Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Franklin's Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini), 40006-40019 [2019-17337]
Download as PDF
40006
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
§ 1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements
concerning certain conditions.
Head Start agencies must report in
writing to the responsible HHS official
within 10 working days of occurrence
any of the following events:
(a) The agency has had a revocation
of a license to operate a center by a state
or local licensing entity.
(b) The agency has filed for
bankruptcy or agreed to a reorganization
plan as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
(c) The agency has been debarred
from receiving Federal or state funds
from any Federal or state department or
agency or has been disqualified from the
Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP).
(d) The agency has received an audit,
audit review, investigation, or
inspection report from the agency’s
auditor, a state agency, or the cognizant
Federal audit agency containing a
determination that the agency is at risk
for ceasing to be a going concern.
■ 4. Revise § 1304.15 to read as follows:
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1304.15 Designation request, review and
notification process.
(a) Grantees must apply to be
considered for Designation Renewal. A
Head Start or Early Head Start agency
wishing to be considered to have its
designation as a Head Start or Early
Head Start agency renewed for another
five-year period without competition
must request that status from ACF at
least 12 months before the end of their
five-year grant period or by such time
required by the Secretary.
(b) ACF will review the relevant data
to determine if one or more of the
conditions under § 1304.11 were met by
the Head Start and Early Head Start
agency’s program during the current
grant period.
(c) ACF will give notice to all grantees
on Designation Renewal System status,
except as provided in § 1304.14, at least
12 months before the expiration date of
a Head Start or Early Head Start
agency’s current grant stating:
(1) The Head Start or Early Head Start
agency will be required to compete for
funding for an additional five-year
period because ACF finds that one or
more conditions under § 1304.11 were
met by the agency’s program during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, identifying
the conditions ACF found, and
summarizing the basis for the finding;
or,
(2) That such agency has been
determined on a preliminary basis to be
eligible for renewed funding for five
years without competition because ACF
finds that none of the conditions under
§ 1304.11 has been met during the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section. If prior to
the award of that grant, ACF determines
that the grantee has met one of the
conditions under § 1304.11 during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, this
determination will change and the
grantee will receive notice under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section that it
will be required to compete for funding
for an additional five-year period.
PART 1305—DEFINITIONS
5. The authority citation for part 1305
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
6. Section 1305.2 is amended by
adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition ‘‘Denial of Refunding’’ to read
as follows:
■
§ 1305.2
Terms.
*
*
*
*
*
Denial of Refunding means the refusal
of a funding agency to fund an
application for a continuation of a Head
Start program for a subsequent program
year when the decision is based on a
determination that the grantee has
improperly conducted its program, or is
incapable of doing so properly in the
future, or otherwise is in violation of
applicable law, regulations, or other
policies.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–17024 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BD25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee
(Bombus franklini)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus
franklini), an invertebrate species from
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine
Counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and
Trinity Counties in California, as an
endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
amended (Act). We find that disease and
other natural or manmade factors are
likely the primary threats to the species
within its habitat. If made final, this rule
would add this species to the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and apply the protections of
the Act to this species.
In this proposed rule, we determine
that designating critical habitat for the
Franklin’s bumble bee is not prudent,
because the Franklin’s bumble bee is a
habitat generalist, and the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat is not a threat to
Franklin’s bumble bee. Consequently,
the designation of critical habitat would
not be beneficial to the Franklin’s
bumble bee.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
October 15, 2019. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by September 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Search box, enter FWS–R1–ES–2018–
0044, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in
the Search panel on the left side 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
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2018–
0044; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave. Suite
100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone
503–231–6179. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Franklin’s bumble bee’s biology,
range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
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) Our analysis of the current status
of Franklin’s bumble bee. As discussed
below (see Background below, for more
information), based on the lack of
observations of Franklin’s over the last
13 years it is possible that the species
is extinct. We will be analyzing any new
information on this question before
making a final determination; if we
determine that the best available
information indicates that the species is
likely extinct, we will withdraw this
proposed rule. Thus, we are seeking any
information regarding the persistence or
extinction of the species within its
historical range including:
(a) Verifiable reports or evidence of
Franklin’s bumble bee occurrence in its
range; or
(b) any information that may indicate
extinction of the species.
(3) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(4) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(5) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
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.
All comments submitted electronically
via https://www.regulations.gov will be
presented on the website in their
entirety as submitted. For comments
submitted via hard copy, we will post
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—on
https://www.regulations.gov. You may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or
email address from public review;
however, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Please note that 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, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) 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.’’ In
making a final decision on this
proposal, we will take into
consideration the comments and any
additional information we receive
during the public comment period.
Such communications could lead to a
final rule that differs from this proposal,
including a withdrawal of this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received by the date specified in DATES
and sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40007
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we sought the expert opinions of 10
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding the scientific basis for this
proposed rule; nine agreed to provide
review. The purpose of peer review is to
ensure that our listing and critical
habitat determinations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. The peer reviewers have
expertise in Franklin’s bumble bee or
Bombus biology and habitat, and their
comments helped inform our
determinations. We invited comment
from the peer reviewers during the
analysis of the status of the species and
the creation of the species status
assessment report (SSA Report; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018); these
comments will be available along with
other public comments in the docket for
this proposed rule.
Previous Federal Actions
We were petitioned to list Franklin’s
bumble bee as endangered under Act on
June 23, 2010, by the Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation and Dr.
Robbin Thorp, Professor Emeritus from
the University of California (Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, p. 2). On
September 13, 2011, we announced in
the Federal Register (76 FR 56381) that
the petition presented substantial
information indicating that this species
may be warranted for listing, and
announced the initiation of a status
review for the species. This action
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
2010 petition to list the Franklin’s
bumble bee.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of Franklin’s
bumble bee is presented in the
Franklin’s Bumble Bee Species Status
Assessment report (SSA Report; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) on
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044.
Franklin’s bumble bee is thought to
have the most limited distribution of all
known North American bumble bee
species (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p.
479; Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p.
6), and one of the most limited
geographic distributions of any bumble
bee in the world (Frison 1922, p. 315;
Williams 1998, p. 129). Stephen (1957,
p. 81) recorded the species from the
Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys in
Oregon. Thorp et al. (1983, p. 8) also
recorded it from northern California and
suggested its restriction to the Klamath
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40008
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Mountain region of southern Oregon
and northern California. Elevations
where it has been observed range from
162 meters (m) (540 feet (ft)) in the
northern part of its range, to over 2,340
m (7,800 ft) in the southern part of its
range. All confirmed specimens have
been found in an area about 306
kilometers (km) (190 miles (mi)) to the
north and south, and 113 km (70 mi)
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 Siskiyou and Trinity Counties in
northern California (Thorp 1999, p. 3;
Thorp 2005, p. 1; International Union
for Conservation of Nature 2009, p. 1).
Franklin’s bumble bee was first
observed in 1917 and first described in
1921, and limited occurrence and
observation data exists for Franklin’s
bumble bee prior to 1998. The species
has been found on many privately
owned sites as well as municipal, State
and federally owned land. Historical
observations and occurrence data for
Franklin’s bumble bee prior to 1998
include randomly reported
observations, student collections, and
museum specimens, as well as the
collections and notes of interested
parties, natural resource managers, and
university staff (Xerces Society and
Thorp 2010, pp. 34–40). A more
intensive and targeted search effort for
the species began in 1998 in areas
thought to have the highest likelihood of
Franklin’s bumble bee presence. There
was initial success at finding a higher
abundance of the species than ever
previously reported in one year, 98 bees
in 1998 (mostly from 2 sites). However,
in subsequent years searchers found
fewer and fewer bees, and no Franklin’s
bumble bees have been found since the
last sighting of a single individual in
Oregon in 2006. The variations in
timing, scope, intensity, and
methodology of search efforts (including
those since 1998) and the lack of
observations since 2006 prevent the
identification of any population trends.
Many of the occurrence records just
provide point data for an occurrence,
with no details on the size of the area
searched or whether or not the record
reflected a comprehensive search of an
area. Many records also lack details on
the level of survey effort per location
(number of searchers, hours of search
effort per day, number of days per
search effort).
The lack of systematic surveys across
the historical range of the species over
time prevents us from using occurrence
records to extrapolate reasonable
estimates of species abundance or
distribution or concluding that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
species is extinct; even though none
have been seen since 2006, Franklin’s
bumble bee populations could
potentially persist undetected. The areas
chosen for survey were selected due to
a combination of abundance of floral
resources throughout the colony cycle,
relatively recent historical occurrence of
the species, and accessibility to
surveyors. However, the surveyed area
represents a relatively small percentage
of the historical range of the Franklin’s
bumble bee; therefore, it is possible the
species may persist in other areas of the
range. There are numerous instances of
species rediscovered after many years,
even decades, of having been believed
extinct (e.g., Scheffers et al. 2011,
entire). As one example of such a case,
Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia
icarioides fenderi) of Oregon was
believed extinct after the last recorded
observation in 1937, until it was
rediscovered in 1989, 52 years later
(Hammond and Wilson 1992, p. 175;
Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2).
Recent approaches to evaluating
extinction likelihood place increased
emphasis on the extensiveness and
adequacy of survey effort (Keith et al.
2017, p. 321; Thompson et al. 2017, p.
328), and caution against declaring a
species as extinct in the face of
uncertainty (Akc
¸akaya et al. 2017, p.
339).
The specific life-history
characteristics and behavior of this rare
species have not been studied; much of
the information presented in the SSA
Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018) is inferred from information on
Bombus in general and some closely
related species (western bumble bee (B.
occidentalis), rusty patched bumble bee
(B. affinis), and yellow-faced bumble
bee (B. vosnesenskii), among others).
The report also relied heavily on
information from species experts.
Franklin’s bumble bee is a primitively
eusocial (highly social) bumble bee,
living in colonies made up of a queen
and her offspring (males and workers).
Like other eusocial Bombus species,
Franklin’s bumble bee typically nests
underground in abandoned rodent
burrows or other cavities that offer
resting and sheltering places, food
storage, nesting, and room for the
colony to grow (Plath 1927, pp. 122–
128; Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al.
1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). The
species may also occasionally nest on
the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or
in rock piles (Plowright and Stephen
1980, p. 475). It has even been found
nesting in a residential garage in the city
limits of Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017,
pers. comm,).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee
have an annual cycle, initiated each
spring when solitary queens emerge
from hibernation and seek suitable nest
sites (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.).
Colonies may contain from 50 to 400
workers along with the founding queen
(Plath 1927, pp. 123–124; Thorp et al.
1983, p. 2; Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7).
Two colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee
that were initiated in the laboratory and
set out to complete development in the
field, contained over 60 workers by
early September, and likely produced
over 100 workers by the end of the
season (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p.
477). The flight season of Franklin’s
bumble bee is from mid-May to the end
of September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30);
a few individuals have been
encountered in October (Southern
Oregon University Bee Collection
records, in Xerces Society and Thorp
2010, Appendix 1, p. 39). At the end of
the colony cycle, all the workers and the
males die along with the founding
queen; only the inseminated hibernating
females (gynes) are left to carry on the
genetic lineage into the following year
(Duchateau and Velthius 1988).
As with all Bombus species,
Franklin’s bumble bee has a unique
genetic system called the haplodiploid
sex determination system. In this
system, unfertilized (haploid) eggs
become males that carry a single set of
chromosomes, and fertilized (diploid)
eggs become females that carry two sets
of chromosomes. This system 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. 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, p. 37). Inbreeding
depression in bumble bees can lead to
the production of sterile diploid males
(Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7) and
negatively affects bumble bee colony
size (Herrman et al. 2007, p. 1167),
which are key factors in a colony’s
reproductive success.
As one of the rarest Bombus species,
Franklin’s bumble bees are somewhat
enigmatic, and a specific habitat study
for the species has not been completed.
Such a study was initiated in 2006,
when the Franklin’s bumble bee was
last seen, but could not continue due to
the subsequent absence of the species
(Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). However,
some general habitat associations of
Bombus are known. Like all bumble
bees, the Franklin’s bumble bee requires
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
a constant and diverse supply of flowers
that bloom throughout the colony’s life
cycle, from spring to autumn (Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11); these
resources would typically be found in
open (non-forested) meadows in
proximity to seeps and other wet
meadow environments. The nectar from
flowers provides carbohydrates, and the
pollen provides protein. Franklin’s
bumble bee may have a foraging
distance of up to 10 km (6.2 mi) (Thorp
2017, pers. comm.), but the species’
typical dispersal distance is most likely
3 km (1.86 mi) or less (Hatfield 2017,
pers. comm.; Goulson 2010, p. 96).
Franklin’s bumble bee have 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) (Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11).
Franklin’s bumble bee may also collect
both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia
spp.) as well as rob nectar from it
(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11).
In summary, Franklin’s bumble bee
has been found in a wide array of
sheltered and exposed habitat types at a
broad elevational range, and the species
appears to be a generalist forager. Our
certainty regarding the Franklin’s
bumble bee’s habitat needs is limited to
(1) floral resources for nectaring
throughout the colony cycle, and (2)
relatively protected areas for breeding
and shelter. The habitat elements that
Franklin’s bumble bee appears to prefer
to fulfill those needs mentioned above
are relatively flexible, plentiful, and
widely distributed.
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
The Act directs us to determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any factors affecting its continued
existence. We completed a
comprehensive assessment of the
biological status of the Franklin’s
bumble bee and prepared a report of the
assessment (i.e., the SSA Report), which
provides a thorough account of the
species’ overall viability. We define
viability here as the likelihood of the
species to persist over the long term
and, conversely, to avoid extinction.
