Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56381-56391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23282]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Franklin's Bumble Bee as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Franklin's bumble bee (Bombus
franklini) as endangered and to designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing this species may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
review of the status of the species to determine if listing the
Franklin's bumble bee is warranted. To ensure that this status review
is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before November 14, 2011. The
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date. After November 14, 2011, you must submit information
directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the
Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel at the top of the
screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules
link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Submit a Comment.''
Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before
submitting your comment.
(2) U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS-R1-ES-2011-0065; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE
98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266, by telephone 503-231-6179, or
by facsimile 503-231-6195. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the
Franklin's bumble bee throughout its range, which includes parts of
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and
Trinity counties in California, from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Information on pathogens and parasites within and near the
range of the Franklin's bumble bee and potential pathways for
introductions, including:
(a) Historical and recent records of Nosema bombi, Crithidia bombi,
Apicystis bombi, Locustacarus buchneri, deformed wing virus and other
bee pathogens and parasites within parts of Douglas, Jackson, and
Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity counties in
California, and recent studies about known or potential bumble bee
pathogens and their effects on bumble bees; and
(b) The transport and use of commercial honey bees or bumble bees
including species, year(s) of use, type(s) of use (e.g., greenhouse or
open field pollination) and any associated State or Federal quarantine,
inspection, permit, compliance, and enforcement action records related
to the import and transport of bees in and around parts of Douglas,
Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity
counties in California;
(3) Information on environmental changes that have occurred within
the range of the Franklin's bumble bee that may be associated with
climate change or other factors.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the
Franklin's bumble bee is warranted, we will

[[Page 56382]]

propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the
Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore,
within the geographical range currently occupied by the Franklin's
bumble bee, we request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,''
(2) Where these features are currently found, and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the Franklin's bumble bee
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment, during normal
business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

On June 28, 2010, we received a petition dated June 23, 2010, from
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Dr. Robbin W.
Thorp, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis,
requesting that the Franklin's bumble bee be listed as endangered and
that critical habitat be designated under the Act (hereafter cited as
``Petition''). The petition clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners,
as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioners dated
August 16, 2010, we responded that we had reviewed the information
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act was not warranted. Our response also stated that we would not be
able to address the petition at that time due to court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements with specific deadlines, listing
actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and high-priority listing
actions that required us to spend most of our listing and critical
habitat funding for fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2011, we received
funding to address this petition.

Previous Federal Actions

On January 6, 1989, we published a notice of review that assigned
category 2 status to the Franklin's bumble bee (54 FR 554). Category 2
candidates were species for which we had information indicating that
protection under the Act may be warranted, but the information was
insufficient to determine if elevation to category 1 candidate status
was appropriate. Category 2 status was maintained for the Franklin's
bumble bee in Candidate Review notices published on November 21, 1991
(56 FR 58804) and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). We discontinued the
practice of maintaining the list of category 2 candidate species in
1996 (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). Franklin's bumble bee has not
held a Federal conservation status designation since 1996.

Species Information

Taxonomy
Bombus (formerly Bremus) franklini was originally described by
Frison (1921, pp. 144-148). Several studies have been published on the
taxonomic relationship of the Franklin's bumble bee to other bumble
bees ((Stephen 1957, pp. 79-81; Milliron 1971, pp. 58-67; Plowright and
Stephen 1980, pp. 475-479; Thorp et al. 1983, pp. 29-30; Scholl et al.
1992, pp. 46-51; Cameron et al. 2007, p. 173) (Note--common names are
used in this finding, when presented in the petition or available in
our files; otherwise, only the scientific names are used.). With the
exception of Milliron (1971), who assigned the Franklin's bumble bee
subspecific status under B. terricola occidentalis, all of these
studies have accorded the Franklin's bumble bee its own specific rank.
The Franklin's bumble bee is also recognized as a valid species in the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2011). Therefore, we
recognize the Franklin's bumble bee as a valid species and, therefore,
a potentially listable entity under the Act.
Physical Description
As described by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 5-6), the Franklin's
bumble bees is readily distinguished from other bumble bees in its
range by: (1) The extended yellow coloration on the anterior thorax
(the middle division of an insect between the head and abdomen), which
extends well beyond the wing bases and forms an inverted U-shape around
the central patch of black; (2) the lack of yellow on the abdomen; (3)
a predominantly black face with

[[Page 56383]]

