Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)

[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:
http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 (http://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: http://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 http://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