Below, we summarize the conclusions
of that assessment, which can be
accessed on https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044.
3-R Analysis
To assess the Franklin’s bumble bee’s
viability, we used the three conservation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
biology principles of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy, or the
3-Rs (Smith et al. 2018). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the
species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example,
wet or dry, warm or cold years);
representation supports the ability of
the species to adapt over time to longterm changes in the environment (for
example, climate changes); and
redundancy supports the ability of the
species to withstand catastrophic events
(for example, droughts, hurricanes). In
general, the more redundant,
representative, and resilient a species is,
the more likely it is to sustain
populations over time, even under
changing environmental conditions.
Using these principles, we identified the
species’ ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species
levels, and described the beneficial and
risk factors influencing the species’
viability. To assess resiliency and
redundancy, we evaluated the change in
Franklin’s bumble bee occurrences
(populations) over time. To assess
representation (as an indicator of
adaptive capacity) of the Franklin’s
bumble bee, we evaluated the spatial
extent of occurrences over time. We
evaluated the change in resiliency,
representation, and redundancy from
the past until the present; however, due
to the lack of observations of the species
since 2006, we did not project
anticipated future states of these
conditions.
Our analyses indicate that the
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the Franklin’s bumble
bee have all declined since the late
1990s. Historically, the species has
always been rare and has one of the
narrowest distributions of any Bombus
species in the world. Even so, the
abundance and distribution of
Franklin’s bumble bee has declined
significantly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, pp. 10–14); the species
has not been observed since 2006,
despite an intensive survey effort in
select portions of the historical range.
Search efforts for the species have been
varied in timing, scope, intensity, and
methodology. During the more intensive
surveys from 1998 until the last
observation in 2006, the Franklin’s
bumble bee was observed at 14
locations, including 8 locations where it
had not been previously documented. In
1998, 98 bees were found among 11
locations. Searchers found fewer and
fewer bees after that year even though
they continued extensive searches in
multiple locations with the highest
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40009
likelihood of finding the species.
Twenty bees were located in 1999, nine
individuals were observed in 2000, and
one individual was observed in 2001.
Although 20 Franklin’s bumble bees
were observed in 2002, only 3 were
observed in 2003 (all at a single
locality), and a single worker bee was
observed in 2006. Despite continued
intensive search efforts in these areas
through 2017, there have been no
confirmed observations of the Franklin’s
bumble bee since 2006. Data allow us to
estimate 43 potential populations of the
species since records have been kept.
From 1998 to 2006, 14 potential
populations could be identified. Since
2006, no populations have been located.
The vulnerability resulting from the
Franklin’s bumble bee’s haplodiploid
genetic system, as well as the loss in the
abundance and spatial extent of its
populations, suggest the resiliency,
representation, and redundancy of the
Franklin’s bumble bee have all declined
significantly since the late 1990s. The
losses in both the number of
populations and their spatial extent
render the Franklin’s bumble bee
vulnerable to extinction even without
further external stressors (e.g.,
pathogens and insecticide exposure)
acting upon the species.
As part of our status assessment of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at
potential stressors affecting the species’
viability. Our full assessment of the
stressors can be found in the SSA
Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018). In accordance with section 4(a)(1)
of the Act, in reviewing the status of the
species to determine if it meets the
definition of endangered or of
threatened, we determine whether a
species is an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the
following five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Potential stressors that we analyzed
for the Franklin’s bumble bee generally
fit into three groups that correspond
with Factors A (habitat loss and
fragmentation), C (pathogens), or E
(pesticide use, competition with
nonnative bees, and effects of small
population size). No potential stressors
of the Franklin’s bumble bee correspond
with Factor B. There has never been any
indication that the Franklin’s bumble
bee was at risk of overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
40010
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
educational purposes, and we did not
find any new information to suggest this
has changed. Existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed
below in the context of how they help
to reduce or ameliorate stressors to the
Franklin’s bumble bee.
Influence Factors Related to
Destruction, Modification or
Curtailment of Habitat
The 2010 petition identified
destruction, degradation, and
conversion of habitat as a threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee. In our 90-day
finding on the 2010 petition (76 FR
56381; September 13, 2011), we noted
that the petitioners provided substantial
information on threats to the Franklin’s
bumble bee from the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat,
primarily due to the potential impacts of
natural or prescribed fire. Because the
loss and degradation of habitat has been
shown to reduce both diversity and
abundance in other Bombus species
(Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348–349), our SSA
Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018) looked at the potential stressor of
habitat loss and fragmentation (from
natural or prescribed fire, agricultural
intensification, urban development,
livestock grazing, and the effects of
climate change).
Although conversion of natural
habitat appears to be the primary cause
of bumble bee habitat loss throughout
the world (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2;
Kosior et al. 2010, p. 81), many
researchers believe it is unlikely to be a
main driver of the recent, widespread
North American bee declines (Szabo et
al. 2012, p. 236; Colla and Packer 2008,
p. 1388; Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665).
Our certainty regarding the Franklin’s
bumble bee’s habitat needs is limited to
(1) floral resources for nectaring
throughout the colony cycle, and (2)
relatively protected areas for breeding
and shelter. Furthermore, the available
information regarding locations where
the species has been found indicates
that the Franklin’s bumble bee is a
generalist forager and the species’
specific needs and preferences for these
habitat elements are relatively flexible,
plentiful, and widely distributed. While
we can say that Bombus species in
general might prefer protected meadows
with an abundance of wildflowers, the
Franklin’s bumble bee has been found
in a wide array of sheltered and exposed
habitat types at elevations ranging from
540 ft (162 m) to 7,800 ft (2,340 m).
Natural or Prescribed Fire
Fire caused by both natural and
human-caused factors has been an
important change on the landscape in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee.
Because fire reduces natural succession
of forests through the burning of
encroaching woody plants, fire is a
primary factor in the maintenance of
grassland and meadow habitat that can
support Bombus species (Shultz and
Crone 1998, p. 244; Huntzinger 2003).
With the increase in human
development came fire suppression to
limit damage to manmade structures.
Fire suppression allows woody
encroachment to occur, and the diverse
landscape created by fire (open areas
mixed within forested areas) is slowly
being replaced by increasing areas of
denser forested habitat; the open areas
that facilitated the growth of diverse
understory plant communities are being
reduced from their historical condition
(Ruchty 2011, p. 26). Conifer species
now cover some of the area that was
previously open meadow habitat in the
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee
(Panzer 2002; Shultz and Crone 1998, p.
244). Although this loss of habitat by
fire suppression may have limited the
availability and diversity of floral
resources, as well as nest and
overwintering habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee, healthy meadow habitat
remains in areas where the Franklin’s
bumble bee was previously found
(Godwin 2017, pers comm.; Colyer
2017, pers. comm.), and it is unlikely
that loss of habitat from fire suppression
was a factor in the decline of the
species.
Increased fuel loads from fire
suppression heighten the potential for
catastrophic, large-scale, and high
temperature wildfires. Any Bombus
colonies in the path of this type of fire
would be at risk of extirpation. Wildfire
may have extirpated some historical
populations of the Franklin’s bumble
bee, but we have no information
suggesting that any known Franklin’s
bumble bee occurrence sites were in the
path of catastrophic wildfires at the time
the sites were occupied. Controlled
burning became a management tool for
reducing potential fuel loads for
wildfire; controlled burning is carried
out by Federal land management
agencies including the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management in the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of
fire on invertebrates depends greatly on
the biology of the specific taxa (Gibson
et al. 1992), and in the case of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, controlled burns
could certainly cause death of
individual bees and negative effects to
a colony. However, we have no
information to indicate that controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
burns were a factor in the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee.
Agricultural Intensification
Agricultural intensification can result
in habitat loss for bumble bees, as these
practices often result in the planting of
monocultures that tend to provide floral
resources for a limited period of time,
rather than throughout the colony’s life
cycle. Agricultural intensification can
negatively impact wild bees by reducing
floral resource diversity and abundance
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p.
32). Agricultural intensification was
determined to be a primary factor
leading to the local extirpation and
decline of bumble bees in Illinois (Grixti
et al. 2009, p. 75). An increased use of
herbicides often accompanies
development and agricultural
intensification, and the widespread use
of herbicides in agricultural, urban, and
even natural landscapes has led to
decreases in flowering plants (Potts et
al. 2010, p. 350).
Within the historical range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, total acres in
agricultural cropland decreased in all
three counties in Oregon (Douglas,
Jackson, and Josephine) by greater than
50 percent from 1997 to 2012 (U.S.
Department of Agriculture—National
Agriculture Statistics Service 2017, pers.
comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018, p. 33). While the total number of
acres of agricultural cropland is not
synonymous with agricultural
intensification (specifically, the
expansion of monocultures), a decrease
in total acres of agriculture leads us to
conclude that agricultural
intensification was not likely a factor in
the decline of the Franklin’s bumble
bee. We have no documentation in our
files or any direct evidence that
agricultural intensification has
contributed to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Approximately
42 percent of sites where Franklin’s
bumble bee have been reported (18 of
43) occur on federally owned land,
primarily U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management land; very
little habitat on these lands has been
permanently altered or lost through
agricultural intensification (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 32).
Urban Development
Ongoing urbanization contributes to
the loss and fragmentation of natural
habitats. Urban gardens and parks
provide habitat for some pollinators
including bumble bees (Frankie et al.
2005; McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006),
but they tend not to support the species
richness of bumble bees that can be
found in nearby undeveloped
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
landscapes (Xerces Society and Thorp
2010, p. 13), or that which was present
historically (McFrederick and LeBuhn
2006). However, Franklin’s bumble bee
and western bumble bee have both been
observed in urban areas of Ashland,
Oregon, and in residential areas of
Medford, Oregon. Furthermore,
approximately 42 percent of the sites
where Franklin’s bumble bee have been
reported (18 of 43) occur on federally
owned land, primarily U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management land, and very little habitat
on these lands has been permanently
altered or lost through development.
Generally good habitat conditions
currently exist throughout the known
historical B. franklini locations and all
of the recent focused survey areas, with
the notable exceptions being the
creation of Lake Applegate upon the
completion of Applegate Dam in the fall
of 1980 and a report of soil modification
on a portion of the Gold Hill site. The
Applegate Dam project inundated two
historical B. franklini locations (Copper
and 2 miles north of Copper), with
historical observations from 1963 and
1968 (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p.
13; Thorp, pers. comm. 2017). It is not
known if Franklin’s bumble bees were
still in the area and using the habitat at
the time of the inundation. The Petition
noted that in 2004, soil had been
excavated and deposited in a portion of
the Gold Hill area (Xerces Society and
Thorp 2010, p. 13). The last observation
of Franklin’s bumble bee at Gold Hill
was in the year 2000, and the site was
revisited 14 times over the next three
years with no observations of Franklin’s
bumble bee. In both of these cases, we
don’t know if the species was still using
the habitat in the area by the time the
activities took place. We have no
documentation in our files or any direct
evidence that these incidents or
urbanization or development in the
range of Franklin’s bumble bee
contributed to the decline of the species.
Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing occurs on public
land in much of the historical range of
the Franklin’s bumble bee. Overgrazing
by sheep between 1890 and 1920
resulted in trampling vegetation and
denuding soils, and grazing is currently
evident today in the continuing erosion
of the granitic soils of the McDonald
Basin, Siskiyou Gap, Mt. Ashland, and
the Siskiyou Crest (LaLande 1995, p. 31;
T. Atzet 2017, pers. comm.). Several
studies on the impacts of livestock
grazing on bees suggest an increase in
the intensity of livestock grazing affects
the species richness of bees (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 35). In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
contrast, grazing, especially by cattle,
can play a key positive role in
maintaining the abundance and species
richness of preferred bumble bee forage
(Carvell 2002, p. 44). Evidence of
livestock grazing was observed
interspersed within abundant floral
resources in Franklin’s bumble bee
habitat during several recent targeted
survey efforts (Brooks 1997, pers.
comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2016; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2017; Trail 2017, pers. comm.). We have
no new information that the timing,
location, intensity, or duration of
grazing has changed, with the exception
of the Cascade-Siskiyou National
Monument, where most grazing has
been retired (Colyer 2018, pers. comm.).
The lack of specific information on the
impacts of livestock grazing on the
Franklin’s bumble bee limits our ability
to connect the activity to any specific
species’ response. Therefore, we do not
consider livestock grazing a threat to the
Franklin’s bumble bee.
Effects of Climate Change
Specific impacts of climate change on
pollinators are not well understood;
most of the existing information on
climate change impacts to pollinators
comes from studies on butterflies.
Studies specifically relating to bumble
bees are scant, and we found no climate
change information specific to the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Changes in
temperature and precipitation, and the
increased frequency of storm events, can
affect pollinator population sizes
directly, by affecting survival and
reproduction (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 2013, entire; Bale et
al. 2002, p. 11; Roland and Matter 2016,
p. 22). These climatic changes can also
affect populations indirectly, by altering
resource availability and species
interactions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, p. 36).
Some studies suggest that pollinators
are responding to climate change with
recent latitudinal and elevational range
shifts such that there is spatial
mismatch among plants and their
pollinators; while this has been
demonstrated in butterflies, it may be
less of a factor for bumble bees (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 36).
As generalist foragers, bumble bees do
not require synchrony with a particular
plant species, although some bumble
bee populations are active earlier in the
season than in the past (Bartomeus et al.
2011, p. 20646). Bumble bee abundance
for three species of Bombus in the Rocky
Mountains increased when floral
resources were available for more days,
and the number of days where floral
resources were available increased with
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40011
greater summer precipitation and later
snowmelt dates (Ogilvie et al. 2017, p.