yellow on the top of the head; and (4) white coloration at the tip of
the abdomen. Other bumble bees with similar coloration in the range of
the Franklin's bumble bee have the yellow coloration extending back to
the wing bases or only slightly beyond, and usually have one or more
bands of yellow either on the middle or slightly behind the middle of
the abdomen. Females of most species have yellow pubescence (fine hair-
like structures) on the face, in contrast to black on the Franklin's
bumble bee. Females of the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) and
B. californicus that have black pubescence on the face also have the
same coloration on the vertex (the top or crown of the head), in
contrast to the yellow pubescence on the vertex in the Franklin's
bumble bee. Females of B. californicus have a long face in contrast to
the round face of the Franklin's bumble bee and the western bumble bee.
The two types of females (queens and workers), and the males share
similar characteristics, although there are some differences.
Life History
As described in the petition (pp. 10-11), the Franklin's bumble bee
is a primitively eusocial bumble bee (i.e., the queen is not well-
differentiated from her workers). Eusocial organisms live in
cooperative groups with both reproductive and nonreproductive
individuals, and different types of individuals carry out different
specialized tasks such as reproduction, defense, or foraging. Like all
other bumble bees, this species lives in colonies consisting of a queen
and her female workers and male offspring. Queens are responsible for
initiating colonies and laying eggs. Workers are responsible for most
food collection, colony defense, nest construction, and feeding of the
young. The function of male bumble bees is to mate with new queens
produced at the end of the colony season. Bumble bee colonies depend on
floral resources for their nutritional needs; nectar provides
carbohydrates and pollen provides protein. The petitioners state that
the Franklin's bumble bee is restricted to habitat patches where its
host species are present, and its limited historical distribution
suggests that it probably has a limited ability to disperse.
The nesting biology of the Franklin's bumble bee is unknown, but
like other Bombus species, it is believed to nest underground in grassy
areas, presumably in abandoned rodent burrows (Plath 1927, pp. 122-128;
Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). It may
occasionally nest on the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or in rock
piles (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 475). Bumble bee colonies are
annual occurrences, starting from colony initiation in spring by
solitary, mated queens that emerge out of hibernation to search for
appropriate nesting sites. There are differences among various bumble
bee species in their foraging ranges. Species such as B. terrestris and
B. lapidaries forage farther afield than so-called ``doorstep''
foragers, such as B. pascuorum, B. sylvarum, B. ruderarius, and B.
muscorum. It is perhaps significant that the former two species remain
ubiquitous in much of Europe, whereas three of the four doorstep
foragers have declined. In theory, a larger foraging range gives a
greater chance of colony survival in areas where the average density of
floral resources is highly patchy (Goulsen et al. 2007, p. 11.12).
Although the maximum flight distance of B. franklini is not known, as
noted above, the petitioners suggest that the species is most likely
not capable of long-distance flight, based on its restricted range.
Franklin's bumble bee has been observed collecting pollen from lupine
(Lupinus spp.) and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and
collecting nectar from horsemint or nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache
urticifolia) and mountain monardella (Monardella odoratissima)
(Petition, p. 11).
In the early stages of colony development, the queen is responsible
for all food collection and care of the larvae. The queen collects
nectar and pollen from flowers to support the production of her eggs,
which are fertilized by sperm she has stored since mating the previous
fall. As the colony grows, the workers take over the duties of food
collection, colony defense, nest construction, and larval care, while
the queen remains within the nest and spends most of her time laying
eggs (Petition, pp. 10-11). Generally, bumble bee colonies consist of
multiple broods, with the number of workers for some species ranging
from 50 to 400 at their peak (Plath 1927, pp. 123-124; Thorp et al.
1983, p. 2, Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). Two colonies of Franklin's
bumble bees that were initiated in the laboratory and moved to a field
location to complete development contained over 60 workers each when
censused (counted) in early September, and may have reached a total
worker complement of well over 100 individuals by the end of the season
(Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 477).
The flight season of the Franklin's bumble bee is typically from
mid-May to the end of September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30), although a
few individuals have been encountered as late as October (Petition, pp.
34-40). Reproductive queens and males are produced near the end of the
colony cycle. Queens usually mate with only one male, but males may
mate with multiple queens. After mating, the queens feed to build up
their fat reserves. The founding queen and all workers and males from
the colony die by the end of the season, and inseminated new queens go
into hibernation and are left to carry on the line the following year
(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 2009, p. 3).
Range and Distribution
The Franklin's bumble bee is thought to have the most limited
distribution of all known North American bumble bee species (Plowright
and Stephen, p. 479; Petition, p. 6), and one of the most limited
geographic distributions of any bumble bee in the world (Williams 1998,
as cited in the petition (p. 6)). The original description by Frison
(1921, pp. 313-315) was based on two queens reported from Nogales,
Arizona. These localities were later determined to be outside of the
distribution of all other specimens subsequently assigned to the
species, and the location reports were invalidated (Stephen 1957, p.
79; Thorp 1970, pp. 177-180). All other specimens assignable to the
species have been found in an area about 190 miles (mi) (306 kilometers
(km)) to the north and south and 70 mi (113 km) to east to west between
122[deg] to 124[deg] west longitude and 40[deg] 58' to 43[deg] 30'
north latitude in Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in southern
Oregon, and in Siskiyou and Trinity counties in northern California
(Thorp 1999, p. 3; Thorp 2005c, p. 1; IUCN 2009, p. 1).
Survey Efforts
A survey effort specifically focused on the Franklin's bumble bee
began in 1998 and continued through 2009 at sites representing both
historical and potential new localities for the species. According to
the information provided in the petition (Thorp 2001, 2004, 2005a,
2005c), from 9 to 17 historical sites (averaging 13.8 sites annually),
and from 2 to 23 additional sites were surveyed each year during this
period, and some sites were visited more than once per year, or in
multiple years. As presented in Table 1 of the petition, these surveys
appear to have been conducted throughout the known range of the species
(Petition, p. 9).
During the surveys, the Franklin's bumble bee was observed at 11
sites,

[[Page 56384]]

including 7 locations where it had not been previously documented.
According to the petitioners, despite continued surveys through 2009,
no observations of the Franklin's bumble bee have been reported since
2006, when a single worker was observed at Mt. Ashland in Oregon (Thorp
2008, p. 5). The number of sightings was at its highest in 1998 when
surveys were initiated and 94 individuals were documented (Petition, p.
9), and then fluctuated between 0 and 20 individuals in subsequent
years up until 2006. In 2006, the Bureau of Land Management conducted a
survey of 16 sites that were believed to provide optimal habitat for
the Franklin's bumble bee. Each site was surveyed twice by trained
technicians, but no Franklin's bumble bees were found (Code and Haney
2006, p. 3). While it has been postulated that the species may be
extinct (Natural Research Council 2007, p. 43; NatureServe 2010, p. 1),
we do not consider the available evidence to be conclusive, since one
individual was observed during surveys in 2006 even after none had been
observed in the previous 2 years (Petition, p. 4), and there may be
other unknown populations. The failure to detect a species during
surveys is not equivalent to a conclusive demonstration of its absence,
but may simply reflect the detection probability for that species,
which decreases as a function of rarity.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering which factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the Franklin's bumble bee, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below. The petitioner
stated it is likely that disease outbreak in commercial bee pollination
facilities in North America, such as the one reported in 1998 (see
below discussion), is one major cause responsible for the major severe
declines seen in the Franklin's bumble bee since that time, although
their current status is not known in detail (Code et al. 2006, p. 2).
There is some information available on threats specific to the
Franklin's bumble bee, although much of the information presented in
the petition was extrapolated from what is known about other bumble bee
species.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petition asserts that threats that have altered Franklin's
bumble bee habitat include agricultural intensification (increases in
farm sizes and operating efficiencies related to production
(irrigation, tilling, etc.)), water impoundments, livestock grazing,
urban development, fragmentation of landscapes, natural and introduced
fire, and invasive species. The petitioners believe these threats are
even more significant and can have a more pronounced impact on the
extinction potential of an animal that has been reduced to just a few
locations, which they believe is the case with the Franklin's bumble
bee (Petition, p. 12). Many of the petitioner's assertions involve
activities that may have historically affected habitat for the
Franklin's bumble bee, but may no longer be acting on the species.
Factor A requires an evaluation of the present (i.e., ongoing) or
threatened (i.e., foreseeable) impacts to a species' habitat or range.
Accordingly, although historical habitat loss may be instructive with
regard to conditions leading to a species' current status, it does not
represent an ongoing or foreseeable threat under Factor A. Each of the
petitioner's assertions is described in more detail below.
Agricultural Intensification
The petitioners reported one pre-2004 agricultural activity within
the Franklin's bumble bee's historical range near Gold Hill in Jackson
County, Oregon, where significant excavation and soil deposition
altered approximately 50 percent of the available bumble bee foraging
habitat (Petition, p. 12). Several references provided with the
petition confirm that agricultural intensification can negatively
impact wild bees by reducing the floral resource diversity and
abundance needed for forage (Johansen 1977, p. 177; Williams 1986, p.
57; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 89; Hines and Hendrix 2005, p. 1477; Carvell
et al. 2006, p. 481; Diek[ouml]tter et al. 2006, p. 57; Fitzpatrick et
al. 2007, p. 185; Kosior et al. 2007, pp. 81, 84-86; [Ouml]ckinger and
Smith 2007, p. 50; Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.1; IUCN 2009, p. 2; Le
F[eacute]on et al. 2010, p. 143) and causing loss of nest sites
(Johansen 1977, p. 177; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 89; Diek[ouml]tter et
al. 2006, p. 57; [Ouml]ckinger and Smith 2007, p. 50; Goulson et al.
2008, p. 11.4). Agricultural intensification was determined to be a
primary factor leading to the local extirpation and decline of Illinois
bumble bees (Grixti et al. 2009, p. 75), and the decline of bumble bees
and cuckoo bees (Bombini spp.) in countries across western and central
Europe (Kosior et al. 2007, pp. 81). The petition did not present any
information indicating impacts related to agricultural intensification
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently occupied habitat for the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Water Impoundments
The petitioners reported that two historical Franklin's bumble bee
sites in

