any of the threats suggested
by the petitioners are occurring within
habitat currently or most recently
occupied by the Franklin’s bumble bee.
We acknowledge that some of the
information presented by the petitioners
addresses other bumble bee species, and
not the Franklin’s bumble bee. However,
survey results for this species clearly
demonstrate a precipitous decline in the
number of individuals observed since
1998 (94 in 1998; 1 in 2006; none in
2007, 2008, or 2009). Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
the potential threats associated with
pesticides, global climate change,
competition from honey bees,
competition with other nonnative bees,
or some other presently unknown
natural or manmade factor may be
affecting the continued existence of
Franklin’s bumble bee. In addition, any
threats acting on the Franklin’s bumble
bee are likely particularly perilous in
light of the species’ limited geographic
distribution and extremely low
population numbers, based on recent
surveys. Therefore, we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
the Franklin’s bumble bee may warrant
listing due to other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
We will assess each of these factors
more thoroughly during our status
review for the species.
of these threats, acting either singly or
in concert, may be the causative factor
of the species’ decline, we believe the
petition has presented substantial
information demonstrating that some
natural or manmade factor is affecting
the continued existence of the
Franklin’s bumble bee to the point that
the species may be considered
threatened or endangered. Because we
have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that
listing the Franklin’s bumble bee may be
warranted, we are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing the
species under the Act is warranted.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a status review to determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted. A 90day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status
review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90day finding. Because the Act’s standards
for 90-day and 12-month findings are
different, as described above, a
substantial 90-day finding does not
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
Finding
On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
determine that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
Franklin’s bumble bee throughout its
entire range may be warranted. This
finding is based on the information
presented in the petition documenting
the precipitous decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee since 1998, to the point that
only a single individual of the species
has been observed since 2006, despite
continued survey efforts. The petition
additionally presented information
regarding a variety of threats that may
potentially be acting on the species; this
suite of threats falls under Factors A, C,
D, and E, as discussed above. Although
the information presented does not
allow us to definitively identify which
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
References Cited
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 31, 2011.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–23282 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56381-56391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23282]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Franklin's Bumble Bee as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Franklin's bumble bee (Bombus
franklini) as endangered and to designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing this species may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
review of the status of the species to determine if listing the
Franklin's bumble bee is warranted. To ensure that this status review
is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before November 14, 2011. The
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date. After November 14, 2011, you must submit information
directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Go to
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel at the top of the
screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules
link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Submit a Comment.''
Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before
submitting your comment.
(2) U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE
98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266, by telephone 503-231-6179, or
by facsimile 503-231-6195. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the
Franklin's bumble bee throughout its range, which includes parts of
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and
Trinity counties in California, from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
(3) Information on pathogens and parasites within and near the
range of the Franklin's bumble bee and potential pathways for
introductions, including:
(a) Historical and recent records of Nosema bombi, Crithidia bombi,
Apicystis bombi, Locustacarus buchneri, deformed wing virus and other
bee pathogens and parasites within parts of Douglas, Jackson, and
Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity counties in
California, and recent studies about known or potential bumble bee
pathogens and their effects on bumble bees; and
(b) The transport and use of commercial honey bees or bumble bees
including species, year(s) of use, type(s) of use (e.g., greenhouse or
open field pollination) and any associated State or Federal quarantine,
inspection, permit, compliance, and enforcement action records related
to the import and transport of bees in and around parts of Douglas,
Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity
counties in California;
(3) Information on environmental changes that have occurred within
the range of the Franklin's bumble bee that may be associated with
climate change or other factors.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the
Franklin's bumble bee is warranted, we will
[[Page 56382]]
propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the
Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore,
within the geographical range currently occupied by the Franklin's
bumble bee, we request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,''
(2) Where these features are currently found, and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the Franklin's bumble bee
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment, during normal
business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On June 28, 2010, we received a petition dated June 23, 2010, from
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Dr. Robbin W.
Thorp, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis,
requesting that the Franklin's bumble bee be listed as endangered and
that critical habitat be designated under the Act (hereafter cited as
``Petition''). The petition clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners,
as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioners dated
August 16, 2010, we responded that we had reviewed the information
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act was not warranted. Our response also stated that we would not be
able to address the petition at that time due to court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements with specific deadlines, listing
actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and high-priority listing
actions that required us to spend most of our listing and critical
habitat funding for fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2011, we received
funding to address this petition.
Previous Federal Actions
On January 6, 1989, we published a notice of review that assigned
category 2 status to the Franklin's bumble bee (54 FR 554). Category 2
candidates were species for which we had information indicating that
protection under the Act may be warranted, but the information was
insufficient to determine if elevation to category 1 candidate status
was appropriate. Category 2 status was maintained for the Franklin's
bumble bee in Candidate Review notices published on November 21, 1991
(56 FR 58804) and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). We discontinued the
practice of maintaining the list of category 2 candidate species in
1996 (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). Franklin's bumble bee has not
held a Federal conservation status designation since 1996.
Species Information
Taxonomy
Bombus (formerly Bremus) franklini was originally described by
Frison (1921, pp. 144-148). Several studies have been published on the
taxonomic relationship of the Franklin's bumble bee to other bumble
bees ((Stephen 1957, pp. 79-81; Milliron 1971, pp. 58-67; Plowright and
Stephen 1980, pp. 475-479; Thorp et al. 1983, pp. 29-30; Scholl et al.