4). Several of the targeted Franklin’s
bumble bee and western bumble bee
survey reports between 2015 and 2017
include mention of widespread hot, dry
climate affecting timing and abundance
of floral resources during the surveys
(Bureau of Land Management 2015;
Trail 2017, pers. comm.). Although the
Olgilvie et al. study and the survey
reports suggest potential indirect effects
of climate change on Bombus, we have
no information to indicate that the
effects of climate change were
connected to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee; numerous
Bombus species persist in areas
considered to maintain good quality
habitat for the Franklin’s bumble bee
(Pool 2014, entire; Colyer 2016, entire).
Summary
Although habitat loss has had
negative effects on bumble bees, we
conclude it is unlikely to be a main
driver of the decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Habitat appears generally
intact and in good condition throughout
the known, historical locations of the
Franklin’s bumble bee and all of the
recent focused survey areas(with
notable exceptions of the historical
habitat lost by the creation of Lake
Applegate in the fall of 1980 and soil
modification that occurred on a portion
of the Gold Hill site in 2004). In our
assessment, we found no information to
suggest the destruction, degradation,
and conversion of habitat was a
significant factor in the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, pp. 35–37), and
we have no information to suggest that
habitat destruction or modification will
increase in intensity to the point where
it will be a primary stressor to the
species in its range in the near future.
Influence Factors Related to Disease or
Predation
A number of diseases are known to
naturally occur in bumble bee
populations. These include the
protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi (C.
bombi), the tracheal mite Locustacarus
buchneri, the microsporidium (parasitic
fungus) Nosema bombi (N. bombi), as
well as deformed wing virus. Pathogens
and parasites are widespread generalists
in the host genus, but affect species
differently according to host
susceptibility and tolerance to infection
(Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 221; Malfi and
Roulston 2014, p. 18). The host species’
life history plays a role in the virulence
of a given pathogen; for instance,
parasites may have relatively smaller
effects on species with shorter colony
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40012
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
life cycles and smaller colony sizes
(Rutrecht and Brown 2009, entire).
Pathogen spillover is a process
whereby parasites and pathogens spread
from commercial bee colonies to native
bee populations (Colla et al. 2006, p.
461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p.
1). The decline of certain Bombus
species from the mid-1990s to present,
particularly species in the subgenus
Bombus sensu stricto (including
Franklin’s bumble bee), was
contemporaneous with the collapse of
commercially bred western bumble bee
(raised primarily to pollinate
greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper
crops beginning in the late 1980s)
(Szabo et al. 2012, pp. 232–233). This
collapse was attributed to infections of
N. bombi.
Nosema bombi has been detected in
native bumble bees in North America,
and has been found to be a part of the
natural pathogen load. The fungus has
been reported in Canada since the 1940s
(Cordes et al. 2011, p. 7) and appears to
have a broad host range in North
American (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 222).
Infections of the pathogen primarily
occur in the malpighian tubules (small
excretory or water regulating glands),
but also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and
sometimes the trachea (Macfarlane et al.
1995). Bombus colonies can appear to
be healthy but still carry N. bombi and
transmit it to other colonies, most likely
when spores are fed to larvae and then
infected adults drift into non-natal
colonies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018, p. 25).
The effect of pathogens on bumble
bees varies from mild to severe
(Macfarlane et al. 1995; Rutrecht et al.
2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel
2008, p. 577). Bumble bees infected
with Nosema bombi may have crippled
wings, and queens may have distended
abdomens and be unable to mate (Otti
and Schmid-Hempel 2007, pp. 122–
123). Malfi and Roulston (2014, p. 24)
found that N. bombi infections are more
frequent and more severe in rare
species, and the species with the highest
percentages of infected individuals were
rare species. Furthermore, the effects of
pathogen infection on bumble bees may
be amplified by other stressors on the
landscape. Nutritional stress may
compromise the ability of bumble bees
to survive parasitic infections, as
evidenced by a significant difference in
mortality in bumble bees on a restricted
diet compared to well-fed bees infected
with C. bombi (Brown et al. 2000, pp.
424–425).
A virulent strain of N. bombi from the
buff-tailed bumble bee (B. terrestris)
may have spread to the eastern bumble
bee (B. impatiens) and western bumble
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
bee prior to their shipment back into the
United States, and once in this country,
the commercially reared colonies may
have spread the virulent strain to wild
populations of Franklin’s bumble bee
(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 14).
In work partially funded by the Service,
the University of Illinois conducted
surveys for parasites and pathogens in
bumble bee populations of the Pacific
Northwest and Midwest between 2005
and 2009. The goal was to assess
Bombus populations for presence and
prevalence of pathogens, particularly
microsporidia, in an effort to provide
baseline data to assess disease as a
potential factor in the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, western bumble
bee, and American bumble bee (B.
pensylvanicus) (Solter et al. 2010, p. 1).
The highest prevalence of N. bombi was
found in western bumble bee, with 26
percent of collected individuals
infected. Crithidia bombi infections of
western bumble bee were 2.8 percent
overall. No Franklin’s bumble bees were
collected during the study. However,
Mt. Ashland, Oregon, was one of only
three sites in the Pacific Northwest
study area where N. bombi infections
were found in multiple Bombus species
(the indiscriminate cuckoo bumble bee
(B. insularis) and black-notched bumble
bee (B. bifarius)) (Solter et al. 2010, pp.
3–4). Although Cordes et al. (2011, p. 7)
found a new allele in N. bombi, the
recent study by Cameron et al. (2016)
found no evidence of an exotic strain of
N. bombi. While we have no evidence
of direct effects of a virulent strain of N.
bombi on the Franklin’s bumble bee, N.
bombi has been detected in closely
related species in the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Furthermore, N.
bombi infections in rare species like the
Franklin’s bumble bee are more
frequent, are more severe, and seem to
affect a higher percentage of individuals
of the species.
In summary, known pathogens occur
within the historical range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have
evidence of several pathogens infecting
closely related species within that range
that have also likely affected the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Although we
have no direct evidence of pathogens
playing a role in the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, the
disappearance of the Franklin’s bumble
bee occurred soon after a period of
potential exposure to introduced
pathogens, particularly N. bombi, which
is known to have a more severe impact
on rare species like the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Decline of other closely
related pollinators has been associated
with these pathogens, and it is highly
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
likely pathogens have had some
negative influence on the health of
Franklin’s bumble bee populations.
Influence Factors Related to Other
Natural or Manmade Factors
Pesticide Use
Exposure to pesticides can occur to
bumble bees from direct spray or drift,
or from gathering or consuming
contaminated nectar or pollen (Johansen
and Mayer 1990; 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 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28).
Documented sub-lethal effects to
individual bumble bees and colonies
include reduced or no male production,
reduced or no egg hatch, reduced queen
production, reduced queen longevity,
reduced colony weight gain, reduced
brood size, reduced feeding, impaired
ovary development, and an increased
number of foragers or foraging trips or
duration (interpreted as risky behaviors)
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p.
28). 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 (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28).
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).
Although the use of land for
agricultural purposes has traditionally
involved the use of pesticides and other
products toxic to bees, one particular
class of insecticides known as
neonicotinoids have been strongly
implicated in the decline of honey bees
(Apis spp.) worldwide, and implicated
in the decline of several Bombus species
including rusty patched bumble bee,
buff-tailed bumble bee, and eastern
bumble bee (Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69;
Goulson 2013, pp. 7–8; Colla and Packer
2008, p. 10; Lundin et al. 2015, p. 7).
Neonicotinoids are a broad class of
insecticides based on nicotine
compounds used in a variety of
agricultural applications; they act as a
neurotoxin, affecting the central nervous
system of insects by interfering with the
receptors of the insects’ nervous system,
causing overstimulation, paralysis, and
death. The neonicotinoid family of
insecticides includes acetamiprid,
clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram,
nithiazine, thiacloprid, and
thiamethoxam. In the range of the
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Franklin’s bumble bee (Jackson,
Douglas, and Josephine Counties in
Oregon, as well as Trinity and Siskiyou
Counties in California), the first
reported use of imidacloprid was in
1996, thiamethoxam in 2001, and
clothianidin in 2004. The use of
neonicotinoid pesticides continued in
the range of the species through 2006,
when the last observation of the
Franklin’s bumble bee was recorded.
Total estimated neonicotinoid
applications increased from 53.35
pounds per acre (lbs/ac) (24.19
kilograms per hectare)(kg/ac) in 1996 to
1,144.128 lbs/ac (518.86 kg/ha) in 2014;
however, the exponential growth of
neonicotinoid applications started in
2011, 5 years after the last observation
of the species. The vast majority of
neonicotinoids are used as seed
treatments on grains and other field
crops (Oregon Department of
Agriculture 2018, pers. comm.).
No studies have investigated the
effects of pesticide use on the Franklin’s
bumble bee, and no discoveries have
been documented of any Franklin’s
bumble bees injured or killed by
pesticides. The Franklin’s bumble bee is
a habitat generalist and is not known to
have a close association with
agricultural lands; therefore, it may have
less exposure to pesticides than some
other Bombus species. However,
pesticide use occurs in the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. The similarity in
foraging traits that the Franklin’s
bumble bee has with both honey bees
and the other Bombus species (e.g.,
generalist foragers collecting pollen
from similar food sources) allows us to
infer that the Franklin’s bumble bee
would suffer exposure to and impacts
from pesticides in similar measure to
other Bombus species when the
Franklin’s bumble bee is in areas where
pesticides are applied.
Effects of Small Population Size
The Franklin’s bumble bee is rare and
has always had very small populations
(relative to other similar, native bumble
bees in the western United States), and
likely has low genetic diversity due to
the haplodiploidy genetic system it
shares with all Bombus species (Zayed
2009, p. 238). These factors make the
species more vulnerable to habitat
change or loss, parasites, diseases,
stochastic events, and other natural
disasters such as droughts (Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, p. 20). Between
1998 and 2006, the number of Franklin’s
bumble bee observations went from a
high of 98 at 11 locations, to a lone
individual in 2006. No observations of
the Franklin’s bumble bee have
occurred since 2006, despite an increase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
in the survey effort. Diploid male
production has been detected in
naturally occurring populations of
bumble bees, and recent modeling work
has shown that diploid male production
may initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a
situation in which genetic traits and
environmental conditions combine to
lead a species to extinction) (Goulsen et
al. 2008, p. 11.8). Because of inbreeding
and the production of sterile males, the
haplodiploid genetic system makes
bumble bees very vulnerable when
populations get small (Colla 2018, pers.
comm.). Although we have no direct
evidence that small population size or a
rapid extinction vortex contributed to
the decline of the species, the genetic
system and historically small
population size of the Franklin’s bumble
bee likely heightened the species’
vulnerability to other stressors in the
environment; we, therefore, consider the
effects of small population size a threat
to the species.
Competition With Nonnative Bees
The European honey bee (Apis
mellifera) was first introduced to eastern
North America in the early 1620s and
into California in the early 1850s
(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21).
The resource needs of the European
honey bee and native Bombus species
may overlap, resulting in the potential
for increased competition for resources
(Thomson 2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006,
p. 407). Decreased foraging activity and
lowered reproductive success of
Bombus colonies have been noted near
European honey bee hives (Evans 2001,
pp. 32–33; Thomson 2004, p. 458;
Thomson 2006, p. 407). Additionally,
the size of workers of native Bombus
species were noticeably reduced where
European honey bees were present,
which may be detrimental to Bombus
colony success (Goulson and Sparrow
2009, p. 177). 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 European
honey bee colonies are introduced
(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21).
We could not find information to
indicate that any area of Franklin’s
bumble bee habitat in the range of the
species has limited floral resources and
large numbers of European honey bees.
We have no information related to the
specific placement of commercial honey
bee colonies in or near Franklin’s
bumble bee habitat. Furthermore,
European honey bees have been present
without noticeable declines in Bombus
populations over large portions of their
ranges (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010,
p. 21), and we have no new information
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40013
that connects competition from
European honey bees to the decline of
the Franklin’s bumble bee.
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 eastern bumble bee
workers and one queen were captured
in the wild near greenhouses where
commercial bumble bees are used,
suggesting this species may have
naturalized outside of its native range.
In this study, the eastern bumble bee,
which has a native range in eastern
North America, was detected in western
Canada (Ratti and Colla 2010, pp. 29–
31). A study in Japan found that
nonnative buff-tailed bumble bee
colonies, founded by bees that had
escaped from commercially produced
colonies, had more than four times the
mean reproductive output of native
bumble bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p.
93). A study in England found that
commercially raised buff-tailed bumble
bee colonies had higher nectar-foraging
rates and greater reproductive output
than a native subspecies of the bufftailed bumble bee (Ings et al. 2006, p.
940). Colonies of eastern bumble bee
were imported to pollinate agricultural
crops and strawberries in Grants Pass,
Oregon, in the range of the Franklin’s
bumble bee (Xerces Society and Thorp
2010, p. 18).
Although nonnative Bombus species
in the range of Franklin’s bumble bee
could outcompete Franklin’s bumble
bee for floral resources and nesting
habitat, we could not find any
information to definitively connect
competition with nonnative bumble
bees to the decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Furthermore, invertebrate
surveys in Franklin’s bumble bee habitat
continue to show evidence of healthy
populations of other native Bombus
species unaffected by competition from
nonnative bees (Pool 2014, entire;
Colyer 2016, entire).
Summary
We find that several natural and other
human-caused factors contributed to the
decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee.