[[Page 56385]]

Jackson County, Oregon, were inundated following the completion of
Applegate Dam in 1980; historical records for the Franklin's bumble bee
were documented at this location in 1963 and 1968. The petition did not
present any information indicating that impacts related to water
impoundments are ongoing or foreseeable in currently occupied habitat
for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files
in this regard.
Livestock Grazing
The petitioners stated that U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Forest Service lands historically occupied by the Franklin's bumble bee
are periodically subject to substantial livestock impact (Petition, p.
13). According to the petition, livestock grazing may adversely impact
bumble bee populations by: (1) Depleting food resources (Morris 1967,
p. 472; Sugden 1985, p. 299; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002b, p. 1570;
Vazquez and Simberloff 2003, p. 1081; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p.
150); (2) trampling nesting sites (Sugden 1985, p. 299); and (3)
negatively impacting ground-nesting rodents (Johnson and Horn 2008, p.
444; Schmidt et al. 2009, p. 1), which may in turn reduce the number of
nest sites available for bumble bees.
The petition stated that livestock grazing has differing impacts on
flora and fauna based on the type, habitat, intensity, timing and
length of grazing (Gibson et al. 1992, p. 174; Carvell 2002, p. 44;
Kruess and Tscharntke 2002a, p. 293; Kruess and Tscharntke 2002b, p.
1577). Several studies of livestock grazing impacts on bees suggest
increased intensity of livestock grazing negatively affects the species
richness of bees (Morris 1967, p. 473; Sugden 1985, p. 309; Vazquez and
Simberloff 2003, p. 1080; Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, p. 156).
Interestingly, one study cited by the petitioners suggests that
grazing, especially by cattle (as opposed to sheep or mowing), can play
a key positive role in maintaining the abundance and species richness
of preferred bumble bee forage (Carvell 2001, p. 44). The petition did
not present any information indicating that livestock grazing impacts
are ongoing or foreseeable in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard.
Urban Development
One study in Boston, Massachusetts, concluded that human-built
structures, such as roads and railroads, can fragment plant populations
and restrict bumble bee movement (Bhattacharya et al. 2003, p. 37).
Another study of the factors adversely affecting bumble bees and cuckoo
bees in western and central Europe found the expansion of urban areas
to be an important driver of pollinator loss in approximately half of
the countries examined (Kosior et al. 2007, p. 81). The petitioners
stated that while urban parks and gardens may provide habitat for some
pollinators, including bumble bees (Frankie et al. 2005, p. 227;
McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006, p. 372), they tend not to support the
species richness that was either present historically or found in
nearby wild landscapes (petition p. 13; McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006, p.
378). The petitioners reported that the Franklin's bumble bee has been
found in urban areas of Ashland, Oregon, and that nests of a close
relative, the western bumble bee, have been found in urban San
Francisco, California (Petition, p. 13).
Thorp (1999, p. 12) stated that increased urbanization in areas in
Oregon (Ashland, Medford-Central Point, Grants Pass and Roseburg) may
have already reduced historical populations of the Franklin's bumble
bee. The author also stated that the Franklin's bumble bee was found on
the Southern Oregon University campus as recently as spring 1998, and
acknowledged that most major urban areas within the range of the
species have not been intensively surveyed (Thorp 1999, p. 8). The
petition did not present any information indicating urban development
impacts are ongoing or foreseeable in currently or most recently
occupied habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no
information in our files in this regard.
Habitat Fragmentation
The petitioners asserted that habitat fragmentation from land uses
such as agriculture, grazing, urban development and other factors is a
threat to the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 13). One study found
that populations of a number of bumble bee species have become
increasingly small, making them more vulnerable to local extinctions
and less able to recolonize extirpated habitat patches (Goulsen et al.
2008, pp. 11.6-11.7). Fragmentation can alter pollinator community
composition, change foraging behavior of bumble bees and reduce bee
foraging rates (Kearns and Inouye, 1997, p. 299; [Ouml]ckinger and
Smith 2007, p. 50; Rusterholz and Baur 2010, p. 148). Bumble bees have
been found to be susceptible to the disruption of healthy
metapopulation structures due to fragmentation (National Research
Council 2007, p. 93; Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7), and studies suggest
fragmented bumble bee populations can suffer from inbreeding depression
as a result of geographic isolation (Darvill et al. 2006, p. 601,
Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7). Fragmentation is believed to be one of
the factors contributing to the decline of bumble bees and cuckoo bees
in countries across western and central Europe (Kosior et al. 2010, pp.
81). Information regarding the effects of habitat fragmentation on the
Franklin's bumble bee was not provided by the petitioners, although
they did present conclusions from studies of other bumble bee species
(Petition, p. 13). We have no information available in our files
regarding habitat fragmentation of Franklin's bumble bee habitat.
However, as stated earlier, there are differences among bumble bee
species in their foraging range; some forage farther afield than other
species. A larger foraging range gives a greater chance of colony
survival in areas where the average density of floral resources becomes
highly patchy because of habitat fragmentation (Goulsen et al. 2007, p.
11.12). Although further study would be required, the threat of habitat
fragmentation would be expected to be greater if the Franklin's bumble
bee's geographically limited range is related to a limited foraging
distance, as suggested by the petitioners (Petition, p. 20).
Natural and Prescribed Fire
The petition asserted that current fuel loads, including invasive
trees and shrubs, combined with reduction and fragmentation of
Franklin's bumble bee populations, and reduction in size of native
meadows, makes natural or prescribed burning a potential threat
(Petition, p. 14). Generally, fire suppression can lead to increased
fuel loads and tree densities that dramatically increase the risk of
severe fire (Huntzinger 2003, p. 1), and degradation and loss of native
prairies and grasslands can occur in the absence of fire due to
succession of plant communities to habitats dominated by invasive and
woody vegetation (Schultz and Crone 1998, p. 245). Using prescribed
fire is a common practice for restoring and managing native prairie and
grassland plant communities (Panzer 2002, p. 1297). Although the use of
prescribed fire is generally beneficial to insect populations that rely
on grassland habitats by maintaining suitable habitat conditions, some
taxa can be negatively affected, especially in the short-term (Schultz
and Crone 1998, p. 244; Panzer 2002, p. 1296).
The petitioners believe that increased fuel loads due to long-term
fire suppression could result in a large-