1992, pp. 46-51; Cameron et al. 2007, p. 173) (Note--common names are
used in this finding, when presented in the petition or available in
our files; otherwise, only the scientific names are used.). With the
exception of Milliron (1971), who assigned the Franklin's bumble bee
subspecific status under B. terricola occidentalis, all of these
studies have accorded the Franklin's bumble bee its own specific rank.
The Franklin's bumble bee is also recognized as a valid species in the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2011). Therefore, we
recognize the Franklin's bumble bee as a valid species and, therefore,
a potentially listable entity under the Act.
Physical Description
As described by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 5-6), the Franklin's
bumble bees is readily distinguished from other bumble bees in its
range by: (1) The extended yellow coloration on the anterior thorax
(the middle division of an insect between the head and abdomen), which
extends well beyond the wing bases and forms an inverted U-shape around
the central patch of black; (2) the lack of yellow on the abdomen; (3)
a predominantly black face with
[[Page 56383]]
yellow on the top of the head; and (4) white coloration at the tip of
the abdomen. Other bumble bees with similar coloration in the range of
the Franklin's bumble bee have the yellow coloration extending back to
the wing bases or only slightly beyond, and usually have one or more
bands of yellow either on the middle or slightly behind the middle of
the abdomen. Females of most species have yellow pubescence (fine hair-
like structures) on the face, in contrast to black on the Franklin's
bumble bee. Females of the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) and
B. californicus that have black pubescence on the face also have the
same coloration on the vertex (the top or crown of the head), in
contrast to the yellow pubescence on the vertex in the Franklin's
bumble bee. Females of B. californicus have a long face in contrast to
the round face of the Franklin's bumble bee and the western bumble bee.
The two types of females (queens and workers), and the males share
similar characteristics, although there are some differences.
Life History
As described in the petition (pp. 10-11), the Franklin's bumble bee
is a primitively eusocial bumble bee (i.e., the queen is not well-
differentiated from her workers). Eusocial organisms live in
cooperative groups with both reproductive and nonreproductive
individuals, and different types of individuals carry out different
specialized tasks such as reproduction, defense, or foraging. Like all
other bumble bees, this species lives in colonies consisting of a queen
and her female workers and male offspring. Queens are responsible for
initiating colonies and laying eggs. Workers are responsible for most
food collection, colony defense, nest construction, and feeding of the
young. The function of male bumble bees is to mate with new queens
produced at the end of the colony season. Bumble bee colonies depend on
floral resources for their nutritional needs; nectar provides
carbohydrates and pollen provides protein. The petitioners state that
the Franklin's bumble bee is restricted to habitat patches where its
host species are present, and its limited historical distribution
suggests that it probably has a limited ability to disperse.
The nesting biology of the Franklin's bumble bee is unknown, but
like other Bombus species, it is believed to nest underground in grassy
areas, presumably in abandoned rodent burrows (Plath 1927, pp. 122-128;
Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). It may
occasionally nest on the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or in rock
piles (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 475). Bumble bee colonies are
annual occurrences, starting from colony initiation in spring by
solitary, mated queens that emerge out of hibernation to search for
appropriate nesting sites. There are differences among various bumble
bee species in their foraging ranges. Species such as B. terrestris and
B. lapidaries forage farther afield than so-called ``doorstep''
foragers, such as B. pascuorum, B. sylvarum, B. ruderarius, and B.
muscorum. It is perhaps significant that the former two species remain
ubiquitous in much of Europe, whereas three of the four doorstep
foragers have declined. In theory, a larger foraging range gives a
greater chance of colony survival in areas where the average density of
floral resources is highly patchy (Goulsen et al. 2007, p. 11.12).
Although the maximum flight distance of B. franklini is not known, as
noted above, the petitioners suggest that the species is most likely
not capable of long-distance flight, based on its restricted range.
Franklin's bumble bee has been observed collecting pollen from lupine
(Lupinus spp.) and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and
collecting nectar from horsemint or nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache
urticifolia) and mountain monardella (Monardella odoratissima)
(Petition, p. 11).
In the early stages of colony development, the queen is responsible
for all food collection and care of the larvae. The queen collects
nectar and pollen from flowers to support the production of her eggs,
which are fertilized by sperm she has stored since mating the previous
fall. As the colony grows, the workers take over the duties of food
collection, colony defense, nest construction, and larval care, while
the queen remains within the nest and spends most of her time laying
eggs (Petition, pp. 10-11). Generally, bumble bee colonies consist of
multiple broods, with the number of workers for some species ranging
from 50 to 400 at their peak (Plath 1927, pp. 123-124; Thorp et al.
1983, p. 2, Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). Two colonies of Franklin's
bumble bees that were initiated in the laboratory and moved to a field
location to complete development contained over 60 workers each when
censused (counted) in early September, and may have reached a total
worker complement of well over 100 individuals by the end of the season
(Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 477).
The flight season of the Franklin's bumble bee is typically from
mid-May to the end of September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30), although a
few individuals have been encountered as late as October (Petition, pp.
34-40). Reproductive queens and males are produced near the end of the
colony cycle. Queens usually mate with only one male, but males may
mate with multiple queens. After mating, the queens feed to build up
their fat reserves. The founding queen and all workers and males from
the colony die by the end of the season, and inseminated new queens go
into hibernation and are left to carry on the line the following year
(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 2009, p. 3).
Range and Distribution
The Franklin's bumble bee is thought to have the most limited
distribution of all known North American bumble bee species (Plowright
and Stephen, p. 479; Petition, p. 6), and one of the most limited
geographic distributions of any bumble bee in the world (Williams 1998,
as cited in the petition (p. 6)). The original description by Frison
(1921, pp. 313-315) was based on two queens reported from Nogales,
Arizona. These localities were later determined to be outside of the
distribution of all other specimens subsequently assigned to the
species, and the location reports were invalidated (Stephen 1957, p.
