[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56381-56391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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