[[Page 56386]]

scale, high-temperature fire that could potentially extirpate an entire
population of the Franklin's bumble bee if it were to occur in an area
where they are concentrated (Petition, p. 14). The petition did not
present any information indicating the extent to which natural or
prescribed fire has occurred in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard. The petition characterized natural or
prescribed fire as a threat to the Franklin's bumble bee because of
current site fuel loads (invasive trees and shrubs), combined with the
reduction and fragmentation of populations and habitat (Petition, p.
14). Because of current site fuel loads, as characterized by the
petitioner, we consider this potential threat to be reasonably
foreseeable, even though the timing, magnitude, and location of natural
fire events (or prescribed fires that become wild fire events) is
unpredictable.
Invasive Species
The petitioners stated that the ``invasion and dominance of native
grasslands by exotic plants is a common issue'' (Warren 1993, p. 47;
Schultz and Crone 1998, p. 244), which has likely occurred at
historical Franklin's bumble bee sites (Petition, p. 14). Invasive
plant species that displace native plant communities have the potential
to negatively impact the Franklin's bumble bee if they provide less
pollen or nectar than the native species, or if they bloom during a
different time period than the native plant species available for
foraging (Petition, p. 14; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 103). The petition
did not present any information indicating that invasive species-
related impacts are occurring in currently or most recently occupied
habitat for the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in
our files in this regard.
Summary of Factor A
The publications cited by the petitioners appear to support their
assertions that agricultural intensification, livestock grazing, urban
development, fragmentation of landscapes, natural and introduced fire,
and invasive species can pose threats to bumble bees and other
pollinators in general; however, very little information was presented
with which to correlate these potential threats to habitat occupied
specifically by the Franklin's bumble bee. In addition, one of the
petition references indicates that, during surveys conducted from 1998
to 2004, it was observed that most of the sites surveyed remained
suitable habitat, based on the constant abundance of other bumble bee
species (Thorp 2005c, p. 4). The petition does not indicate whether the
sites surveyed from 1998 to 2004 encompass all areas potentially
habitable by the Franklin's bumble bee, and implies that at least some
sites may have become unsuitable habitat. We have no information
available in our files that provides any additional information in this
regard.
We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the Franklin's bumble bee may
warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat, primarily due to the potential
impacts of natural or prescribed fire to remaining populations. Habitat
fragmentation may additionally pose a threat to the Franklin's bumble
bee, although at present we do not have sufficient information to
assess the degree of fragmentation that has occurred within its range,
or to determine the dispersal limitations of the species. There is no
substantial information indicating that agricultural intensification,
water impoundments, livestock grazing, urban development, or invasive
species specifically, are currently impacting Franklin's bumble bee
habitat, or will impact the species' habitat in the foreseeable future.
However, we will assess each of these potential threats more thoroughly
during our status review, in order to better quantify potential effects
on the Franklin's bumble bee.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted that, while generally the collection of
insects does not present a threat to their populations, the collection
of a small number of Franklin's bumble bee queens could significantly
reduce the production of offspring and pose a threat to the entire
species due to its rarity, small populations, and relatively low
fecundity compared to most insects (Petition, p. 14). Based on a table
of historical and recent records presented by the petitioners,
Franklin's bumble bee specimens (including queens) have been collected
as recently as 1998, and deposited at several universities and museums.
There are records of 28 queens collected between 1950 and 1998; the
records since 1998 are based on observations only with no collections
of males, workers, or queens noted (Petition, pp. 34-40). In 1998, the
year that the most recent surveys for the Franklin's bumble bee were
initiated and the last year for any documented collections (i.e., where
specimens were retained), the highest number of individuals ever
documented was recorded (94 individuals), and 4 queens were collected
by another individual. We are unaware of any collections beyond those
documented in the table of historical and recent records provided in
the petition (Petition, pp. 34-40). The petition did not present any
information indicating that the collection of Franklin's bumble bee
queens is currently occurring, and we have no information in our files
in this regard.
Summary of Factor B
Neither the petition nor information available in our files
presents substantial scientific or commercial information that
collection of Franklin's bumble bee queens is still occurring, or if
so, occurring at a level that impacts the overall status of the
species. In addition, we have no information indicating pre-1998
collections may have been a factor resulting in the Franklin's bumble
bee's current population status, although queen specimens have been
retained for scientific collections in the past (last recorded in
1998). Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes may present a threat such that the petitioned
action may be warranted. However, we will assess this factor more
thoroughly during our status review for the species.

C. Disease or Predation.

Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners asserted there is potential for the spread of an
exotic strain of the microsporidium (parasitic fungus) Nosema and other
disease organisms, such as the protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi,
tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri, or deformed wing virus through
wild populations of the Franklin's bumble bee and other species in the
subgenus Bombus in North America. While no specific examples were
provided within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee, the petitioners
hypothesize that the main cause of the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee is due to a disease organism introduced through the use of

[[Page 56387]]