79; Thorp 1970, pp. 177-180). All other specimens assignable to the
species have been found in an area about 190 miles (mi) (306 kilometers
(km)) to the north and south and 70 mi (113 km) to east to west between
122[deg] to 124[deg] west longitude and 40[deg] 58' to 43[deg] 30'
north latitude in Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in southern
Oregon, and in Siskiyou and Trinity counties in northern California
(Thorp 1999, p. 3; Thorp 2005c, p. 1; IUCN 2009, p. 1).
Survey Efforts
A survey effort specifically focused on the Franklin's bumble bee
began in 1998 and continued through 2009 at sites representing both
historical and potential new localities for the species. According to
the information provided in the petition (Thorp 2001, 2004, 2005a,
2005c), from 9 to 17 historical sites (averaging 13.8 sites annually),
and from 2 to 23 additional sites were surveyed each year during this
period, and some sites were visited more than once per year, or in
multiple years. As presented in Table 1 of the petition, these surveys
appear to have been conducted throughout the known range of the species
(Petition, p. 9).
During the surveys, the Franklin's bumble bee was observed at 11
sites,
[[Page 56384]]
including 7 locations where it had not been previously documented.
According to the petitioners, despite continued surveys through 2009,
no observations of the Franklin's bumble bee have been reported since
2006, when a single worker was observed at Mt. Ashland in Oregon (Thorp
2008, p. 5). The number of sightings was at its highest in 1998 when
surveys were initiated and 94 individuals were documented (Petition, p.
9), and then fluctuated between 0 and 20 individuals in subsequent
years up until 2006. In 2006, the Bureau of Land Management conducted a
survey of 16 sites that were believed to provide optimal habitat for
the Franklin's bumble bee. Each site was surveyed twice by trained
technicians, but no Franklin's bumble bees were found (Code and Haney
2006, p. 3). While it has been postulated that the species may be
extinct (Natural Research Council 2007, p. 43; NatureServe 2010, p. 1),
we do not consider the available evidence to be conclusive, since one
individual was observed during surveys in 2006 even after none had been
observed in the previous 2 years (Petition, p. 4), and there may be
other unknown populations. The failure to detect a species during
surveys is not equivalent to a conclusive demonstration of its absence,
but may simply reflect the detection probability for that species,
which decreases as a function of rarity.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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 which factors might constitute threats, 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 may warrant
listing as threatened or endangered 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. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the Franklin's bumble bee, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below. The petitioner
stated it is likely that disease outbreak in commercial bee pollination
facilities in North America, such as the one reported in 1998 (see
below discussion), is one major cause responsible for the major severe
declines seen in the Franklin's bumble bee since that time, although
their current status is not known in detail (Code et al. 2006, p. 2).
There is some information available on threats specific to the
Franklin's bumble bee, although much of the information presented in
the petition was extrapolated from what is known about other bumble bee
species.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petition asserts that threats that have altered Franklin's
bumble bee habitat include agricultural intensification (increases in
farm sizes and operating efficiencies related to production
(irrigation, tilling, etc.)), water impoundments, livestock grazing,
urban development, fragmentation of landscapes, natural and introduced
fire, and invasive species. The petitioners believe these threats are
even more significant and can have a more pronounced impact on the
extinction potential of an animal that has been reduced to just a few
locations, which they believe is the case with the Franklin's bumble
bee (Petition, p. 12). Many of the petitioner's assertions involve
activities that may have historically affected habitat for the
Franklin's bumble bee, but may no longer be acting on the species.
Factor A requires an evaluation of the present (i.e., ongoing) or
threatened (i.e., foreseeable) impacts to a species' habitat or range.
Accordingly, although historical habitat loss may be instructive with
regard to conditions leading to a species' current status, it does not
represent an ongoing or foreseeable threat under Factor A. Each of the
petitioner's assertions is described in more detail below.
Agricultural Intensification
The petitioners reported one pre-2004 agricultural activity within
the Franklin's bumble bee's historical range near Gold Hill in Jackson
County, Oregon, where significant excavation and soil deposition
altered approximately 50 percent of the available bumble bee foraging
habitat (Petition, p. 12). Several references provided with the
petition confirm that agricultural intensification can negatively
impact wild bees by reducing the floral resource diversity and
abundance needed for forage (Johansen 1977, p. 177; Williams 1986, p.
57; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 89; Hines and Hendrix 2005, p. 1477; Carvell
et al. 2006, p. 481; Diek[ouml]tter et al. 2006, p. 57; Fitzpatrick et
al. 2007, p. 185; Kosior et al. 2007, pp. 81, 84-86; [Ouml]ckinger and
Smith 2007, p. 50; Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.1; IUCN 2009, p. 2; Le
F[eacute]on et al. 2010, p. 143) and causing loss of nest sites
(Johansen 1977, p. 177; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 89; Diek[ouml]tter et
al. 2006, p. 57; [Ouml]ckinger and Smith 2007, p. 50; Goulson et al.