While it is unlikely that pesticides alone
can account for the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, documented
effects of pesticides on closely related
Bombus species suggest pesticide use
was likely a factor in the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. The
haplodiploid genetic system of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, combined with
its historically small population size,
was also likely a factor in the decline of
the species. Although nonnative
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
40014
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Bombus species in the range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee could
outcompete the Franklin’s bumble bee
for floral resources and nesting habitat,
we could not find any information
connecting competition with nonnative
bumble bees to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Additionally,
surveys in Franklin’s bumble bee habitat
continue to show evidence of healthy
populations of other native Bombus
species unaffected by competition from
nonnative bees.
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
It is likely that several risk factors are
acting cumulatively and synergistically
on many Bombus species, including the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Goulson et al.
2015, p. 5), and the combination of
multiple stressors is likely more harmful
than a stressor acting alone (Gill et al.
2012; Coors and DeMeester 2008; Sih et
al. 2004). There is recent evidence that
the interactive effects of pesticides and
pathogens could be particularly harmful
for bumble bees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, p. 39). Nutritional stress
may compromise the ability of bumble
bees to survive parasitic infections
(Brown et al. 2000, pp. 424–425).
Bumble bees with activated immunity
may have metabolic costs, such as
increased food consumption (Tyler et al.
2006, p. 2; Moret and Schmid-Hempel
2000, pp. 1166–1167). Additionally,
exposure to pesticides may increase
with increased food consumption in
infected bees (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5).
Activating immunity impairs learning in
bumble bees (Riddell and Mallon 2006;
Alghamdi et al. 2008, p. 480). Impaired
learning is thought to reduce the ability
of bees to locate floral resources and
extract nectar and pollen, therefore
exacerbating nutritional stresses
(Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Further,
evidence of the relationship between
low genetic diversity and disease
susceptibility was discussed in Cameron
et al. (2011b, p. 665), who stated that
declining North American species with
low genetic diversity have higher
prevalence of the pathogen N. bombi. In
summary, we, therefore, find that
pathogens in combination with
pesticides, as well as pathogens in
combination with the effects of small
population size, may have hastened and
amplified the decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee to a greater degree than any
one of the three factors would cause on
its own.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and
Conservation Efforts
Surveys conducted by Dr. Robbin
Thorp, other private individuals,
University classes and researchers, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land
Management have significantly
contributed to the existing information
on Franklin’s bumble bee. However,
other than those search efforts, we are
aware of no conservation efforts or
beneficial actions specifically taken to
address the threats to the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Oregon does not include
invertebrates on their State endangered
species list (Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife 2018) and California has
no bee species included on its list of
Threatened and Endangered
Invertebrates (California Department of
Fish and Wildlife 2018). California has
the Franklin’s bumble bee listed on its
list of Terrestrial and Vernal Pool
Invertebrates of Conservation Priority
but has no required actions or special
protections associated with the listing
(California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2017, p. 10). The Franklin’s
bumble bee is on the species index for
the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management Interagency Special
Status/Sensitive Species Program
(ISSSSP). Although the Federal agencies
do include the species in survey efforts
and conduct general meadow
enhancement activities, there are no
actions resulting from the ISSSSP
classification that address known
threats to the Franklin’s bumble bee
(Interagency Special Status/Sensitive
Species Program 2018).
General awareness of colony collapse
disorder and increase of conservation
efforts for pollinators in general has
likely had limited, indirect effects on
policies and regulations. The U.S. Forest
Service is working to include a section
in all biological evaluations to address
the effects from agency actions on
pollinators. In addition, the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest is
currently implementing projects and
mitigations to create and enhance
pollinator habitat (Colyer 2018, pers.
comm.). The Oregon Department of
Agriculture restricts some potential
sources of N. bombi from entering the
State for agricultural uses, including
commercially produced colonies of
eastern bumble bee; only Bombus
species native to Oregon are allowed for
commercial pollination purposes
(Oregon Department of Agriculture
2017, p. 5). However, California allows,
with appropriate permits, the
importation of eastern bumble bee, and
other species such as the blue orchard
bee (Osmia lignaria) for greenhouse
pollination (California Department of
Food and Agriculture 2017), making the
potential for pathogen spillover from
non-native bees higher in California.
Some local municipalities in Oregon
enacted legislation against aerial
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pesticide applications but none in the
range of the Franklin’s bumble bee
(Powell 2017, p. 1; City of Portland
2015, p. 2). However, in the 2017
legislative session, Oregon passed an
Avoidance of Adverse Effects on
Pollinating Insects law (Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) 634.045) that is
providing enhanced training of licensed
and unlicensed pesticide applicators in
the State (Melathopoulos 2018, pers.
comm.), and could thereby reduce
effects of pesticides on pollinators
including Franklin’s bumble bee.
In January 2017, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Office of Pesticide Programs published
their Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk
to Bees from Pesticide Products, which
recommended new labeling statements
for pesticide products including
warnings for pesticides with a known
acute toxicity to bees (Tier 1 pesticides),
including neonicotinoids (specifically
including imidacloprid, clothianidin,
and thiamethoxam) (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2017, p. 31). In
addition, the Environmental Protection
Agency is working with State and Tribal
agencies to develop and implement
local pollinator protection plans, known
as Managed Pollinator Protection Plans
(MP3s). The Environmental Protection
Agency is promoting MP3s to address
potential pesticide exposure to bees at
and beyond the site of the application.
However, States and Tribes have the
flexibility to determine the scope of
pollinator protection plans that best
responds to pollinator issues in their
regions. For example, State and Tribal
MP3s may address pesticide-related
risks to all pollinators, including
managed bees and wild insect and noninsect pollinators (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2018).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
implemented a ban on the use of
neonicotinoids on all lands in the
National Wildlife Refuge System in
2014 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2014); however, no refuge lands occur
within the range of the Franklin’s
bumble bee. None of these
aforementioned measures has
appreciably reduced or fully
ameliorated threats to the Franklin’s
bumble bee, as evidenced by the
species’ acute and rangewide decline.
Summary of Status
The significant decrease in abundance
and distribution of the Franklin’s
bumble bee to date has greatly reduced
the species’ ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions and to guard
against further losses of adaptive
diversity and potential extinction due to
catastrophic events. It also substantially
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
reduced the ability of the Franklin’s
bumble bee to withstand environmental
variation, catastrophic events, and
changes in physical and biological
conditions. Coupled with the increased
risk of extirpation due to the interaction
of reduced population size and the
species’ haplodiploid genetic system,
the Franklin’s bumble bee may lack the
resiliency required to sustain
populations into the future, even
without further exposure to pathogens
and pesticides.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
424 set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the
Secretary is to make endangered or
threatened determinations required by
subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available to him after conducting a
review of the status of the species and
after taking into account conservation
efforts by States or foreign nations. The
standards for determining whether a
species is endangered or threatened are
provided in section 3 of the Act. An
endangered species is any species that
is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.’’
A threatened species is any species that
is ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Franklin’s
bumble bee. Our assessment did not
find habitat loss or modification (Factor
A) to be the cause of the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no
information to suggest that habitat
destruction or modification will
increase in intensity in the near future.
There is no indication that the
Franklin’s bumble bee was at risk of
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B). Known pathogens
occur within the historical range of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have
evidence of several pathogens (Factor C)
infecting closely related species within
that range. Although we do not have
direct evidence of pathogens playing a
role in the decline of the Franklin’s
bumble bee, the disappearance of the
Franklin’s bumble bee occurred soon
after a period of introduction of new
pathogens. Furthermore, documented
effects to other closely related species
lead many species experts to suspect the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
effects of pathogens had some
connection to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. We evaluated
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor
D) and conservation measures and their
effects on the stressors and the status of
the Franklin’s bumble bee; we found
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
or conservation measures in place do
not appreciably reduce or ameliorate the
existing threats to the species, as
evidenced by the species’ acute and
rangewide decline. Although we have
no direct evidence that pesticide use
contributed to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee, confirmed
effects to other closely related Bombus
species suggest that pesticide use
(Factor E) was likely a factor in the
decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee.
Additionally, given the historically
small population size (Factor E) of the
Franklin’s bumble bee and its
haplodiploid genetic system, it is more
vulnerable to extirpation than other
species, and it is likely the genetic
system and the rarity of this species
contributed to the decline of the
Franklin’s bumble bee (Factor E).
The combination of multiple stressors
is typically more harmful than a stressor
acting alone, and it is likely that several
of the stressors mentioned above acted
cumulatively and synergistically on the
Franklin’s bumble bee. Pathogens in
combination with pesticides, as well as
pathogens in combination with the
effects of small population size, may
have hastened and amplified the decline
of the Franklin’s bumble bee to a greater
degree than any one of the three factors
caused on its own. Although the
ultimate source of the decline is
unknown, the acute and rangewide
decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee is
undisputable.
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
We find that the Franklin’s bumble bee
is presently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range based on the
severity and immediacy of threats
currently affecting the species.
The threats of pathogens, pesticides,
and small population size are ongoing
and rangewide; they will continue to act
individually and in combination to
decrease the resiliency, redundancy,
and representation of the Franklin’s
bumble bee. The risk of extinction is
high because the species has not been
found since 2006, and the suspected
threats to the species persist. Therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40015
on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we propose to list the Franklin’s bumble
bee as endangered in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We
find that a threatened species status is
not appropriate for the Franklin’s
bumble bee because of the extreme loss
of abundance of the species, because the
threats are occurring rangewide and are
not localized, and because the threats
are ongoing and expected to continue
into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that the Franklin’s bumble bee is in
danger of extinction throughout its
range, we find it unnecessary to proceed
to an evaluation of potentially
significant portions of the range. Where
the best available information allows the
Services to determine a status for the
species rangewide, that determination
should be given conclusive weight
because a rangewide determination of
status more accurately reflects the
species’ degree of imperilment and
better promotes the purposes of the
statute. Under this reading, we should
first consider whether listing is
appropriate based on a rangewide
analysis and proceed to conduct a
‘‘significant portion of its range’’
analysis if, and only if, a species does
not qualify for listing as either
endangered or threatened according to
the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the
court in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS,
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), did not address this issue, and
our conclusion is therefore consistent
with the opinion in that case.
Although this species has not been
found since 2006, we conclude it is
premature at this time to determine that
the species is extinct absent a more
thorough survey effort. We invite public
comment on the probability of
extinction for this species and will
revisit this conclusion as appropriate
with respect to available information for
the final determination. We recommend
expanded future survey efforts to help
verify the status of this species.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40016
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
agencies; private organizations; and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against certain
activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan also identifies recovery
criteria for review of when a species
may be ready for reclassification from
endangered to threatened
(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
or List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants (‘‘delisting’’), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery
plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost
of implementing recovery tasks.
Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline will be
available on our website (https://
www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands. If
this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets; State programs; and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the States of Oregon and California
would be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of
the Franklin’s bumble bee. Information
on our grant programs that are available
to aid species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Franklin’s bumble bee is
only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you
are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include: Management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management; issuance of section 404
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by
the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
to attempt any of these) endangered
wildlife within the United States or on
the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful
to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other
Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. Based on the best available
information, the following actions
would be unlikely to result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are authorized and carried out in
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
accordance with applicable law; this list
is not comprehensive:
(1) Recreation, specifically skiing at
Mt. Ashland, and use of the Pacific
Crest Trail;
(2) Timber sales; and
(3) Livestock grazing.
Based on the best available
information, the following actions may
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act if they are not
authorized in accordance with
applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the Franklin’s bumble bee;
(2) The unauthorized release of
biological control agents that attack any
life stage of the Franklin’s bumble bee,
including the unauthorized use of
herbicides, pesticides, or other
chemicals in habitats in which the
Franklin’s bumble bee is known to
occur; and
(3) Unauthorized release of nonnative
species or native species that carry
pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are
known or suspected to adversely affect
the Franklin’s bumble bee where the
species is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Critical Habitat
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define ‘‘geographical area occupied by
the species’’ as: An area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior (i.e., range).
Such areas may include those areas
used throughout all or part of the
species’ life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors,
seasonal habitats, and habitats used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
periodically, but not solely by vagrant
individuals).
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40017
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an
area, we focus on the specific features
that support the life-history needs of the
species, including but not limited to,
water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. We will determine whether
unoccupied areas are essential for the
conservation of the species by
considering the life-history, status, and
conservation needs of the species. This
will be further informed by any
generalized conservation strategy,
criteria, or outline that may have been
developed for the species to provide a
substantive foundation for identifying
which features and specific areas are
essential to the conservation of the
species and, as a result, the
development of the critical habitat
designation. For example, an area
currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of
listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat
designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
40018
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat
to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat
would not be beneficial to the species.
The regulations also provide that, in
determining whether a designation
would not be beneficial, the factors the
Service may consider include but are
not limited to: Whether the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or whether
any areas meet the definition of ‘‘critical
habitat’’ (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)).
As discussed above in the threats
analysis, there is currently no imminent
threat of take attributed to collection or
vandalism identified under Factor B for
this species, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not
expected to initiate any such threat. In
the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would
increase threats to a species, we next
determine whether such designation of
critical habitat would be beneficial to
the Franklin’s bumble bee. For the
reasons discussed below, we have
determined that designating critical
habitat would not be beneficial.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Designating Habitat Would Not Be
Beneficial to the Species
The Franklin’s bumble bee was
widely distributed throughout its range
and considered flexible with regards to
habitat requirements. We know that the
Franklin’s bumble bee needs (1) floral
resources for nectaring throughout the
colony cycle, and (2) relatively
protected areas for breeding and shelter.