commercially reared bumble bee colonies (Petition, p. 14).
Commercial bumble bee production started in North America in the
early 1990s (Petition, p. 15). The petitioners stated that commercially
produced bumble bee colonies that were potential carriers of pests or
disease were distributed throughout much of North America, when the
Franklin's bumble bee and other closely related wild bumble bees
started to decline. In addition to being used for commercial
pollination, western bumble bee colonies were used in field research
between 1991 and 2000 in California, Washington, and Alberta, Canada
(Mayer et al. 1994, p. 21; Mayer and Lunden 1997, p. 283; Richards and
Myers 1997, p. 293; Mayer and Lunden 2001, p. 277; Thomson 2004, p.
460). The petition referenced a news story published by the Associated
Press that highlighted a strawberry and vegetable grower in Grants
Pass, Oregon (within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee), who
purchased Bombus impatiens hives in 2007 to pollinate his crop
(Associated Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). In 2007, there was also a
proposal by a commercial bee company to import nonnative bumble bees
(B. impatiens) for the pollination of field crops in the State of
California (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2006, pp. 1-
59).
The Service found that bees were proposed for use less than 150 mi
(241 km) from the southern extent of the historical range of the
Franklin's bumble bee and raised concerns about potential impacts to
the species. In a comment letter to the California Department of
Agriculture dated January 17, 2007, the Service specifically mentioned
the risk of potential disease transmission that could occur if infected
hives were shipped through or used in areas where commercial bees could
come into contact with Franklin's bumble bee, and requested that an
analysis of potential effects to the species be conducted in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, pp. 1-2). Information about the outcome is not available
in our files. Parasites and pathogens have been found to spread from
commercial bee colonies to native bee populations through a process
sometimes referred to as ``pathogen spillover'' (Colla et al. 2006, p.
461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1). Pathogens specifically
addressed in the petition are discussed below.
Nosema bombi
Nosema bombi has been detected in native bumble bees in North
America, but whether it is an introduced species or occurs naturally is
uncertain (Petition, p. 16). As described by the petitioners, N. bombi
is a microsporidian that infects bumble bees, primarily in the
malpighian tubules (small excretory or water regulating glands), but
also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and sometimes the tracheae (Macfarlane
et al. 1995, as cited by the petitioners, Petition, p. 15). Colonies
can appear to be healthy but still carry N. bombi and transmit it to
other colonies. The effect of N. bombi on bumble bees varies from mild
to severe (Macfarlane et al. 1995, as cited by the petitioners
(Petition, pp. 15-16); Otti and Schmid-Hempel 2007, p. 118; Larson
2007, as cited by the petitioners (Petition, pp. 15-16); Rutrecht et
al. 2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel 2008, p. 577).
The petition described the probable route of introduction and
spread as follows: In the early 1990s, queens of both the western
bumble bee and Bombus impatiens were shipped from the United States to
rearing facilities in Belgium that were also likely rearing B.
terrestris, a close relative of the western bumble bee and the
Franklin's bumble bee. The commercially-reared colonies produced from
these queens were shipped back into the United States between 1992 and
1994. The petitioners hypothesize that a virulent strain of Nosema
bombi from B. terrestris spread to B. impatiens and the western bumble
bee prior to their shipment back into the United States, and once in
this country the commercially reared colonies of the western bumble bee
may have spread this virulent strain of N. bombi to wild populations of
the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 15).
Bumble bee producers experienced major problems with Nosema bombi
infection in commercial western bumble bee colonies in 1997 (Flanders
et al. 2003, p. 108; Velthius and van Doorn 2006, p. 432), and
eventually stopped producing--the western bumble bee. In addition, the
morphology of N. bombi found in a native bumble bee in China, Bombus
leucorum, was found to be the same as that found in B. terrestris
imported from New Zealand (Jilian et al. 2005, p. 53), suggesting the
disease may have been introduced to native bumble bee populations in
China by commercial bees.
Researchers at the University of Illinois recently identified a
strain of Nosema bombi in multiple species of North American bumble
bees (Petition, p. 16). Studies suggest the disease can spread from
commercial bumble bees to nearby wild bumble bees (Niwa et al. 2004, p.
60; Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599; Jilian et al. 2005, p. 53; Colla
et al. 2006, p. 461), even when commercial bumble bees are used for
pollination in greenhouses, because commercial bumble bees frequently
forage outside greenhouse facilities (Petition, p. 15), and can
transmit disease at shared flowers (Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599;
Colla et al. 2006, p. 461). The extent to which this pathogen occurs
within the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee was not described
in the petition, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Crithidia bombi
The petitioners believe the internal protozoan parasite, Crithidia
bombi, could also be leading to the decline of the Franklin's bumble
bee. C. bombi has been shown to have detrimental effects on colony
founding success of queens, the fitness of established colonies, and
the survival and foraging efficiency of bumble bee workers (Brown et
al. 2000, p. 421; Brown et al. 2003, p. 994; Otterstatter et al. 2005,
p. 388; Gegear et al. 2005, p. 1; Gegear et al. 2006, p. 1073).
As with Nosema bombi, studies suggest that Crithidia bombi can
spread from commercial bumble bees to nearby wild bumble bees through
shared use of flowers, even when commercial bumble bees are used for
pollination in greenhouses, because they can escape to forage outside
and transmit the disease (Durrer and Schmid-Hempel 1994, p. 299;
Whittington et al. 2004, p. 599; Colla et al. 2006, p. 461;
Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 1). Although C. bombi is considered
to be a bumble bee parasite, honey bees have also been shown to be
possible vectors (Ruiz-Gonz[aacute]lez and Brown 2006, p. 621). This
parasite has been shown to be present in higher frequencies in bumble
bees near greenhouses where commercial colonies of Bombus impatiens are
used than in bumble bees remote from these facilities (Colla et al.
2006 in litt., p. 3). The extent to which this pathogen occurs within
the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee was not described in the
petition, and we have no information in our files in this regard.
However, as described above, the petition referenced a news story
published by the Associated Press that highlighted a strawberry and
vegetable grower in Grants Pass, Oregon (within the range of the
Franklin's bumble bee), who purchased B. impatiens hives in 2007 to
pollinate his crop (Associated Press 2007; Petition, p. 18). We are
also aware of a proposal to use commercial B. impatiens for field
pollination at a site in California within 150 mi (241 km) of the
historical range of the

[[Page 56388]]