2008, p. 11.4). Agricultural intensification was determined to be a
primary factor leading to the local extirpation and decline of Illinois
bumble bees (Grixti et al. 2009, p. 75), and the decline of bumble bees
and cuckoo bees (Bombini spp.) in countries across western and central
Europe (Kosior et al. 2007, pp. 81). The petition did not present any
information indicating impacts related to agricultural intensification
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently occupied habitat for the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Water Impoundments
The petitioners reported that two historical Franklin's bumble bee
sites in
[[Page 56385]]
Jackson County, Oregon, were inundated following the completion of
Applegate Dam in 1980; historical records for the Franklin's bumble bee
were documented at this location in 1963 and 1968. The petition did not
present any information indicating that impacts related to water
impoundments are ongoing or foreseeable in currently occupied habitat
for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files
in this regard.
Livestock Grazing
The petitioners stated that U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Forest Service lands historically occupied by the Franklin's bumble bee
are periodically subject to substantial livestock impact (Petition, p.
13). According to the petition, livestock grazing may adversely impact
bumble bee populations by: (1) Depleting food resources (Morris 1967,
p. 472; Sugden 1985, p. 299; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002b, p. 1570;
Vazquez and Simberloff 2003, p. 1081; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p.
150); (2) trampling nesting sites (Sugden 1985, p. 299); and (3)
negatively impacting ground-nesting rodents (Johnson and Horn 2008, p.
444; Schmidt et al. 2009, p. 1), which may in turn reduce the number of
nest sites available for bumble bees.
The petition stated that livestock grazing has differing impacts on
flora and fauna based on the type, habitat, intensity, timing and
length of grazing (Gibson et al. 1992, p. 174; Carvell 2002, p. 44;
Kruess and Tscharntke 2002a, p. 293; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002b, p.
1577). Several studies of livestock grazing impacts on bees suggest
increased intensity of livestock grazing negatively affects the species
richness of bees (Morris 1967, p. 473; Sugden 1985, p. 309; Vazquez and
Simberloff 2003, p. 1080; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p. 156).
Interestingly, one study cited by the petitioners suggests that
grazing, especially by cattle (as opposed to sheep or mowing), can play
a key positive role in maintaining the abundance and species richness
of preferred bumble bee forage (Carvell 2001, p. 44). The petition did
not present any information indicating that livestock grazing impacts
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard.
Urban Development
One study in Boston, Massachusetts, concluded that human-built
structures, such as roads and railroads, can fragment plant populations
and restrict bumble bee movement (Bhattacharya et al. 2003, p. 37).
Another study of the factors adversely affecting bumble bees and cuckoo
bees in western and central Europe found the expansion of urban areas
to be an important driver of pollinator loss in approximately half of
the countries examined (Kosior et al. 2007, p. 81). The petitioners
stated that while urban parks and gardens may provide habitat for some
pollinators, including bumble bees (Frankie et al. 2005, p. 227;
McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006, p. 372), they tend not to support the
species richness that was either present historically or found in
nearby wild landscapes (petition p. 13; McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006, p.
378). The petitioners reported that the Franklin's bumble bee has been
found in urban areas of Ashland, Oregon, and that nests of a close
relative, the western bumble bee, have been found in urban San
Francisco, California (Petition, p. 13).
Thorp (1999, p. 12) stated that increased urbanization in areas in
Oregon (Ashland, Medford-Central Point, Grants Pass and Roseburg) may
have already reduced historical populations of the Franklin's bumble
bee. The author also stated that the Franklin's bumble bee was found on
the Southern Oregon University campus as recently as spring 1998, and
acknowledged that most major urban areas within the range of the
species have not been intensively surveyed (Thorp 1999, p. 8). The
petition did not present any information indicating urban development
impacts are ongoing or foreseeable in currently or most recently
occupied habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Habitat Fragmentation
The petitioners asserted that habitat fragmentation from land uses
such as agriculture, grazing, urban development and other factors is a
threat to the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 13). One study found
that populations of a number of bumble bee species have become
increasingly small, making them more vulnerable to local extinctions
and less able to recolonize extirpated habitat patches (Goulsen et al.
2008, pp. 11.6-11.7). Fragmentation can alter pollinator community
composition, change foraging behavior of bumble bees and reduce bee
foraging rates (Kearns and Inouye, 1997, p. 299; [Ouml]ckinger and
Smith 2007, p. 50; Rusterholz and Baur 2010, p. 148). Bumble bees have
been found to be susceptible to the disruption of healthy
metapopulation structures due to fragmentation (National Research
Council 2007, p. 93; Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7), and studies suggest
fragmented bumble bee populations can suffer from inbreeding depression
as a result of geographic isolation (Darvill et al. 2006, p. 601,
Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7). Fragmentation is believed to be one of
the factors contributing to the decline of bumble bees and cuckoo bees
in countries across western and central Europe (Kosior et al. 2010, pp.
81). Information regarding the effects of habitat fragmentation on the
Franklin's bumble bee was not provided by the petitioners, although
they did present conclusions from studies of other bumble bee species
(Petition, p. 13). We have no information available in our files
regarding habitat fragmentation of Franklin's bumble bee habitat.
However, as stated earlier, there are differences among bumble bee
species in their foraging range; some forage farther afield than other
species. A larger foraging range gives a greater chance of colony
survival in areas where the average density of floral resources becomes
highly patchy because of habitat fragmentation (Goulsen et al. 2007, p.
11.12). Although further study would be required, the threat of habitat
fragmentation would be expected to be greater if the Franklin's bumble
bee's geographically limited range is related to a limited foraging
distance, as suggested by the petitioners (Petition, p. 20).