In addition, because the best available
scientific information indicates that the
Franklin’s bumble bee is a generalist
forager, its habitat preferences and
needs are relatively plentiful and widely
distributed. While Bombus species in
general might prefer protected meadows
with an abundance of wildflowers, the
Franklin’s bumble bee has been found
in a wide array of habitat types, from
foraging in montane meadows in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
remote wilderness area of California to
nesting in a residential garage in the city
limits of Medford, Oregon. The species
has a broad elevational range from 162
m (540 ft) to 2,340 m (7,800 ft);
elevation does not appear to limit the
species’ dispersal capabilities.
Some general habitat associations of
Bombus are known; however, as one of
the rarest Bombus species, the
Franklin’s bumble bee is somewhat
enigmatic and a specific habitat study
for the Franklin’s bumble bee has not
been completed. Such a study was
initiated in 2006, when the Franklin’s
bumble bee was last seen, but could not
continue due to the subsequent absence
of the species. Therefore, we cannot,
with specificity, articulate the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Franklin’s bumble
bee, or determine whether or not any
area would meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble
bee.
Since it was first identified in 1921,
the Franklin’s bumble bee appears to
have always been a rare species limited
in abundance. In fact, the species has
perhaps the most limited range of any
Bombus species in the world.
Nonetheless, Franklin’s bumble bee
habitat is not in short supply, and
habitat loss is not a threat to the species.
With the exception of the inundation of
two historical Franklin’s bumble bee
locations by the construction of
Applegate dam and a report of soil
modification on a portion of the Gold
Hill site four years after the last
occurrence of Franklin’s bumble bee in
the area, no noticeable destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range can be identified in areas where
the species had been previously located.
No significant destruction or
modification of Franklin’s bumble bee
habitat can be attributed to natural fire,
prescribed fire, agricultural
intensification, urban development,
livestock grazing, or the effects of
climate change. Additionally, as
discussed above, the Franklin’s bumble
bee has been documented using a wide
variety of habitat throughout its range.
Because habitat for the Franklin’s
bumble bee is not limiting, and because
the bee is considered to be flexible with
regards to its habitat, the availability of
habitat does not limit the conservation
of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor
will it in the foreseeable future.
In the Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service’s response to
comments on the February 11, 2016,
final rule (81 FR 7414) revising the
critical habitat regulations, the Services
expressly contemplated a fact pattern
where designating critical habitat may
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not be beneficial to the species: ‘‘[I]n
some circumstances, a species may be
listed because of factors other than
threats to its habitat or range, such as
disease, and the species may be a
habitat generalist. In such a case, on the
basis of the existing and revised
regulations, it is permissible to
determine that critical habitat is not
beneficial and, therefore, not prudent’’
(81 FR 7425). This is the fact pattern we
are presented with in the case of the
Franklin’s bumble bee. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat is not a threat to
the Franklin’s bumble bee; rather,
disease and other manmade factors are
likely the primary threat to the species
within its habitat. Therefore, in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1),
we determine that critical habitat is not
beneficial and, therefore, not prudent
for the Franklin’s bumble bee.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
40019
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
Common name
*
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this proposed rule is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–
0044 and upon request from the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office and Pacific
Region Office in Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
*
Where listed
*
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Bumble bee, Franklin’s’’ to
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in alphabetical order under
INSECTS to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Scientific name
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Listing citations and
applicable rules
Status
*
*
*
*
*
INSECTS
*
Bumble bee, Franklin’s
*
*
*
*
Bombus franklini .......... Wherever found ...........
*
*
*
*
E
*
*
[Federal Register citation when published as a
final rule]
*
*
Dated: January 31, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Editorial Note: This document was
received for publication by the Office of the
Federal Register on August 7, 2019.
[FR Doc. 2019–17337 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am]
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Aug 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40006-40019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17337]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0044; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Franklin's Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Franklin's bumble bee (Bombus franklini), an invertebrate
species from Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties in Oregon, and
Siskiyou and Trinity Counties in California, as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find
that disease and other natural or manmade factors are likely the
primary threats to the species within its habitat. If made final, this
rule would add this species to the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and apply the protections of the Act to this
species.
In this proposed rule, we determine that designating critical
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee is not prudent, because the
Franklin's bumble bee is a habitat generalist, and the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat is not
a threat to Franklin's bumble bee. Consequently, the designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the Franklin's bumble bee.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 15, 2019. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by September 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-
2018-0044, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the
left side 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 ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2018-0044; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE
98th Ave. Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone 503-231-6179.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
[[Page 40007]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) Franklin's bumble bee's biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
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) Our analysis of the current status of Franklin's bumble bee. As
discussed below (see Background below, for more information), based on
the lack of observations of Franklin's over the last 13 years it is
possible that the species is extinct. We will be analyzing any new
information on this question before making a final determination; if we
determine that the best available information indicates that the
species is likely extinct, we will withdraw this proposed rule. Thus,
we are seeking any information regarding the persistence or extinction
of the species within its historical range including:
(a) Verifiable reports or evidence of Franklin's bumble bee
occurrence in its range; or
(b) any information that may indicate extinction of the species.
(3) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(4) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(5) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
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. All
comments submitted electronically via https://www.regulations.gov will
be presented on the website in their entirety as submitted. For
comments submitted via hard copy, we will post your entire comment--
including your personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document that
we withhold personal information such as your street address, phone
number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Please note that 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, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) 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.'' In making a
final decision on this proposal, we will take into consideration the
comments and any additional information we receive during the public
comment period. Such communications could lead to a final rule that
differs from this proposal, including a withdrawal of this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date
specified in DATES and sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we sought the expert
opinions of 10 appropriate and independent specialists regarding the
scientific basis for this proposed rule; nine agreed to provide review.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing and critical
habitat determinations are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in
Franklin's bumble bee or Bombus biology and habitat, and their comments
helped inform our determinations. We invited comment from the peer
reviewers during the analysis of the status of the species and the
creation of the species status assessment report (SSA Report; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2018); these comments will be available along with
other public comments in the docket for this proposed rule.
Previous Federal Actions
We were petitioned to list Franklin's bumble bee as endangered
under Act on June 23, 2010, by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation and Dr. Robbin Thorp, Professor Emeritus from the
University of California (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 2). On
September 13, 2011, we announced in the Federal Register (76 FR 56381)
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that
this species may be warranted for listing, and announced the initiation
of a status review for the species. This action constitutes our 12-
month finding on the 2010 petition to list the Franklin's bumble bee.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
Franklin's bumble bee is presented in the Franklin's Bumble Bee Species
Status Assessment report (SSA Report; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018) on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-
0044. Franklin's bumble bee is thought to have the most limited
distribution of all known North American bumble bee species (Plowright
and Stephen 1980, p. 479; Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 6), and one
of the most limited geographic distributions of any bumble bee in the
world (Frison 1922, p. 315; Williams 1998, p. 129). Stephen (1957, p.
81) recorded the species from the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys in
Oregon. Thorp et al. (1983, p. 8) also recorded it from northern
California and suggested its restriction to the Klamath
[[Page 40008]]
Mountain region of southern Oregon and northern California. Elevations
where it has been observed range from 162 meters (m) (540 feet (ft)) in
the northern part of its range, to over 2,340 m (7,800 ft) in the
southern part of its range. All confirmed specimens have been found in
an area about 306 kilometers (km) (190 miles (mi)) to the north and
south, and 113 km (70 mi) 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 Siskiyou and
Trinity Counties in northern California (Thorp 1999, p. 3; Thorp 2005,
p. 1; International Union for Conservation of Nature 2009, p. 1).
Franklin's bumble bee was first observed in 1917 and first
described in 1921, and limited occurrence and observation data exists
for Franklin's bumble bee prior to 1998. The species has been found on
many privately owned sites as well as municipal, State and federally
owned land. Historical observations and occurrence data for Franklin's
bumble bee prior to 1998 include randomly reported observations,
student collections, and museum specimens, as well as the collections
and notes of interested parties, natural resource managers, and
university staff (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, pp. 34-40). A more
intensive and targeted search effort for the species began in 1998 in
areas thought to have the highest likelihood of Franklin's bumble bee
presence. There was initial success at finding a higher abundance of
the species than ever previously reported in one year, 98 bees in 1998
(mostly from 2 sites). However, in subsequent years searchers found
fewer and fewer bees, and no Franklin's bumble bees have been found
since the last sighting of a single individual in Oregon in 2006. The
variations in timing, scope, intensity, and methodology of search
efforts (including those since 1998) and the lack of observations since
2006 prevent the identification of any population trends. Many of the
occurrence records just provide point data for an occurrence, with no
details on the size of the area searched or whether or not the record
reflected a comprehensive search of an area. Many records also lack
details on the level of survey effort per location (number of
searchers, hours of search effort per day, number of days per search
effort).
The lack of systematic surveys across the historical range of the
species over time prevents us from using occurrence records to
extrapolate reasonable estimates of species abundance or distribution
or concluding that the species is extinct; even though none have been
seen since 2006, Franklin's bumble bee populations could potentially
persist undetected. The areas chosen for survey were selected due to a
combination of abundance of floral resources throughout the colony
cycle, relatively recent historical occurrence of the species, and
accessibility to surveyors. However, the surveyed area represents a
relatively small percentage of the historical range of the Franklin's
bumble bee; therefore, it is possible the species may persist in other
areas of the range. There are numerous instances of species
rediscovered after many years, even decades, of having been believed
extinct (e.g., Scheffers et al. 2011, entire). As one example of such a
case, Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) of Oregon
was believed extinct after the last recorded observation in 1937, until
it was rediscovered in 1989, 52 years later (Hammond and Wilson 1992,
p. 175; Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2). Recent approaches to evaluating
extinction likelihood place increased emphasis on the extensiveness and
adequacy of survey effort (Keith et al. 2017, p. 321; Thompson et al.
2017, p. 328), and caution against declaring a species as extinct in
the face of uncertainty (Ak[ccedil]akaya et al. 2017, p. 339).
The specific life-history characteristics and behavior of this rare
species have not been studied; much of the information presented in the
SSA Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) is inferred from
information on Bombus in general and some closely related species
(western bumble bee (B. occidentalis), rusty patched bumble bee (B.
affinis), and yellow-faced bumble bee (B. vosnesenskii), among others).
The report also relied heavily on information from species experts.
Franklin's bumble bee is a primitively eusocial (highly social)
bumble bee, living in colonies made up of a queen and her offspring
(males and workers). Like other eusocial Bombus species, Franklin's
bumble bee typically nests underground in abandoned rodent burrows or
other cavities that offer resting and sheltering places, food storage,
nesting, and room for the colony to grow (Plath 1927, pp. 122-128;
Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). The
species may also occasionally nest on the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p.
1) or in rock piles (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 475). It has even
been found nesting in a residential garage in the city limits of
Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, pers. comm,).
Colonies of Franklin's bumble bee have an annual cycle, initiated
each spring when solitary queens emerge from hibernation and seek
suitable nest sites (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). Colonies may contain
from 50 to 400 workers along with the founding queen (Plath 1927, pp.
123-124; Thorp et al. 1983, p. 2; Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). Two
colonies of Franklin's bumble bee that were initiated in the laboratory
and set out to complete development in the field, contained over 60
workers by early September, and likely produced over 100 workers by the
end of the season (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 477). The flight
season of Franklin's bumble bee is from mid-May to the end of September
(Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30); a few individuals have been encountered in
October (Southern Oregon University Bee Collection records, in Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, Appendix 1, p. 39). At the end of the colony
cycle, all the workers and the males die along with the founding queen;
only the inseminated hibernating females (gynes) are left to carry on
the genetic lineage into the following year (Duchateau and Velthius
1988).
As with all Bombus species, Franklin's bumble bee has a unique
genetic system called the haplodiploid sex determination system. In
this system, unfertilized (haploid) eggs become males that carry a
single set of chromosomes, and fertilized (diploid) eggs become females
that carry two sets of chromosomes. This system 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. 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 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, p. 37). Inbreeding depression in bumble bees can
lead to the production of sterile diploid males (Goulson et al. 2008,
p. 11.7) and negatively affects bumble bee colony size (Herrman et al.
2007, p. 1167), which are key factors in a colony's reproductive
success.
As one of the rarest Bombus species, Franklin's bumble bees are
somewhat enigmatic, and a specific habitat study for the species has
not been completed. Such a study was initiated in 2006, when the
Franklin's bumble bee was last seen, but could not continue due to the
subsequent absence of the species (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). However,
some general habitat associations of Bombus are known. Like all bumble
bees, the Franklin's bumble bee requires
[[Page 40009]]
a constant and diverse supply of flowers that bloom throughout the
colony's life cycle, from spring to autumn (Xerces Society and Thorp
2010, p. 11); these resources would typically be found in open (non-
forested) meadows in proximity to seeps and other wet meadow
environments. The nectar from flowers provides carbohydrates, and the
pollen provides protein. Franklin's bumble bee may have a foraging
distance of up to 10 km (6.2 mi) (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.), but the
species' typical dispersal distance is most likely 3 km (1.86 mi) or
less (Hatfield 2017, pers. comm.; Goulson 2010, p. 96). Franklin's
bumble bee have 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) (Xerces
Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). Franklin's bumble bee may also collect
both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia spp.) as well as rob nectar
from it (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11).