Franklin's bumble bee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 1). As
B. impatiens is a potential carrier of C. bombi, B. impatiens would be
a potential vector for transmission to the Franklin's bumble bee.
Locustacarus buchneri
The petition stated that Locustacarus buchneri is a tracheal mite
that affects bumble bees (Petition, p. 17), and that bumble bees in the
subgenus Bombus, such as the Franklin's bumble bee, may be more
susceptible to tracheal mite infestation than other bumble bees, based
on a study in southwestern Alberta, Canada, by Otterstatter and Whidden
(2004, p. 351). One of the cited references (Goka et al., 2001, pp.
2095-2099) documents the presence of this mite in bumble bee (Bombus
spp.) populations in Japan, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The
petitioners did not describe the specific effects of L. buchneri on
bumble bees, but Ottersatter and Whidden (2004) found bumble bees
containing tracheal mites to have significantly reduced lifespans in
the laboratory. Otterstatter and Whidden (2004, p. 351) and Goka et al.
(2001) cite a study that found heavy mite infestation can severely
injure bumble bees (Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). In that study, diarrhea
was observed, and some bees became lethargic and no longer able to
forage.
Commercially raised bumble bees from Europe were found to be
infested with tracheal mites at higher rates than detected in wild bees
(Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). The petitioners stated that the method of
mite dispersal is not well understood, but they could spread from
commercial to wild colonies through drifting workers or contact on
shared flowers. The petitioners cited a study of parasitic mites in
native and commercial bumble bees in Japan, cautioning that the
transportation of bumble bee colonies will cause overseas migration of
parasitic mites (Goka et al. 2001, p. 2098). The extent to which this
pathogen occurs within the current range of the Franklin's bumble bee
was not described in the petition, and we have no information available
in our files in this regard.
Deformed Wing Virus
The petitioners stated that deformed wing virus, a honey bee
pathogen that results in crippled wings, may also be a threat to the
Franklin's bumble bee. Deformed wing virus (DWV) was thought to be
specific to honey bees until 2004, when dead Bombus terrestris and B.
pascuorum queens with deformities resembling those in honey bees were
observed. These DWV-infected specimens were observed in European
commercial bumble bee breeding facilities at a frequency of
approximately ten percent (Genersch et al. 2006, p. 63). In addition to
the potential transmission of this and other diseases from honey bees
in apiaries to bumble bees, commercial bumble bee rearing may also
provide an opportunity for transmission. Commercial bumble bee
producers sometimes introduce young honey bees to nesting bumble bee
queens to stimulate egg-laying, thus providing a potential interface
that exposes bumble bees to diseases carried by the honey bees
(Genersch et al. 2006, pp. 61-62).
DWV infection could pose a serious threat to bumble bee
populations, as infected bumble bees with deformed wings are not able
to forage. Those found with the observed deformities were also not
viable (Genersch et al. 2006, p. 61). The petitioners are aware of
unpublished personal observations of DWV symptoms in commercially
raised Bombus impatiens colonies in North America, but stated that
research has not been conducted to determine if other species of bumble
bees are also susceptible to this disease (Petition, p. 17). The
petitioners did not present any information linking DWV to the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information available in our
files in this regard.
Summary of Factor C
Information specific to the occurrence of Nosema bombi, Crithidia
bombi, Locustacarus buchneri or deformed wing virus within the range of
the Franklin's bumble bee was not provided by the petitioners, and we
have no information in our files regarding these pathogens. However,
the studies cited by the petitioners appear to support their assertions
related to the threats of the diseases and parasites to bumble bees in
general, and it appears each of these diseases may be readily
transferred from commercial to wild bumble bees. We, therefore, find
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the Franklin's bumble bee may warrant
listing due to disease, since (1) a microsporidian pathogen genetically
identical to N. bombi in European bumble bees has been found in bumble
bees in the United States (Solter et al. 2007, p. 15; Thorp 2008, p.
7); (2) studies on the effects of N. bombi generally demonstrate bumble
bees are negatively affected; (3) Bombus impatiens is a potential
carrier of C. bombi, and would be a potential vector for transmission
to Franklin's bumble bee; and (4) studies have demonstrated infected
bumble bees with deformed wings are unable to forage.
There is no information presented in the petition indicating the
Franklin's bumble bee is threatened by the tracheal mite L. buchneri,
and we have no information in our files in this regard. Although this
mite has been known to attack at least 25 bumble bee species across the
holarctic region (the geographic region that includes the northern
areas of the earth), it typically occurs in only a small fraction of
the host species available at a site (Otterstatter et al. 2004, p.
351). The mite has also parasitized B. vagans and B. bimaculatus in the
eastern United States (Otterstatter et al. 2004, p. 351); however,
there are no indications it occurs within the known geographic range of
the Franklin's bumble bee or within the western United States. The
petitioners did not present any information indicating predation was an
ongoing or foreseeable threat to the Franklin's bumble bee, and we have
no information in our files in this regard. Accordingly, we find that
the petition does not present substantial information indicating that
predation is a threat to the species. However, we will assess this
factor more thoroughly during our status review for the species.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petition stated there are currently no Federal regulations that
limit the interstate transportation of bumble bees, even outside their
native range (Petition, p. 18). The petitioners also stated the
Franklin's bumble bee has no substantive protection for habitat or take
under Federal law or State laws in Oregon or California, and neither
Oregon nor California allows listing of insects under their State
endangered species statutes (Petition, p. 17).
The petitioners believe the spread of disease introduced by
commercial bees may be the primary threat to the species, and existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect against this threat
(Petition, pp. 21-22). They stated that few precautions are taken to
prevent commercially reared colonies from interacting with wild
populations. While bumble bee colonies imported to commercial rearing
facilities are typically subject to inspection, typical inspections
only include honey bee parasites and diseases, even though honey bee
diseases and pests are not transmitted to bumble bees (Velthius and van
Doorn 2006, p. 430).