Natural and Prescribed Fire
The petition asserted that current fuel loads, including invasive
trees and shrubs, combined with reduction and fragmentation of
Franklin's bumble bee populations, and reduction in size of native
meadows, makes natural or prescribed burning a potential threat
(Petition, p. 14). Generally, fire suppression can lead to increased
fuel loads and tree densities that dramatically increase the risk of
severe fire (Huntzinger 2003, p. 1), and degradation and loss of native
prairies and grasslands can occur in the absence of fire due to
succession of plant communities to habitats dominated by invasive and
woody vegetation (Schultz and Crone 1998, p. 245). Using prescribed
fire is a common practice for restoring and managing native prairie and
grassland plant communities (Panzer 2002, p. 1297). Although the use of
prescribed fire is generally beneficial to insect populations that rely
on grassland habitats by maintaining suitable habitat conditions, some
taxa can be negatively affected, especially in the short-term (Schultz
and Crone 1998, p. 244; Panzer 2002, p. 1296).
The petitioners believe that increased fuel loads due to long-term
fire suppression could result in a large-
[[Page 56386]]
scale, high-temperature fire that could potentially extirpate an entire
population of the Franklin's bumble bee if it were to occur in an area
where they are concentrated (Petition, p. 14). The petition did not
present any information indicating the extent to which natural or
prescribed fire has occurred in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard. The petition characterized natural or
prescribed fire as a threat to the Franklin's bumble bee because of
current site fuel loads (invasive trees and shrubs), combined with the
reduction and fragmentation of populations and habitat (Petition, p.
14). Because of current site fuel loads, as characterized by the
petitioner, we consider this potential threat to be reasonably
foreseeable, even though the timing, magnitude, and location of natural
fire events (or prescribed fires that become wild fire events) is
unpredictable.
Invasive Species
The petitioners stated that the ``invasion and dominance of native
grasslands by exotic plants is a common issue'' (Warren 1993, p. 47;
Schultz and Crone 1998, p. 244), which has likely occurred at
historical Franklin's bumble bee sites (Petition, p. 14). Invasive
plant species that displace native plant communities have the potential
to negatively impact the Franklin's bumble bee if they provide less
pollen or nectar than the native species, or if they bloom during a
different time period than the native plant species available for
foraging (Petition, p. 14; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 103). The petition
did not present any information indicating that invasive species-
related impacts are occurring in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard.
Summary of Factor A
The publications cited by the petitioners appear to support their
assertions that agricultural intensification, livestock grazing, urban
development, fragmentation of landscapes, natural and introduced fire,
and invasive species can pose threats to bumble bees and other
pollinators in general; however, very little information was presented
with which to correlate these potential threats to habitat occupied
specifically by the Franklin's bumble bee. In addition, one of the
petition references indicates that, during surveys conducted from 1998
to 2004, it was observed that most of the sites surveyed remained
suitable habitat, based on the constant abundance of other bumble bee
species (Thorp 2005c, p. 4). The petition does not indicate whether the
sites surveyed from 1998 to 2004 encompass all areas potentially
habitable by the Franklin's bumble bee, and implies that at least some
sites may have become unsuitable habitat. We have no information
available in our files that provides any additional information in this
regard.
We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the Franklin's bumble bee may
warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat, primarily due to the potential
impacts of natural or prescribed fire to remaining populations. Habitat
fragmentation may additionally pose a threat to the Franklin's bumble
bee, although at present we do not have sufficient information to
assess the degree of fragmentation that has occurred within its range,
or to determine the dispersal limitations of the species. There is no
substantial information indicating that agricultural intensification,
water impoundments, livestock grazing, urban development, or invasive
species specifically, are currently impacting Franklin's bumble bee
habitat, or will impact the species' habitat in the foreseeable future.
However, we will assess each of these potential threats more thoroughly
during our status review, in order to better quantify potential effects
on the Franklin's bumble bee.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted that, while generally the collection of
insects does not present a threat to their populations, the collection
of a small number of Franklin's bumble bee queens could significantly
reduce the production of offspring and pose a threat to the entire
species due to its rarity, small populations, and relatively low
fecundity compared to most insects (Petition, p. 14). Based on a table
of historical and recent records presented by the petitioners,
Franklin's bumble bee specimens (including queens) have been collected
as recently as 1998, and deposited at several universities and museums.
There are records of 28 queens collected between 1950 and 1998; the
records since 1998 are based on observations only with no collections
of males, workers, or queens noted (Petition, pp. 34-40). In 1998, the
year that the most recent surveys for the Franklin's bumble bee were
initiated and the last year for any documented collections (i.e., where
specimens were retained), the highest number of individuals ever
documented was recorded (94 individuals), and 4 queens were collected
by another individual. We are unaware of any collections beyond those
documented in the table of historical and recent records provided in
the petition (Petition, pp. 34-40). The petition did not present any
information indicating that the collection of Franklin's bumble bee
queens is currently occurring, and we have no information in our files
in this regard.
Summary of Factor B
Neither the petition nor information available in our files
presents substantial scientific or commercial information that
collection of Franklin's bumble bee queens is still occurring, or if
so, occurring at a level that impacts the overall status of the
species. In addition, we have no information indicating pre-1998
collections may have been a factor resulting in the Franklin's bumble
bee's current population status, although queen specimens have been
retained for scientific collections in the past (last recorded in
1998). Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes may present a threat such that the petitioned
action may be warranted. However, we will assess this factor more
thoroughly during our status review for the species.
C. Disease or Predation.
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted there is potential for the spread of an
exotic strain of the microsporidium (parasitic fungus) Nosema and other
disease organisms, such as the protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi,
tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri, or deformed wing virus through
wild populations of the Franklin's bumble bee and other species in the
subgenus Bombus in North America. While no specific examples were
provided within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee, the petitioners
hypothesize that the main cause of the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee is due to a disease organism introduced through the use of
[[Page 56387]]
commercially reared bumble bee colonies (Petition, p. 14).