In summary, Franklin's bumble bee has been found in a wide array of
sheltered and exposed habitat types at a broad elevational range, and
the species appears to be a generalist forager. Our certainty regarding
the Franklin's bumble bee's habitat needs is limited to (1) floral
resources for nectaring throughout the colony cycle, and (2) relatively
protected areas for breeding and shelter. The habitat elements that
Franklin's bumble bee appears to prefer to fulfill those needs
mentioned above are relatively flexible, plentiful, and widely
distributed.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors
affecting its continued existence. We completed a comprehensive
assessment of the biological status of the Franklin's bumble bee and
prepared a report of the assessment (i.e., the SSA Report), which
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. We
define viability here as the likelihood of the species to persist over
the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. Below, we summarize
the conclusions of that assessment, which can be accessed on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0044.
3-R Analysis
To assess the Franklin's bumble bee's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy, or the 3-Rs (Smith et al. 2018). Briefly, resiliency
supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); representation supports the ability of the species to adapt
over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate
changes); and redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In
general, the more redundant, representative, and resilient a species
is, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under
changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability. To assess resiliency and redundancy, we evaluated the change
in Franklin's bumble bee occurrences (populations) over time. To assess
representation (as an indicator of adaptive capacity) of the Franklin's
bumble bee, we evaluated the spatial extent of occurrences over time.
We evaluated the change in resiliency, representation, and redundancy
from the past until the present; however, due to the lack of
observations of the species since 2006, we did not project anticipated
future states of these conditions.
Our analyses indicate that the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the Franklin's bumble bee have all declined since the
late 1990s. Historically, the species has always been rare and has one
of the narrowest distributions of any Bombus species in the world. Even
so, the abundance and distribution of Franklin's bumble bee has
declined significantly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, pp. 10-
14); the species has not been observed since 2006, despite an intensive
survey effort in select portions of the historical range. Search
efforts for the species have been varied in timing, scope, intensity,
and methodology. During the more intensive surveys from 1998 until the
last observation in 2006, the Franklin's bumble bee was observed at 14
locations, including 8 locations where it had not been previously
documented. In 1998, 98 bees were found among 11 locations. Searchers
found fewer and fewer bees after that year even though they continued
extensive searches in multiple locations with the highest likelihood of
finding the species. Twenty bees were located in 1999, nine individuals
were observed in 2000, and one individual was observed in 2001.
Although 20 Franklin's bumble bees were observed in 2002, only 3 were
observed in 2003 (all at a single locality), and a single worker bee
was observed in 2006. Despite continued intensive search efforts in
these areas through 2017, there have been no confirmed observations of
the Franklin's bumble bee since 2006. Data allow us to estimate 43
potential populations of the species since records have been kept. From
1998 to 2006, 14 potential populations could be identified. Since 2006,
no populations have been located.
The vulnerability resulting from the Franklin's bumble bee's
haplodiploid genetic system, as well as the loss in the abundance and
spatial extent of its populations, suggest the resiliency,
representation, and redundancy of the Franklin's bumble bee have all
declined significantly since the late 1990s. The losses in both the
number of populations and their spatial extent render the Franklin's
bumble bee vulnerable to extinction even without further external
stressors (e.g., pathogens and insecticide exposure) acting upon the
species.
As part of our status assessment of the Franklin's bumble bee, we
looked at potential stressors affecting the species' viability. Our
full assessment of the stressors can be found in the SSA Report (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018). In accordance with section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it
meets the definition of endangered or of threatened, we determine
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Potential stressors that we analyzed for the Franklin's bumble bee
generally fit into three groups that correspond with Factors A (habitat
loss and fragmentation), C (pathogens), or E (pesticide use,
competition with nonnative bees, and effects of small population size).
No potential stressors of the Franklin's bumble bee correspond with
Factor B. There has never been any indication that the Franklin's
bumble bee was at risk of overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or
[[Page 40010]]
educational purposes, and we did not find any new information to
suggest this has changed. Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are
discussed below in the context of how they help to reduce or ameliorate
stressors to the Franklin's bumble bee.
Influence Factors Related to Destruction, Modification or Curtailment
of Habitat
The 2010 petition identified destruction, degradation, and
conversion of habitat as a threat to the Franklin's bumble bee. In our
90-day finding on the 2010 petition (76 FR 56381; September 13, 2011),
we noted that the petitioners provided substantial information on
threats to the Franklin's bumble bee from the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat, primarily due to the potential
impacts of natural or prescribed fire. Because the loss and degradation
of habitat has been shown to reduce both diversity and abundance in
other Bombus species (Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348-349), our SSA Report
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) looked at the potential stressor
of habitat loss and fragmentation (from natural or prescribed fire,
agricultural intensification, urban development, livestock grazing, and
the effects of climate change).
Although conversion of natural habitat appears to be the primary
cause of bumble bee habitat loss throughout the world (Goulson et al.
2015, p. 2; Kosior et al. 2010, p. 81), many researchers believe it is
unlikely to be a main driver of the recent, widespread North American
bee declines (Szabo et al. 2012, p. 236; Colla and Packer 2008, p.
1388; Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). Our certainty regarding the
Franklin's bumble bee's habitat needs is limited to (1) floral
resources for nectaring throughout the colony cycle, and (2) relatively
protected areas for breeding and shelter. Furthermore, the available
information regarding locations where the species has been found
indicates that the Franklin's bumble bee is a generalist forager and
the species' specific needs and preferences for these habitat elements
are relatively flexible, plentiful, and widely distributed. While we
can say that Bombus species in general might prefer protected meadows
with an abundance of wildflowers, the Franklin's bumble bee has been
found in a wide array of sheltered and exposed habitat types at
elevations ranging from 540 ft (162 m) to 7,800 ft (2,340 m).
Natural or Prescribed Fire
Fire caused by both natural and human-caused factors has been an
important change on the landscape in the range of the Franklin's bumble
bee. Because fire reduces natural succession of forests through the
burning of encroaching woody plants, fire is a primary factor in the
maintenance of grassland and meadow habitat that can support Bombus
species (Shultz and Crone 1998, p. 244; Huntzinger 2003). With the
increase in human development came fire suppression to limit damage to
manmade structures. Fire suppression allows woody encroachment to
occur, and the diverse landscape created by fire (open areas mixed
within forested areas) is slowly being replaced by increasing areas of
denser forested habitat; the open areas that facilitated the growth of
diverse understory plant communities are being reduced from their
historical condition (Ruchty 2011, p. 26). Conifer species now cover
some of the area that was previously open meadow habitat in the range
of the Franklin's bumble bee (Panzer 2002; Shultz and Crone 1998, p.
244). Although this loss of habitat by fire suppression may have
limited the availability and diversity of floral resources, as well as
nest and overwintering habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, healthy
meadow habitat remains in areas where the Franklin's bumble bee was
previously found (Godwin 2017, pers comm.; Colyer 2017, pers. comm.),
and it is unlikely that loss of habitat from fire suppression was a
factor in the decline of the species.
Increased fuel loads from fire suppression heighten the potential
for catastrophic, large-scale, and high temperature wildfires. Any
Bombus colonies in the path of this type of fire would be at risk of
extirpation. Wildfire may have extirpated some historical populations
of the Franklin's bumble bee, but we have no information suggesting
that any known Franklin's bumble bee occurrence sites were in the path
of catastrophic wildfires at the time the sites were occupied.
Controlled burning became a management tool for reducing potential fuel
loads for wildfire; controlled burning is carried out by Federal land
management agencies including the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management in the range of the Franklin's bumble bee. The effects
of fire on invertebrates depends greatly on the biology of the specific
taxa (Gibson et al. 1992), and in the case of the Franklin's bumble
bee, controlled burns could certainly cause death of individual bees
and negative effects to a colony. However, we have no information to
indicate that controlled burns were a factor in the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee.
Agricultural Intensification
Agricultural intensification can result in habitat loss for bumble
bees, as these practices often result in the planting of monocultures
that tend to provide floral resources for a limited period of time,
rather than throughout the colony's life cycle. Agricultural
intensification can negatively impact wild bees by reducing floral
resource diversity and abundance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018,
p. 32). Agricultural intensification was determined to be a primary
factor leading to the local extirpation and decline of bumble bees in
Illinois (Grixti et al. 2009, p. 75). An increased use of herbicides
often accompanies development and agricultural intensification, and the
widespread use of herbicides in agricultural, urban, and even natural
landscapes has led to decreases in flowering plants (Potts et al. 2010,
p. 350).
Within the historical range of the Franklin's bumble bee, total
acres in agricultural cropland decreased in all three counties in
Oregon (Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine) by greater than 50 percent
from 1997 to 2012 (U.S. Department of Agriculture--National Agriculture
Statistics Service 2017, pers. comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018, p. 33). While the total number of acres of agricultural cropland
is not synonymous with agricultural intensification (specifically, the
expansion of monocultures), a decrease in total acres of agriculture
leads us to conclude that agricultural intensification was not likely a
factor in the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee. We have no
documentation in our files or any direct evidence that agricultural
intensification has contributed to the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee. Approximately 42 percent of sites where Franklin's bumble bee have
been reported (18 of 43) occur on federally owned land, primarily U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land; very little habitat
on these lands has been permanently altered or lost through
agricultural intensification (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p.
32).
Urban Development
Ongoing urbanization contributes to the loss and fragmentation of
natural habitats. Urban gardens and parks provide habitat for some
pollinators including bumble bees (Frankie et al. 2005; McFrederick and
LeBuhn 2006), but they tend not to support the species richness of
bumble bees that can be found in nearby undeveloped
[[Page 40011]]
landscapes (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 13), or that which was
present historically (McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006). However, Franklin's
bumble bee and western bumble bee have both been observed in urban
areas of Ashland, Oregon, and in residential areas of Medford, Oregon.
Furthermore, approximately 42 percent of the sites where Franklin's
bumble bee have been reported (18 of 43) occur on federally owned land,
primarily U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land, and
very little habitat on these lands has been permanently altered or lost
through development.
Generally good habitat conditions currently exist throughout the
known historical B. franklini locations and all of the recent focused
survey areas, with the notable exceptions being the creation of Lake
Applegate upon the completion of Applegate Dam in the fall of 1980 and
a report of soil modification on a portion of the Gold Hill site. The
Applegate Dam project inundated two historical B. franklini locations
(Copper and 2 miles north of Copper), with historical observations from
1963 and 1968 (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 13; Thorp, pers. comm.
2017). It is not known if Franklin's bumble bees were still in the area
and using the habitat at the time of the inundation. The Petition noted
that in 2004, soil had been excavated and deposited in a portion of the
Gold Hill area (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 13). The last
observation of Franklin's bumble bee at Gold Hill was in the year 2000,
and the site was revisited 14 times over the next three years with no
observations of Franklin's bumble bee. In both of these cases, we don't
know if the species was still using the habitat in the area by the time
the activities took place. We have no documentation in our files or any
direct evidence that these incidents or urbanization or development in
the range of Franklin's bumble bee contributed to the decline of the
species.
Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing occurs on public land in much of the historical
range of the Franklin's bumble bee. Overgrazing by sheep between 1890
and 1920 resulted in trampling vegetation and denuding soils, and
grazing is currently evident today in the continuing erosion of the
granitic soils of the McDonald Basin, Siskiyou Gap, Mt. Ashland, and
the Siskiyou Crest (LaLande 1995, p. 31; T. Atzet 2017, pers. comm.).
Several studies on the impacts of livestock grazing on bees suggest an
increase in the intensity of livestock grazing affects the species
richness of bees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 35). In
contrast, grazing, especially by cattle, can play a key positive role
in maintaining the abundance and species richness of preferred bumble
bee forage (Carvell 2002, p. 44). Evidence of livestock grazing was
observed interspersed within abundant floral resources in Franklin's
bumble bee habitat during several recent targeted survey efforts
(Brooks 1997, pers. comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2017; Trail 2017, pers. comm.). We have no
new information that the timing, location, intensity, or duration of
grazing has changed, with the exception of the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument, where most grazing has been retired (Colyer 2018,
pers. comm.). The lack of specific information on the impacts of
livestock grazing on the Franklin's bumble bee limits our ability to
connect the activity to any specific species' response. Therefore, we
do not consider livestock grazing a threat to the Franklin's bumble
bee.
Effects of Climate Change
Specific impacts of climate change on pollinators are not well
understood; most of the existing information on climate change impacts
to pollinators comes from studies on butterflies. Studies specifically
relating to bumble bees are scant, and we found no climate change
information specific to the Franklin's bumble bee. Changes in
temperature and precipitation, and the increased frequency of storm
events, can affect pollinator population sizes directly, by affecting
survival and reproduction (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2013, entire; Bale et al. 2002, p. 11; Roland and Matter 2016, p. 22).
These climatic changes can also affect populations indirectly, by
altering resource availability and species interactions (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, p. 36).
Some studies suggest that pollinators are responding to climate
change with recent latitudinal and elevational range shifts such that
there is spatial mismatch among plants and their pollinators; while
this has been demonstrated in butterflies, it may be less of a factor
for bumble bees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 36). As
generalist foragers, bumble bees do not require synchrony with a
particular plant species, although some bumble bee populations are
active earlier in the season than in the past (Bartomeus et al. 2011,
p. 20646). Bumble bee abundance for three species of Bombus in the
Rocky Mountains increased when floral resources were available for more
days, and the number of days where floral resources were available
increased with greater summer precipitation and later snowmelt dates
(Ogilvie et al. 2017, p. 4). Several of the targeted Franklin's bumble
bee and western bumble bee survey reports between 2015 and 2017 include
mention of widespread hot, dry climate affecting timing and abundance
of floral resources during the surveys (Bureau of Land Management 2015;
Trail 2017, pers. comm.). Although the Olgilvie et al. study and the
survey reports suggest potential indirect effects of climate change on
Bombus, we have no information to indicate that the effects of climate
change were connected to the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee;
numerous Bombus species persist in areas considered to maintain good
quality habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee (Pool 2014, entire;
Colyer 2016, entire).