[[Page 56389]]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for implementing the Honey
Bee Act (HBA) (Petition, p. 18). According to the petition, sections
322.4 and 322.5 of the HBA allow the transport of two species of bumble
bees from Canada (Bombus impatiens and the western bumble bee) to all
U.S. States except Hawaii, and section 322.12 of the HBA provides for
requests to import bumble bees from other countries. The petitioners
stated that APHIS is responsible for evaluating applications and making
importation determinations (Petition, p. 18). One reference cited by
the petitioners stated that the HBA has helped protect the U.S.
beekeeping industry from exotic parasites and pathogens, and
undesirable bee species and strains of honey bees (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 101). The petitioners also stated the California Department of
Food and Agriculture allows B. impatiens to enter the State for
greenhouse pollination (but not for open field pollination), although
the law may not be regularly enforced or growers may not be aware of it
(Petition, p. 18)). They stated that the Oregon State Department of
Agriculture currently does not allow B. impatiens to enter the State
(Petition, p. 18), but acknowledge a 2007 news story published by the
Associated Press that documented a strawberry grower in Oregon who
purchased colonies of B. impatiens for pollination (Associated Press,
2007; Petition, p. 18). Accordingly, the petitioners asserted that
existing regulations and authorities do not effectively protect against
the threat of exposure to disease that may be carried by commercial
bumble bees (Petition, p. 18), since B. impatiens has apparently been
successfully imported into the State, despite the existing regulations.
One study cited by the petitioner stated that nearly all laws and
regulations addressing the importation, movement, and release of bees
in the United States focus almost exclusively on bee diseases and
parasites, with little or no consideration for possible adverse
environmental impacts associated with the bees themselves (Flanders et
al. 2003, p. 99). One reference cited by the petitioners stated
``current federal laws pertaining to bees restrict APHIS' oversight to
preventing the introduction of parasites and pathogens that may harm
bees. Except for the provisions in the HBA about undesirable species
and strains of honey bees, it remains unclear whether APHIS has a basis
for restricting the release of exotic bee species. Similarly, APHIS has
little jurisdiction over the interstate movement and release of native
bees, even when that movement is to an area previously unoccupied by
the species'' (Flander et al. 2003, p. 109). As an example, even though
APHIS has regulations in place, problems associated with heavy
infestations of Nosema bombi in the western bumble bee were discovered
in rearing facilities in 1996 (Velthuis and van Doorn 2006, p. 432),
and Flanders et al. (2003, p. 108) reported disease was found in
commercially produced western bumble bees in 1997 (Flanders et al.
2003, p. 108). The petitioners reported that bumble bee producers in
North America eventually stopped producing the western bumble bee due
to the N. bombi infestation.
Summary of Factor D
Factor D concerns whether the existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address the current threats identified under Factors A, B,
C, or E. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating (1) the existing regulatory
mechanisms may be inadequate to protect against the spread of disease
introduced by commercial bumble bees; (2) that few precautions appear
to be taken to prevent commercially reared colonies from interacting
with wild bumble bee populations; (3) inspections of bumble bee
colonies imported to commercial rearing facilities may be ineffective;
and (4) open field pollination restrictions may not be regularly
enforced by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which
may exacerbate the potential for commercially raised bumble bees to
transfer disease to the Franklin's bumble bee. We will assess this
factor more thoroughly during our status review for the species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
The petitioners assert that several other natural or manmade
factors may be threats to the Franklin's bumble bee, including the use
of pesticides, population dynamics and structure, global climate change
and competition from honey bees and other nonnative bees. Each of the
petitioner's assertions is described in more detail below.
Pesticides
The petitioners asserted the application of pesticides, including
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, may negatively affect
remaining populations of the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, p. 18-
20). Numerous studies were cited related to pesticide use for various
purposes in varied environments, including wild, agricultural, urban,
and forested areas. Some of the references cited in the petition
identify a concern that, while data related to the toxicity of
pesticides to honey bees is considered to be generally applicable to
other bees (Kevan and Plowright 1995, p. 609), pesticide risk
assessments conducted for honey bees may be inadequate for evaluating
the risks to bumble bees due to differences in foraging behavior and
phenology (Thompson and Hunt 1999, p. 147; Thompson 2001, p. 305;
Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.4). Phenology refers to the relationships
between regularly recurring biological phenomenon and climatic or
environmental influences (i.e., bumble bees and honey bees may have
different biological schedules with regard to their ecological needs or
behaviors).
Bumble bee exposure can occur from direct spray or drift (Johansen
and Mayer 1990, as cited by the petitioners (Petition, p. 19)), or from
gathering or consuming contaminated nectar or pollen (Morandin et al.
2005, p. 619). Lethal and sublethal effects on bumble bee eggs, larvae,
and adults have been documented for many different pesticides under
various scenarios (Kevan 1975, p. 301; Johansen 1977, p. 178; Plowright
et al. 1978, p. 1145; Plowright et al. 1980, p. 765; Kearns and Inouye
1997, p. 302; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 91-92; Kevan 1999, p. 378;
Thompson 2001, p. 305; Gels et al. 2002, p. 722; Morandin et al. 2005,
p. 619; Mommaerts et al. 2006, p. 752; Goulson et al. 2008, pp. 11.4-
11.5). Studies have also found evidence of adverse impacts to bumble
bee habitat associated with pesticides due to changes in vegetation and
the removal or reduction of flowers needed to provide consistent
sources of pollen, nectar, and nesting material (Johansen 1977, p. 188;
Plowright et al. 1978, p. 1145; Williams 1986, 54; Kearns and Inouye
1997, p. 302; Smallidge and Leopold 1997, p. 264; Kearns et al. 1998,
p. 91-92; Shepherd et al. 2003, as cited by the petitioners (Petition,
p. 19)). Declines in bumble bees in parts of Europe have been at least
partially attributed to the use of pesticides (Williams 1986, p. 54;
Kosior et al. 2007, p. 81).
The petition did not present any information indicating that
impacts related to pesticide application are occurring or are
foreseeable in currently or most recently occupied habitat for the

[[Page 56390]]

Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Population Dynamics and Structure
The petitioners asserted that small populations are generally at
greater risk of extirpation from normal population fluctuations due to
predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural
disasters such as droughts (Petition, p. 20), and small and isolated
populations can experience a loss of genetic variability (Cox and
Elmqvist 2000, p. 1237). The petitioners believe the Franklin's bumble
bee is rare and has very small populations, and likely has low genetic
diversity. They believe this population structure likely makes the
species more vulnerable to habitat change or loss, parasites, diseases,
stochastic events, and other natural disasters such as droughts
(Petition, p. 20).
Between 1998 and 2009 (when surveys specifically for the Franklin's
bumble bee were conducted and for which we have data), the number of
Franklin's bumble bee observations declined precipitously from 94
individuals in 1998 to 20 in 1999. Nine individuals were observed in
2000, and one individual in 2001. Although 20 were observed in 2002,
only 3 were observed in 2003 (at a single locality), and a single
worker was observed in 2006. There were no observations documented in
2007, 2008, or 2009 (Petition, p. 7).
The petitioners cited several papers that discuss the particular
susceptibility of bumble bees to threats related to small population
size and low genetic diversity, in part because bumble bees exhibit a
haplodiploidy sex determination system, as do all other hymenopterans
(bees, wasps, ants). In a haplodiploidy sex determination system,
unfertilized, or haploid, eggs become males that carry a single set of
chromosomes, and fertilized, or diploid, eggs become females that carry
two sets of chromosomes. This may result in lower levels of genetic
diversity than the more common diploid-diploid sex determination
system, in which both males and females carry two sets of chromosomes
(Petition, p. 20).
Haplodiploid organisms may be more prone to population extinction
than diploid-diploid organisms, due to their susceptibility to low
population levels and loss of genetic diversity (Packer and Owen 2001,
p. 26; Zayed and Packer 2005, p. 10742; Darvill et al. 2006, p. 601;
Ellis et al. 2006, 4375; Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7-11.9). Inbreeding
depression in bumble bees can lead to the production of sterile diploid
males (Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7), and has been shown to negatively
affect bumble bee colony size (Herrmann et al. 2007, p. 1167), which
are key factors in a colony's reproductive success. Until recently,
diploid male production had not been detected in naturally occurring
populations of bumble bees, and recent modeling work has shown that
diploid male production, where present, may initiate a rapid extinction
vortex (a situation where genetic traits and environmental conditions
combine to make a species gradually become extinct) (Goulsen et al.
2008, p. 11.8).
Global Climate Change
The petitioners asserted that global climate change may threaten
the Franklin's bumble bee (Petition, pp. 20-21). For example, changing
climate may cause shifts in the range of host plant species, which can
be especially detrimental to dependent pollinators when combined with
habitat loss (Petition p. 20). The petitioners state that the
Franklin's bumble bee is restricted to habitat patches where its host
species are present, and its limited historical distribution suggests
that it probably has a limited ability to disperse. The petition did
not clarify which plant species represent host species for the
Franklin's bumble bee, and we have no information in our files in this
regard. The petition characterized the Franklin's bumble bee as a
generalist forager, meaning they gather pollen and nectar from a wide
variety of flowering plants (Petition, p. 11), which may somewhat
mitigate any potential impacts of climate change relative to food
resources. Darvell et al. (2010) suggest the decline of another bumble
bee species, Bombus muscorum, from the United Kingdom mainland has been
severe because of its limited ability to disperse, although in this
study the stressor was agricultural intensification (Petition, pp. 20-
21). The petitioners believe the ecology of the Franklin's bumble bee,
combined with the patchy distribution of its remaining habitat, might
similarly hinder dispersal made necessary by climate change and cause
the extirpation of the remaining populations (Petition, p. 21),
although no specific supporting information was presented and we have
no information in our files in this regard.
The petitioners asserted that an increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide from global climate change may alter plant nectar production,
which could negatively impact bumble bees (Petition, p. 21). They also
believe the reduction in ozone, as a result of climate change, could
delay flowering in plants and reduce the amount of flowers plants
produce, which could have negative effects on all bumble bees
(Petition, p. 21). However, no specific supporting information was
presented correlating these potential impacts to the Franklin's bumble
bee or its host plants, and we have no information in our files in this
regard.
Competition From Honey Bees
The petitioners believe European honey bees (Apis mellifera), which
are not native to North America, could be a threat to the Franklin's
bumble bee (Petition, p. 21). The honey bee was first introduced to
eastern North America in the early 1620s, and introduced to California
in the early 1850s. The petition acknowledges that honey bees have been
present without noticeable declines in bumble bee populations over
large portions of their ranges (Petition, p. 21), but cited several
studies on the effects of honey bees on native bumble bees, which
found: (1) Resource overlap and competition for resources (Thomson
2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, p. 407); (2) decreased foraging activity
and lowered reproductive success of Bombus (bumble bee) colonies
nearest honey bee hives (Evans 2001, p. 32-33; Thomson 2004, p. 458;
Thomson 2006, p. 407); and (3) reduced native bumble bee worker sizes
where honey bees were present, which may be detrimental to bumble bee
colony success (Goulson and Sparrow 2009, p. 177).
The petitioners stated it is likely that the effects discussed in
these studies are local in space and time, and most pronounced where
floral resources are limited and large numbers of commercial honey bee
colonies are introduced (Petition, p. 21). They also stated that due
consideration should be given to when, where, and how many honey bee
colonies should be imported to areas with sensitive bumble bee
populations (Petition. p. 21), to minimize competition for floral
resources. The petition did not present information related to the
placement of commercial honey bee colonies in or near Franklin's bumble
bee habitat, and we have no information in this regard.
Competition From Other Nonnative Bumble Bees
The petitioners asserted there is potential for nonnative
commercially raised bumble bees to naturalize and outcompete native
bumble bees for limited resources such as nesting sites and forage
areas. Five commercially reared Bombus impatiens workers and one queen
were captured in the wild near greenhouses where commercial bumble bees
are used, suggesting this species has naturalized outside of its native
range. In this study, B. impatiens,

[[Page 56391]]

which has a native range in eastern North America, was detected in
western North America (Ratti and Colla 2010, pp. 29-31). A study of
bumble bees in Japan found that nonnative B. terrestris colonies
founded by bees that had escaped from commercially produced colonies
had over four times the mean reproductive output of native bumble bees
(Matsumura et al. 2004, p. 93). A study in England found that
commercially raised B. terrestris colonies had higher nectar-foraging
rates and greater reproductive output than a native subspecies of B.
terrestris (Ings et al. 2006, p. 940). The petitioners stated
commercial bumble bee producers have likely selected for colonies that
are highly productive to ensure strong colony populations for use in
pollination. They expressed concern that while this is a desirable
quality for commercial rearing, this practice could introduce nonnative
bumble bees that could outcompete native bumble bee populations
(Petition, pp. 21-22). As stated earlier, the petitioners cited a 2007
Associated Press story on the importation of B. impatiens colonies to
pollinate agricultural crops and strawberries in Grants Pass, Oregon,
which is within the range of the Franklin's bumble bee (Associated
Press 2007; Petition, p. 18).
Summary of Factor E
The assertions made by the petitioners appear to be supported by
the cited references and information available in our files for bumble
bees and other pollinators in general. Pesticides, global climate
change, small population size, and low genetic variability are of
concern for other rare invertebrates for reasons similar to those
outlined by the petitioners for the Franklin's bumble bee. The
potential adverse impacts of honey bee competition on declining Bombus
species in western and central Europe have been recognized by surveyed
experts from several European countries (Kosior et al. 2007, p. 85).
Possible negative effects of introduced bees on native organisms may
include competition with native pollinators for floral resources,
competition for nest sites, and introduction of pathogens (Goulsen
2003, pp. 1, 18).
It remains uncertain whether or to what extent any of the threats
suggested by the petitioners are occurring within habitat currently or
most recently occupied by the Franklin's bumble bee. We acknowledge
that some of the information presented by the petitioners addresses
other bumble bee species, and not the Franklin's bumble bee. However,
survey results for this species clearly demonstrate a precipitous
decline in the number of individuals observed since 1998 (94 in 1998; 1
in 2006; none in 2007, 2008, or 2009). Therefore, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that the potential threats associated with
pesticides, global climate change, competition from honey bees,
competition with other nonnative bees, or some other presently unknown
natural or manmade factor may be affecting the continued existence of
Franklin's bumble bee. In addition, any threats acting on the
Franklin's bumble bee are likely particularly perilous in light of the
species' limited geographic distribution and extremely low population
numbers, based on recent surveys. Therefore, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
the Franklin's bumble bee may warrant listing due to other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We will assess each
of these factors more thoroughly during our status review for the
species.

Finding

On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the Franklin's bumble
bee throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based
on the information presented in the petition documenting the
precipitous decline of the Franklin's bumble bee since 1998, to the
point that only a single individual of the species has been observed
since 2006, despite continued survey efforts. The petition additionally
presented information regarding a variety of threats that may
potentially be acting on the species; this suite of threats falls under
Factors A, C, D, and E, as discussed above. Although the information
presented does not allow us to definitively identify which of these
threats, acting either singly or in concert, may be the causative
factor of the species' decline, we believe the petition has presented
substantial information demonstrating that some natural or manmade
factor is affecting the continued existence of the Franklin's bumble
bee to the point that the species may be considered threatened or
endangered. Because we have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing the Franklin's bumble
bee may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine
whether listing the species under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office.

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: August 31, 2011.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-23282 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P