Commercial bumble bee production started in North America in the
early 1990s (Petition, p. 15). The petitioners stated that commercially
produced bumble bee colonies that were potential carriers of pests or
disease were distributed throughout much of North America, when the
Franklin's bumble bee and other closely related wild bumble bees
started to decline. In addition to being used for commercial
pollination, western bumble bee colonies were used in field research
between 1991 and 2000 in California, Washington, and Alberta, Canada
(Mayer et al. 1994, p. 21; Mayer and Lunden 1997, p. 283; Richards and
Myers 1997, p. 293; Mayer and Lunden 2001, p. 277; Thomson 2004, p.
460). The petition referenced a news story published by the Associated
Press that highlighted a strawberry and vegetable grower in Grants
Pass, Oregon (within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee), who
purchased Bombus impatiens hives in 2007 to pollinate his crop
(Associated Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). In 2007, there was also a
proposal by a commercial bee company to import nonnative bumble bees
(B. impatiens) for the pollination of field crops in the State of
California (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2006, pp. 1-
59).
The Service found that bees were proposed for use less than 150 mi
(241 km) from the southern extent of the historical range of the
Franklin's bumble bee and raised concerns about potential impacts to
the species. In a comment letter to the California Department of
Agriculture dated January 17, 2007, the Service specifically mentioned
the risk of potential disease transmission that could occur if infected
hives were shipped through or used in areas where commercial bees could
come into contact with Franklin's bumble bee, and requested that an
analysis of potential effects to the species be conducted in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, pp. 1-2). Information about the outcome is not available
in our files. Parasites and pathogens have been found to spread from
commercial bee colonies to native bee populations through a process
sometimes referred to as ``pathogen spillover'' (Colla et al. 2006, p.
461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1). Pathogens specifically
addressed in the petition are discussed below.
Nosema bombi
Nosema bombi has been detected in native bumble bees in North
America, but whether it is an introduced species or occurs naturally is
uncertain (Petition, p. 16). As described by the petitioners, N. bombi
is a microsporidian that infects bumble bees, primarily in the
malpighian tubules (small excretory or water regulating glands), but
also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and sometimes the tracheae (Macfarlane
et al. 1995, as cited by the petitioners, Petition, p. 15). Colonies
can appear to be healthy but still carry N. bombi and transmit it to
other colonies. The effect of N. bombi on bumble bees varies from mild
to severe (Macfarlane et al. 1995, as cited by the petitioners
(Petition, pp. 15-16); Otti and Schmid-Hempel 2007, p. 118; Larson
2007, as cited by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 15-16); Rutrecht et
al. 2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel 2008, p. 577).
The petition described the probable route of introduction and
spread as follows: In the early 1990s, queens of both the western
bumble bee and Bombus impatiens were shipped from the United States to
rearing facilities in Belgium that were also likely rearing B.
terrestris, a close relative of the western bumble bee and the
Franklin's bumble bee. The commercially-reared colonies produced from
these queens were shipped back into the United States between 1992 and
1994. The petitioners hypothesize that a virulent strain of Nosema
bombi from B. terrestris spread to B. impatiens and the western bumble
bee prior to their shipment back into the United States, and once in
this country the commercially reared colonies of the western bumble bee
may have spread this virulent strain of N. bombi to wild populations of
the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 15).
Bumble bee producers experienced major problems with Nosema bombi
infection in commercial western bumble bee colonies in 1997 (Flanders
et al. 2003, p. 108; Velthius and van Doorn 2006, p. 432), and
eventually stopped producing--the western bumble bee. In addition, the
morphology of N. bombi found in a native bumble bee in China, Bombus
leucorum, was found to be the same as that found in B. terrestris
imported from New Zealand (Jilian et al. 2005, p. 53), suggesting the
disease may have been introduced to native bumble bee populations in
China by commercial bees.
Researchers at the University of Illinois recently identified a
strain of Nosema bombi in multiple species of North American bumble
bees (Petition, p. 16). Studies suggest the disease can spread from
commercial bumble bees to nearby wild bumble bees (Niwa et al. 2004, p.
60; Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599; Jilian et al. 2005, p. 53; Colla
et al. 2006, p. 461), even when commercial bumble bees are used for
pollination in greenhouses, because commercial bumble bees frequently
forage outside greenhouse facilities (Petition, p. 15), and can
transmit disease at shared flowers (Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599;
Colla et al. 2006, p. 461). The extent to which this pathogen occurs
within the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee was not described
in the petition, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Crithidia bombi
The petitioners believe the internal protozoan parasite, Crithidia
bombi, could also be leading to the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee. C. bombi has been shown to have detrimental effects on colony
founding success of queens, the fitness of established colonies, and
the survival and foraging efficiency of bumble bee workers (Brown et
al. 2000, p. 421; Brown et al. 2003, p. 994; Otterstatter et al. 2005,
p. 388; Gegear et al. 2005, p. 1; Gegear et al. 2006, p. 1073).
As with Nosema bombi, studies suggest that Crithidia bombi can
spread from commercial bumble bees to nearby wild bumble bees through
shared use of flowers, even when commercial bumble bees are used for
pollination in greenhouses, because they can escape to forage outside
and transmit the disease (Durrer and Schmid-Hempel 1994, p. 299;
Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599; Colla et al. 2006, p. 461;
Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1). Although C. bombi is considered
to be a bumble bee parasite, honey bees have also been shown to be
possible vectors (Ruiz-Gonz[aacute]lez and Brown 2006, p. 621). This
parasite has been shown to be present in higher frequencies in bumble
bees near greenhouses where commercial colonies of Bombus impatiens are
used than in bumble bees remote from these facilities (Colla et al.