Summary
Although habitat loss has had negative effects on bumble bees, we
conclude it is unlikely to be a main driver of the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee. Habitat appears generally intact and in good
condition throughout the known, historical locations of the Franklin's
bumble bee and all of the recent focused survey areas(with notable
exceptions of the historical habitat lost by the creation of Lake
Applegate in the fall of 1980 and soil modification that occurred on a
portion of the Gold Hill site in 2004). In our assessment, we found no
information to suggest the destruction, degradation, and conversion of
habitat was a significant factor in the decline of the Franklin's
bumble bee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, pp. 35-37), and we
have no information to suggest that habitat destruction or modification
will increase in intensity to the point where it will be a primary
stressor to the species in its range in the near future.
Influence Factors Related to Disease or Predation
A number of diseases are known to naturally occur in bumble bee
populations. These include the protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi (C.
bombi), the tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri, the microsporidium
(parasitic fungus) Nosema bombi (N. bombi), as well as deformed wing
virus. Pathogens and parasites are widespread generalists in the host
genus, but affect species differently according to host susceptibility
and tolerance to infection (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 221; Malfi and
Roulston 2014, p. 18). The host species' life history plays a role in
the virulence of a given pathogen; for instance, parasites may have
relatively smaller effects on species with shorter colony
[[Page 40012]]
life cycles and smaller colony sizes (Rutrecht and Brown 2009, entire).
Pathogen spillover is a process whereby parasites and pathogens
spread from commercial bee colonies to native bee populations (Colla et
al. 2006, p. 461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1). The decline of
certain Bombus species from the mid-1990s to present, particularly
species in the subgenus Bombus sensu stricto (including Franklin's
bumble bee), was contemporaneous with the collapse of commercially bred
western bumble bee (raised primarily to pollinate greenhouse tomato and
sweet pepper crops beginning in the late 1980s) (Szabo et al. 2012, pp.
232-233). This collapse was attributed to infections of N. bombi.
Nosema bombi has been detected in native bumble bees in North
America, and has been found to be a part of the natural pathogen load.
The fungus has been reported in Canada since the 1940s (Cordes et al.
2011, p. 7) and appears to have a broad host range in North American
(Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 222). Infections of the pathogen primarily
occur in the malpighian tubules (small excretory or water regulating
glands), but also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and sometimes the trachea
(Macfarlane et al. 1995). Bombus colonies can appear to be healthy but
still carry N. bombi and transmit it to other colonies, most likely
when spores are fed to larvae and then infected adults drift into non-
natal colonies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 25).
The effect of pathogens on bumble bees varies from mild to severe
(Macfarlane et al. 1995; Rutrecht et al. 2007, p. 1719; Otti and
Schmid-Hempel 2008, p. 577). Bumble bees infected with Nosema bombi may
have crippled wings, and queens may have distended abdomens and be
unable to mate (Otti and Schmid-Hempel 2007, pp. 122-123). Malfi and
Roulston (2014, p. 24) found that N. bombi infections are more frequent
and more severe in rare species, and the species with the highest
percentages of infected individuals were rare species. Furthermore, the
effects of pathogen infection on bumble bees may be amplified by other
stressors on the landscape. Nutritional stress may compromise the
ability of bumble bees to survive parasitic infections, as evidenced by
a significant difference in mortality in bumble bees on a restricted
diet compared to well-fed bees infected with C. bombi (Brown et al.
2000, pp. 424-425).
A virulent strain of N. bombi from the buff-tailed bumble bee (B.
terrestris) may have spread to the eastern bumble bee (B. impatiens)
and western bumble bee prior to their shipment back into the United
States, and once in this country, the commercially reared colonies may
have spread the virulent strain to wild populations of Franklin's
bumble bee (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 14). In work partially
funded by the Service, the University of Illinois conducted surveys for
parasites and pathogens in bumble bee populations of the Pacific
Northwest and Midwest between 2005 and 2009. The goal was to assess
Bombus populations for presence and prevalence of pathogens,
particularly microsporidia, in an effort to provide baseline data to
assess disease as a potential factor in the decline of the Franklin's
bumble bee, western bumble bee, and American bumble bee (B.
pensylvanicus) (Solter et al. 2010, p. 1). The highest prevalence of N.
bombi was found in western bumble bee, with 26 percent of collected
individuals infected. Crithidia bombi infections of western bumble bee
were 2.8 percent overall. No Franklin's bumble bees were collected
during the study. However, Mt. Ashland, Oregon, was one of only three
sites in the Pacific Northwest study area where N. bombi infections
were found in multiple Bombus species (the indiscriminate cuckoo bumble
bee (B. insularis) and black-notched bumble bee (B. bifarius)) (Solter
et al. 2010, pp. 3-4). Although Cordes et al. (2011, p. 7) found a new
allele in N. bombi, the recent study by Cameron et al. (2016) found no
evidence of an exotic strain of N. bombi. While we have no evidence of
direct effects of a virulent strain of N. bombi on the Franklin's
bumble bee, N. bombi has been detected in closely related species in
the range of the Franklin's bumble bee. Furthermore, N. bombi
infections in rare species like the Franklin's bumble bee are more
frequent, are more severe, and seem to affect a higher percentage of
individuals of the species.
In summary, known pathogens occur within the historical range of
the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have evidence of several pathogens
infecting closely related species within that range that have also
likely affected the Franklin's bumble bee. Although we have no direct
evidence of pathogens playing a role in the decline of the Franklin's
bumble bee, the disappearance of the Franklin's bumble bee occurred
soon after a period of potential exposure to introduced pathogens,
particularly N. bombi, which is known to have a more severe impact on
rare species like the Franklin's bumble bee. Decline of other closely
related pollinators has been associated with these pathogens, and it is
highly likely pathogens have had some negative influence on the health
of Franklin's bumble bee populations.
Influence Factors Related to Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Pesticide Use
Exposure to pesticides can occur to bumble bees from direct spray
or drift, or from gathering or consuming contaminated nectar or pollen
(Johansen and Mayer 1990; 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 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28). Documented sub-lethal effects
to individual bumble bees and colonies include reduced or no male
production, reduced or no egg hatch, reduced queen production, reduced
queen longevity, reduced colony weight gain, reduced brood size,
reduced feeding, impaired ovary development, and an increased number of
foragers or foraging trips or duration (interpreted as risky behaviors)
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28). 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28). 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).
Although the use of land for agricultural purposes has
traditionally involved the use of pesticides and other products toxic
to bees, one particular class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids
have been strongly implicated in the decline of honey bees (Apis spp.)
worldwide, and implicated in the decline of several Bombus species
including rusty patched bumble bee, buff-tailed bumble bee, and eastern
bumble bee (Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69; Goulson 2013, pp. 7-8; Colla and
Packer 2008, p. 10; Lundin et al. 2015, p. 7). Neonicotinoids are a
broad class of insecticides based on nicotine compounds used in a
variety of agricultural applications; they act as a neurotoxin,
affecting the central nervous system of insects by interfering with the
receptors of the insects' nervous system, causing overstimulation,
paralysis, and death. The neonicotinoid family of insecticides includes
acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine,
thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam. In the range of the
[[Page 40013]]
Franklin's bumble bee (Jackson, Douglas, and Josephine Counties in
Oregon, as well as Trinity and Siskiyou Counties in California), the
first reported use of imidacloprid was in 1996, thiamethoxam in 2001,
and clothianidin in 2004. The use of neonicotinoid pesticides continued
in the range of the species through 2006, when the last observation of
the Franklin's bumble bee was recorded. Total estimated neonicotinoid
applications increased from 53.35 pounds per acre (lbs/ac) (24.19
kilograms per hectare)(kg/ac) in 1996 to 1,144.128 lbs/ac (518.86 kg/
ha) in 2014; however, the exponential growth of neonicotinoid
applications started in 2011, 5 years after the last observation of the
species. The vast majority of neonicotinoids are used as seed
treatments on grains and other field crops (Oregon Department of
Agriculture 2018, pers. comm.).
No studies have investigated the effects of pesticide use on the
Franklin's bumble bee, and no discoveries have been documented of any
Franklin's bumble bees injured or killed by pesticides. The Franklin's
bumble bee is a habitat generalist and is not known to have a close
association with agricultural lands; therefore, it may have less
exposure to pesticides than some other Bombus species. However,
pesticide use occurs in the range of the Franklin's bumble bee. The
similarity in foraging traits that the Franklin's bumble bee has with
both honey bees and the other Bombus species (e.g., generalist foragers
collecting pollen from similar food sources) allows us to infer that
the Franklin's bumble bee would suffer exposure to and impacts from
pesticides in similar measure to other Bombus species when the
Franklin's bumble bee is in areas where pesticides are applied.
Effects of Small Population Size
The Franklin's bumble bee is rare and has always had very small
populations (relative to other similar, native bumble bees in the
western United States), and likely has low genetic diversity due to the
haplodiploidy genetic system it shares with all Bombus species (Zayed
2009, p. 238). These factors make the species more vulnerable to
habitat change or loss, parasites, diseases, stochastic events, and
other natural disasters such as droughts (Xerces Society and Thorp
2010, p. 20). Between 1998 and 2006, the number of Franklin's bumble
bee observations went from a high of 98 at 11 locations, to a lone
individual in 2006. No observations of the Franklin's bumble bee have
occurred since 2006, despite an increase in the survey effort. Diploid
male production has been detected in naturally occurring populations of
bumble bees, and recent modeling work has shown that diploid male
production may initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a situation in which
genetic traits and environmental conditions combine to lead a species
to extinction) (Goulsen et al. 2008, p. 11.8). Because of inbreeding
and the production of sterile males, the haplodiploid genetic system
makes bumble bees very vulnerable when populations get small (Colla
2018, pers. comm.). Although we have no direct evidence that small
population size or a rapid extinction vortex contributed to the decline
of the species, the genetic system and historically small population
size of the Franklin's bumble bee likely heightened the species'
vulnerability to other stressors in the environment; we, therefore,
consider the effects of small population size a threat to the species.
Competition With Nonnative Bees
The European honey bee (Apis mellifera) was first introduced to
eastern North America in the early 1620s and into California in the
early 1850s (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). The resource needs
of the European honey bee and native Bombus species may overlap,
resulting in the potential for increased competition for resources
(Thomson 2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, p. 407). Decreased foraging
activity and lowered reproductive success of Bombus colonies have been
noted near European honey bee hives (Evans 2001, pp. 32-33; Thomson
2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, p. 407). Additionally, the size of workers
of native Bombus species were noticeably reduced where European honey
bees were present, which may be detrimental to Bombus colony success
(Goulson and Sparrow 2009, p. 177). 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 European honey bee colonies are introduced (Xerces Society
and Thorp 2010, p. 21). We could not find information to indicate that
any area of Franklin's bumble bee habitat in the range of the species
has limited floral resources and large numbers of European honey bees.
We have no information related to the specific placement of commercial
honey bee colonies in or near Franklin's bumble bee habitat.
Furthermore, European honey bees have been present without noticeable
declines in Bombus populations over large portions of their ranges
(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21), and we have no new information
that connects competition from European honey bees to the decline of
the Franklin's bumble bee.
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 eastern
bumble bee workers and one queen were captured in the wild near
greenhouses where commercial bumble bees are used, suggesting this
species may have naturalized outside of its native range. In this
study, the eastern bumble bee, which has a native range in eastern
North America, was detected in western Canada (Ratti and Colla 2010,
pp. 29-31). A study in Japan found that nonnative buff-tailed bumble
bee colonies, founded by bees that had escaped from commercially
produced colonies, had more than four times the mean reproductive
output of native bumble bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p. 93). A study in
England found that commercially raised buff-tailed bumble bee colonies
had higher nectar-foraging rates and greater reproductive output than a
native subspecies of the buff-tailed bumble bee (Ings et al. 2006, p.
940). Colonies of eastern bumble bee were imported to pollinate
agricultural crops and strawberries in Grants Pass, Oregon, in the
range of the Franklin's bumble bee (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p.
18).
Although nonnative Bombus species in the range of Franklin's bumble
bee could outcompete Franklin's bumble bee for floral resources and
nesting habitat, we could not find any information to definitively
connect competition with nonnative bumble bees to the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee. Furthermore, invertebrate surveys in Franklin's
bumble bee habitat continue to show evidence of healthy populations of
other native Bombus species unaffected by competition from nonnative
bees (Pool 2014, entire; Colyer 2016, entire).
Summary
We find that several natural and other human-caused factors
contributed to the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee. While it is
unlikely that pesticides alone can account for the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee, documented effects of pesticides on closely
related Bombus species suggest pesticide use was likely a factor in the
decline of the Franklin's bumble bee. The haplodiploid genetic system
of the Franklin's bumble bee, combined with its historically small
population size, was also likely a factor in the decline of the
species. Although nonnative
[[Page 40014]]
Bombus species in the range of the Franklin's bumble bee could
outcompete the Franklin's bumble bee for floral resources and nesting
habitat, we could not find any information connecting competition with
nonnative bumble bees to the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee.
Additionally, surveys in Franklin's bumble bee habitat continue to show
evidence of healthy populations of other native Bombus species
unaffected by competition from nonnative bees.