2006 in litt., p. 3). The extent to which this pathogen occurs within
the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee was not described in the
petition, and we have no information in our files in this regard.
However, as described above, the petition referenced a news story
published by the Associated Press that highlighted a strawberry and
vegetable grower in Grants Pass, Oregon (within the range of the
Franklin's bumble bee), who purchased B. impatiens hives in 2007 to
pollinate his crop (Associated Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). We are
also aware of a proposal to use commercial B. impatiens for field
pollination at a site in California within 150 mi (241 km) of the
historical range of the
[[Page 56388]]
Franklin's bumble bee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 1). As
B. impatiens is a potential carrier of C. bombi, B. impatiens would be
a potential vector for transmission to the Franklin's bumble bee.
Locustacarus buchneri
The petition stated that Locustacarus buchneri is a tracheal mite
that affects bumble bees (Petition, p. 17), and that bumble bees in the
subgenus Bombus, such as the Franklin's bumble bee, may be more
susceptible to tracheal mite infestation than other bumble bees, based
on a study in southwestern Alberta, Canada, by Otterstatter and Whidden
(2004, p. 351). One of the cited references (Goka et al., 2001, pp.
2095-2099) documents the presence of this mite in bumble bee (Bombus
spp.) populations in Japan, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The
petitioners did not describe the specific effects of L. buchneri on
bumble bees, but Ottersatter and Whidden (2004) found bumble bees
containing tracheal mites to have significantly reduced lifespans in
the laboratory. Otterstatter and Whidden (2004, p. 351) and Goka et al.
(2001) cite a study that found heavy mite infestation can severely
injure bumble bees (Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). In that study, diarrhea
was observed, and some bees became lethargic and no longer able to
forage.
Commercially raised bumble bees from Europe were found to be
infested with tracheal mites at higher rates than detected in wild bees
(Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). The petitioners stated that the method of
mite dispersal is not well understood, but they could spread from
commercial to wild colonies through drifting workers or contact on
shared flowers. The petitioners cited a study of parasitic mites in
native and commercial bumble bees in Japan, cautioning that the
transportation of bumble bee colonies will cause overseas migration of
parasitic mites (Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). The extent to which this
pathogen occurs within the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee
was not described in the petition, and we have no information available
in our files in this regard.
Deformed Wing Virus
The petitioners stated that deformed wing virus, a honey bee
pathogen that results in crippled wings, may also be a threat to the
Franklin's bumble bee. Deformed wing virus (DWV) was thought to be
specific to honey bees until 2004, when dead Bombus terrestris and B.
pascuorum queens with deformities resembling those in honey bees were
observed. These DWV-infected specimens were observed in European
commercial bumble bee breeding facilities at a frequency of
approximately ten percent (Genersch et al. 2006, p. 63). In addition to
the potential transmission of this and other diseases from honey bees
in apiaries to bumble bees, commercial bumble bee rearing may also
provide an opportunity for transmission. Commercial bumble bee
producers sometimes introduce young honey bees to nesting bumble bee
queens to stimulate egg-laying, thus providing a potential interface
that exposes bumble bees to diseases carried by the honey bees
(Genersch et al. 2006, pp. 61-62).
DWV infection could pose a serious threat to bumble bee
populations, as infected bumble bees with deformed wings are not able
to forage. Those found with the observed deformities were also not
viable (Genersch et al. 2006, p. 61). The petitioners are aware of
unpublished personal observations of DWV symptoms in commercially
raised Bombus impatiens colonies in North America, but stated that
research has not been conducted to determine if other species of bumble
bees are also susceptible to this disease (Petition, p. 17). The
petitioners did not present any information linking DWV to the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information available in our
files in this regard.
Summary of Factor C
Information specific to the occurrence of Nosema bombi, Crithidia
bombi, Locustacarus buchneri or deformed wing virus within the range of
the Franklin's bumble bee was not provided by the petitioners, and we
have no information in our files regarding these pathogens. However,
the studies cited by the petitioners appear to support their assertions
related to the threats of the diseases and parasites to bumble bees in
general, and it appears each of these diseases may be readily
transferred from commercial to wild bumble bees. We, therefore, find
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the Franklin's bumble bee may warrant
listing due to disease, since (1) a microsporidian pathogen genetically
identical to N. bombi in European bumble bees has been found in bumble
bees in the United States (Solter et al. 2007, p. 15; Thorp 2008, p.
7); (2) studies on the effects of N. bombi generally demonstrate bumble
bees are negatively affected; (3) Bombus impatiens is a potential
carrier of C. bombi, and would be a potential vector for transmission
to Franklin's bumble bee; and (4) studies have demonstrated infected
bumble bees with deformed wings are unable to forage.
There is no information presented in the petition indicating the
Franklin's bumble bee is threatened by the tracheal mite L. buchneri,
and we have no information in our files in this regard. Although this
mite has been known to attack at least 25 bumble bee species across the
holarctic region (the geographic region that includes the northern
areas of the earth), it typically occurs in only a small fraction of
the host species available at a site (Otterstatter et al. 2004, p.
351). The mite has also parasitized B. vagans and B. bimaculatus in the
eastern United States (Otterstatter et al. 2004, p. 351); however,
there are no indications it occurs within the known geographic range of
the Franklin's bumble bee or within the western United States. The
petitioners did not present any information indicating predation was an
ongoing or foreseeable threat to the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have
no information in our files in this regard. Accordingly, we find that
the petition does not present substantial information indicating that
predation is a threat to the species. However, we will assess this
factor more thoroughly during our status review for the species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petition stated there are currently no Federal regulations that
limit the interstate transportation of bumble bees, even outside their
native range (Petition, p. 18). The petitioners also stated the
Franklin's bumble bee has no substantive protection for habitat or take
under Federal law or State laws in Oregon or California, and neither
Oregon nor California allows listing of insects under their State
endangered species statutes (Petition, p. 17).
The petitioners believe the spread of disease introduced by
commercial bees may be the primary threat to the species, and existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect against this threat
(Petition, pp. 21-22). They stated that few precautions are taken to
prevent commercially reared colonies from interacting with wild
populations. While bumble bee colonies imported to commercial rearing
facilities are typically subject to inspection, typical inspections
only include honey bee parasites and diseases, even though honey bee
diseases and pests are not transmitted to bumble bees (Velthius and van
Doorn 2006, p. 430).
[[Page 56389]]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for implementing the Honey
Bee Act (HBA) (Petition, p. 18). According to the petition, sections
322.4 and 322.5 of the HBA allow the transport of two species of bumble
bees from Canada (Bombus impatiens and the western bumble bee) to all
U.S. States except Hawaii, and section 322.12 of the HBA provides for
requests to import bumble bees from other countries. The petitioners
stated that APHIS is responsible for evaluating applications and making
importation determinations (Petition, p. 18). One reference cited by
the petitioners stated that the HBA has helped protect the U.S.
beekeeping industry from exotic parasites and pathogens, and
undesirable bee species and strains of honey bees (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 101). The petitioners also stated the California Department of
Food and Agriculture allows B. impatiens to enter the State for
greenhouse pollination (but not for open field pollination), although
the law may not be regularly enforced or growers may not be aware of it
(Petition, p. 18)). They stated that the Oregon State Department of
Agriculture currently does not allow B. impatiens to enter the State
(Petition, p. 18), but acknowledge a 2007 news story published by the
Associated Press that documented a strawberry grower in Oregon who
purchased colonies of B. impatiens for pollination (Associated Press,
2007; Petition, p. 18). Accordingly, the petitioners asserted that
existing regulations and authorities do not effectively protect against
the threat of exposure to disease that may be carried by commercial
bumble bees (Petition, p. 18), since B. impatiens has apparently been
successfully imported into the State, despite the existing regulations.
One study cited by the petitioner stated that nearly all laws and
regulations addressing the importation, movement, and release of bees
in the United States focus almost exclusively on bee diseases and
parasites, with little or no consideration for possible adverse
environmental impacts associated with the bees themselves (Flanders et
al. 2003, p. 99). One reference cited by the petitioners stated
``current federal laws pertaining to bees restrict APHIS' oversight to
preventing the introduction of parasites and pathogens that may harm
bees. Except for the provisions in the HBA about undesirable species
and strains of honey bees, it remains unclear whether APHIS has a basis
for restricting the release of exotic bee species. Similarly, APHIS has
little jurisdiction over the interstate movement and release of native
bees, even when that movement is to an area previously unoccupied by
the species'' (Flander et al. 2003, p. 109). As an example, even though
APHIS has regulations in place, problems associated with heavy
infestations of Nosema bombi in the western bumble bee were discovered
in rearing facilities in 1996 (Velthuis and van Doorn 2006, p. 432),
and Flanders et al. (2003, p. 108) reported disease was found in
commercially produced western bumble bees in 1997 (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 108). The petitioners reported that bumble bee producers in
North America eventually stopped producing the western bumble bee due
to the N. bombi infestation.
Summary of Factor D
Factor D concerns whether the existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address the current threats identified under Factors A, B,
C, or E. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating (1) the existing regulatory
mechanisms may be inadequate to protect against the spread of disease
introduced by commercial bumble bees; (2) that few precautions appear
to be taken to prevent commercially reared colonies from interacting
with wild bumble bee populations; (3) inspections of bumble bee
colonies imported to commercial rearing facilities may be ineffective;
and (4) open field pollination restrictions may not be regularly
enforced by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which
may exacerbate the potential for commercially raised bumble bees to
transfer disease to the Franklin's bumble bee. We will assess this
factor more thoroughly during our status review for the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners assert that several other natural or manmade
factors may be threats to the Franklin's bumble bee, including the use
of pesticides, population dynamics and structure, global climate change
and competition from honey bees and other nonnative bees. Each of the
petitioner's assertions is described in more detail below.
Pesticides
The petitioners asserted the application of pesticides, including
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, may negatively affect
remaining populations of the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 18-
20). Numerous studies were cited related to pesticide use for various
purposes in varied environments, including wild, agricultural, urban,
and forested areas. Some of the references cited in the petition
identify a concern that, while data related to the toxicity of
pesticides to honey bees is considered to be generally applicable to
other bees (Kevan and Plowright 1995, p. 609), pesticide risk
assessments conducted for honey bees may be inadequate for evaluating
the risks to bumble bees due to differences in foraging behavior and
phenology (Thompson and Hunt 1999, p. 147; Thompson 2001, p. 305;
Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.4). Phenology refers to the relationships
between regularly recurring biological phenomenon and climatic or
environmental influences (i.e., bumble bees and honey bees may have
different biological schedul