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
It is likely that several risk factors are acting cumulatively and
synergistically on many Bombus species, including the Franklin's bumble
bee (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5), and the combination of multiple
stressors is likely more harmful than a stressor acting alone (Gill et
al. 2012; Coors and DeMeester 2008; Sih et al. 2004). There is recent
evidence that the interactive effects of pesticides and pathogens could
be particularly harmful for bumble bees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2018, p. 39). Nutritional stress may compromise the ability of bumble
bees to survive parasitic infections (Brown et al. 2000, pp. 424-425).
Bumble bees with activated immunity may have metabolic costs, such as
increased food consumption (Tyler et al. 2006, p. 2; Moret and Schmid-
Hempel 2000, pp. 1166-1167). Additionally, exposure to pesticides may
increase with increased food consumption in infected bees (Goulson et
al. 2015, p. 5). Activating immunity impairs learning in bumble bees
(Riddell and Mallon 2006; Alghamdi et al. 2008, p. 480). Impaired
learning is thought to reduce the ability of bees to locate floral
resources and extract nectar and pollen, therefore exacerbating
nutritional stresses (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Further, evidence of
the relationship between low genetic diversity and disease
susceptibility was discussed in Cameron et al. (2011b, p. 665), who
stated that declining North American species with low genetic diversity
have higher prevalence of the pathogen N. bombi. In summary, we,
therefore, find that pathogens in combination with pesticides, as well
as pathogens in combination with the effects of small population size,
may have hastened and amplified the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee to a greater degree than any one of the three factors would cause
on its own.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and Conservation Efforts
Surveys conducted by Dr. Robbin Thorp, other private individuals,
University classes and researchers, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau
of Land Management have significantly contributed to the existing
information on Franklin's bumble bee. However, other than those search
efforts, we are aware of no conservation efforts or beneficial actions
specifically taken to address the threats to the Franklin's bumble bee.
Oregon does not include invertebrates on their State endangered species
list (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018) and California has
no bee species included on its list of Threatened and Endangered
Invertebrates (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018).
California has the Franklin's bumble bee listed on its list of
Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority but
has no required actions or special protections associated with the
listing (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2017, p. 10). The
Franklin's bumble bee is on the species index for the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status/
Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). Although the Federal agencies do
include the species in survey efforts and conduct general meadow
enhancement activities, there are no actions resulting from the ISSSSP
classification that address known threats to the Franklin's bumble bee
(Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program 2018).
General awareness of colony collapse disorder and increase of
conservation efforts for pollinators in general has likely had limited,
indirect effects on policies and regulations. The U.S. Forest Service
is working to include a section in all biological evaluations to
address the effects from agency actions on pollinators. In addition,
the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is currently implementing
projects and mitigations to create and enhance pollinator habitat
(Colyer 2018, pers. comm.). The Oregon Department of Agriculture
restricts some potential sources of N. bombi from entering the State
for agricultural uses, including commercially produced colonies of
eastern bumble bee; only Bombus species native to Oregon are allowed
for commercial pollination purposes (Oregon Department of Agriculture
2017, p. 5). However, California allows, with appropriate permits, the
importation of eastern bumble bee, and other species such as the blue
orchard bee (Osmia lignaria) for greenhouse pollination (California
Department of Food and Agriculture 2017), making the potential for
pathogen spillover from non-native bees higher in California.
Some local municipalities in Oregon enacted legislation against
aerial pesticide applications but none in the range of the Franklin's
bumble bee (Powell 2017, p. 1; City of Portland 2015, p. 2). However,
in the 2017 legislative session, Oregon passed an Avoidance of Adverse
Effects on Pollinating Insects law (Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
634.045) that is providing enhanced training of licensed and unlicensed
pesticide applicators in the State (Melathopoulos 2018, pers. comm.),
and could thereby reduce effects of pesticides on pollinators including
Franklin's bumble bee.
In January 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Pesticide Programs published their Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk
to Bees from Pesticide Products, which recommended new labeling
statements for pesticide products including warnings for pesticides
with a known acute toxicity to bees (Tier 1 pesticides), including
neonicotinoids (specifically including imidacloprid, clothianidin, and
thiamethoxam) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017, p. 31). In
addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is working with State and
Tribal agencies to develop and implement local pollinator protection
plans, known as Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). The
Environmental Protection Agency is promoting MP3s to address potential
pesticide exposure to bees at and beyond the site of the application.
However, States and Tribes have the flexibility to determine the scope
of pollinator protection plans that best responds to pollinator issues
in their regions. For example, State and Tribal MP3s may address
pesticide-related risks to all pollinators, including managed bees and
wild insect and non-insect pollinators (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2018).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented a ban on the use of
neonicotinoids on all lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System in
2014 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014); however, no refuge lands
occur within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee. None of these
aforementioned measures has appreciably reduced or fully ameliorated
threats to the Franklin's bumble bee, as evidenced by the species'
acute and rangewide decline.
Summary of Status
The significant decrease in abundance and distribution of the
Franklin's bumble bee to date has greatly reduced the species' ability
to adapt to changing environmental conditions and to guard against
further losses of adaptive diversity and potential extinction due to
catastrophic events. It also substantially
[[Page 40015]]
reduced the ability of the Franklin's bumble bee to withstand
environmental variation, catastrophic events, and changes in physical
and biological conditions. Coupled with the increased risk of
extirpation due to the interaction of reduced population size and the
species' haplodiploid genetic system, the Franklin's bumble bee may
lack the resiliency required to sustain populations into the future,
even without further exposure to pathogens and pesticides.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424 set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened
determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available to him after
conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into
account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The
standards for determining whether a species is endangered or threatened
are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is any species
that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.''
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Franklin's bumble bee. Our assessment did not find habitat loss
or modification (Factor A) to be the cause of the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information to suggest that
habitat destruction or modification will increase in intensity in the
near future. There is no indication that the Franklin's bumble bee was
at risk of overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B). Known pathogens occur within the
historical range of the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have evidence of
several pathogens (Factor C) infecting closely related species within
that range. Although we do not have direct evidence of pathogens
playing a role in the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee, the
disappearance of the Franklin's bumble bee occurred soon after a period
of introduction of new pathogens. Furthermore, documented effects to
other closely related species lead many species experts to suspect the
effects of pathogens had some connection to the decline of the
Franklin's bumble bee. We evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) and conservation measures and their effects on the stressors
and the status of the Franklin's bumble bee; we found that the existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation measures in place do not
appreciably reduce or ameliorate the existing threats to the species,
as evidenced by the species' acute and rangewide decline. Although we
have no direct evidence that pesticide use contributed to the decline
of the Franklin's bumble bee, confirmed effects to other closely
related Bombus species suggest that pesticide use (Factor E) was likely
a factor in the decline of the Franklin's bumble bee. Additionally,
given the historically small population size (Factor E) of the
Franklin's bumble bee and its haplodiploid genetic system, it is more
vulnerable to extirpation than other species, and it is likely the
genetic system and the rarity of this species contributed to the
decline of the Franklin's bumble bee (Factor E).
The combination of multiple stressors is typically more harmful
than a stressor acting alone, and it is likely that several of the
stressors mentioned above acted cumulatively and synergistically on the
Franklin's bumble bee. Pathogens in combination with pesticides, as
well as pathogens in combination with the effects of small population
size, may have hastened and amplified the decline of the Franklin's
bumble bee to a greater degree than any one of the three factors caused
on its own. Although the ultimate source of the decline is unknown, the
acute and rangewide decline of the Franklin's bumble bee is
undisputable.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Franklin's bumble bee
is presently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range based
on the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting the
species.
The threats of pathogens, pesticides, and small population size are
ongoing and rangewide; they will continue to act individually and in
combination to decrease the resiliency, redundancy, and representation
of the Franklin's bumble bee. The risk of extinction is high because
the species has not been found since 2006, and the suspected threats to
the species persist. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the
Franklin's bumble bee as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not
appropriate for the Franklin's bumble bee because of the extreme loss
of abundance of the species, because the threats are occurring
rangewide and are not localized, and because the threats are ongoing
and expected to continue into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
Franklin's bumble bee is in danger of extinction throughout its range,
we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially
significant portions of the range. Where the best available information
allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide,
that determination should be given conclusive weight because a
rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species'
degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute.
Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is
appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a
``significant portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a
species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened
according to the ``all'' language. We note that the court in Desert
Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL
4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue, and our
conclusion is therefore consistent with the opinion in that case.
Although this species has not been found since 2006, we conclude it
is premature at this time to determine that the species is extinct
absent a more thorough survey effort. We invite public comment on the
probability of extinction for this species and will revisit this
conclusion as appropriate with respect to available information for the
final determination. We recommend expanded future survey efforts to
help verify the status of this species.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local
[[Page 40016]]
agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are
discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline will be available
on our website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets; State
programs; and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Oregon and California
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the Franklin's bumble bee.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Franklin's bumble bee is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include: Management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions would be unlikely to result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act if they are authorized and carried out in
[[Page 40017]]
accordance with applicable law; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Recreation, specifically skiing at Mt. Ashland, and use of the
Pacific Crest Trail;
(2) Timber sales; and
(3) Livestock grazing.
Based on the best available information, the following actions may
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they are
not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the Franklin's bumble
bee;
(2) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of the Franklin's bumble bee, including the
unauthorized use of herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals in
habitats in which the Franklin's bumble bee is known to occur; and
(3) Unauthorized release of nonnative species or native species
that carry pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are known or suspected to
adversely affect the Franklin's bumble bee where the species is known
to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``geographical area
occupied by the species'' as: An area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
specific features that support the life-history needs of the species,
including but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more
complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include
habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat
conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for
the conservation of the species by considering the life-history,
status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further
informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive
foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are
essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the
development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area
currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time
of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may
be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
[[Page 40018]]
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species. The regulations also provide that, in determining whether
a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may
consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species'
habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas
meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)).
As discussed above in the threats analysis, there is currently no
imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism
identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a species, we next determine whether
such designation of critical habitat would be beneficial to the
Franklin's bumble bee. For the reasons discussed below, we have
determined that designating critical habitat would not be beneficial.
Designating Habitat Would Not Be Beneficial to the Species
The Franklin's bumble bee was widely distributed throughout its
range and considered flexible with regards to habitat requirements. We
know that the Franklin's bumble bee needs (1) floral resources for
nectaring throughout the colony cycle, and (2) relatively protected
areas for breeding and shelter. In addition, because the best available
scientific information indicates that the Franklin's bumble bee is a
generalist forager, its habitat preferences and needs are relatively
plentiful and widely distributed. While Bombus species in general might
prefer protected meadows with an abundance of wildflowers, the
Franklin's bumble bee has been found in a wide array of habitat types,
from foraging in montane meadows in a remote wilderness area of
California to nesting in a residential garage in the city limits of
Medford, Oregon. The species has a broad elevational range from 162 m
(540 ft) to 2,340 m (7,800 ft); elevation does not appear to limit the
species' dispersal capabilities.
Some general habitat associations of Bombus are known; however, as
one of the rarest Bombus species, the Franklin's bumble bee is somewhat
enigmatic and a specific habitat study for the Franklin's bumble bee
has not been completed. Such a study was initiated in 2006, when the
Franklin's bumble bee was last seen, but could not continue due to the
subsequent absence of the species. Therefore, we cannot, with
specificity, articulate the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Franklin's bumble bee, or determine whether
or not any area would meet the definition of critical habitat for the
Franklin's bumble bee.
Since it was first identified in 1921, the Franklin's bumble bee
appears to have always been a rare species limited in abundance. In
fact, the species has perhaps the most limited range of any Bombus
species in the world. Nonetheless, Franklin's bumble bee habitat is not
in short supply, and habitat loss is not a threat to the species. With
the exception of the inundation of two historical Franklin's bumble bee
locations by the construction of Applegate dam and a report of soil
modification on a portion of the Gold Hill site four years after the
last occurrence of Franklin's bumble bee in the area, no noticeable
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range can be
identified in areas where the species had been previously located. No
significant destruction or modification of Franklin's bumble bee
habitat can be attributed to natural fire, prescribed fire,
agricultural intensification, urban development, livestock grazing, or
the effects of climate change. Additionally, as discussed above, the
Franklin's bumble bee has been documented using a wide variety of
habitat throughout its range. Because habitat for the Franklin's bumble
bee is not limiting, and because the bee is considered to be flexible
with regards to its habitat, the availability of habitat does not limit
the conservation of the Franklin's bumble bee now, nor will it in the
foreseeable future.
In the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service's response to
comments on the February 11, 2016, final rule (81 FR 7414) revising the
critical habitat regulations, the Services expressly contemplated a
fact pattern where designating critical habitat may not be beneficial
to the species: ``[I]n some circumstances, a species may be listed
because of factors other than threats to its habitat or range, such as
disease, and the species may be a habitat generalist. In such a case,
on the basis of the existing and revised regulations, it is permissible
to determine that critical habitat is not beneficial and, therefore,
not prudent'' (81 FR 7425). This is the fact pattern we are presented
with in the case of the Franklin's bumble bee. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat is not a threat to the
Franklin's bumble bee; rather, disease and other manmade factors are
likely the primary threat to the species within its habitat. Therefore,
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), we determine that critical
habitat is not beneficial and, therefore, not prudent for the
Franklin's bumble bee.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
[[Page 40019]]
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0044 and upon request from the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office and Pacific Region Office in
Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Bumble bee,
Franklin's'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under INSECTS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Bumble bee, Franklin's........... Bombus franklini... Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: January 31, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on August 7, 2019.
[FR Doc. 2019-17337 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P