Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Biological Evaluation for Western bumble bee ( [Greene, 1858])

Photo of Bombus occidentalis about to land on Camas Camassia quamash, July 30, 2013 at Butterfly Valley Botanical Area, Plumas National Forest Service by Gary Zamzow, used by permission.

Written by: J. Furnish, May 2012; Updated September, 2013 Reviewed by: Stephanie Coppeto, Wildlife Biologist, LTBMU, April 2013 Adapted for the Joseph Creek Forest Health Project by Mary Rasmussen-Flores February 2018

1

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Distribution of the western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis in the PSW Region and North America

Bombus occidentalis currently occurs on many national forests throughout (Figure 1) and in all states adjacent to California (Figure 2). Historically, the species was broadly distributed across western North America along the Pacific Coast and westward from to the (Thorp and Shepard 2005, Koch et al. 2012). Historically, B. occidentalis was one of the most broadly distributed bumble bee species in North America (Cameron et al. 2011). Currently, the western bumble bee is experiencing severe declines in distribution and abundance due to a variety of factors including diseases and loss of genetic diversity (Tommasi et al. 2004, Cameron et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012).

Figure 1. Map of PSW national forests with historic (prior to 2000) vs. recent (post) collections of the western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis.

There are 116 collection records for the western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis on nine national forests of the PSW Region (Hatfield 2012): Eldorado (2), Klamath (15), Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (7), Lassen (29), Modoc (3), Plumas (22), Shasta-Trinity (25), Six Rivers (5) and Tahoe (6). There are only 25 collection records from national forest lands since 2000: 21 are on the Lassen, three are on the Plumas, and one is on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

2

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

(Figure 1).

Figure 2. Distribution of the western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis in the United States. At left, individual collection sites are shown as yellow dots and green indicates the known range (reproduced from Koch et al. 2012). At right, collection sites for Bombus occidentalis and other bumble bee species. The orange portion of the circle indicates the proportion of the collection comprised of B. occidentalis. The figure was modified from Cameron et al. (2011).

Bumble bees introduced from Europe for commercial pollination apparently carried a microsporidian parasite, bombi, which has been introduced into native bumble bee populations. Highest incidences of declining B. occidentalis populations are associated with highest infection rates with the Nosema parasite, and the incidence of Nosema infection is significantly higher in the vicinity of greenhouses that use imported bumble bees for pollination of commercial crops (Cameron et al. 2011). Although the general distribution trend is steeply downward, especially in the west coast states, some isolated populations in and the Rocky Mountains appear stable (Rao et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012). The overall status of populations in the west is largely dependent on geographic region: populations west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains are experiencing dire circumstances with steeply declining numbers, while those to the east of this dividing line are more secure with relatively unchanged population sizes. The reasons for these differences are not known.

Habitat & Life History

Management Considerations in Suitable Habitat Areas

Bumble bees are threatened by many kinds of habitat alterations that may fragment or reduce the availability of flowers that produce the nectar and they require, and decrease the number of abandoned rodent burrows that provide nest and hibernation sites for queens. An example of a habitat where Bombus occidentalis was recently observed in July 2013 is the Darlingtonia Bog at Butterfly Valley Botanical Area on the Plumas National Forest (see Figure 3).

Major threats that alter landscapes and habitat required by bumble bees include agricultural and urban development. Exposure to organophosphate, carbamate, pyrethroid and particularly neonicotinoid insecticides has recently been identified as a major contributor to the decline of many pollinating bees, including honey bees and bumble bees (Henry et al. 2012, Hopwood et al. 2012, Krupke et al. 2012). In

3

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

the absence of fire, native conifers encroach upon meadows, which also decreases foraging and nesting habitat available for bumble bees.

Figure 3. Photos of Darlingtonia bog habitat at Butterfly Valley Botanical Area, Plumas National Forest, where Bombus occidentalis was observed in July 2013.

According to studies done in England (Goulson et al. 2008), grazing during the autumn and winter months may provide excellent bumble bee habitat and prevent the accumulation of coarse grasses. Heavy grazing and high forage utilization should be avoided since flowering providing necessary nectar and pollen may become unavailable, particularly during the spring and summer when queens, workers and males are all present and active.

The following account of bumble bee life history is summarized from Heinrich (1979) and illustrated in Figure 4: Queens overwinter in the ground in abandoned rodent (i.e. mouse, chipmunk or vole) nests at depths from 6-18 inches and typically emerge about mid-March. The queen then lays fertilized eggs and nurtures a new generation. She first creates a thimble-sized and shaped wax honey pot, which she provisions with nectar-moistened pollen for 8-10 individual first-generation workers when they hatch. The larvae will receive all of the proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals necessary for growth and normal development from pollen. Eventually all the larvae will spin a silk cocoon and pupate in the honey pot. The workers that emerge will begin foraging and provisioning new honey pots as they are created to accommodate additional recruits to the colony. Individuals emerging from fertilized eggs will become workers that reach peak abundance during July and August. Foraging individuals are largely absent by the end of September. Those that emerge from unfertilized eggs become males, which do not forage and only serve the function of reproducing with newly emerged queens. During the season, a range of 50 to hundreds of individuals may be produced depending on the quantity and quality of flowers available. When the colony no longer produces workers, the old queen will eventually die and newly emerged queens will mate with males and then disperse to found new colonies. During this extended flight that may last for up to two weeks she may make several stops to examine the ground for a suitable burrow. Mikkola (1984) reported that bumble bees may forage up to a distance of 80 km in Finland.

4

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Figure 4. Life cycle of a typical bumble bee colony: 1. A queen emerges from hibernation in spring and finds a nest site, such as an abandoned rodent burrow. 2. She creates wax pots to hold nectar and pollen, on which she lays and incubates her eggs. 3. When her daughters emerge as adults, they take over foraging and other duties. 4. In autumn, the colony produces new queens and male bumble bees, which

leave to find mates. Newly mated queens hibernate and the rest of the bumble bees die. Figure reproduced from Mader et al. (2011).

Unlike all other bees, bumble bees are large enough to be capable of thermoregulation, which allow them to maintain their foraging activities for longer periods of the day, but also to occupy regions with more extreme latitudes and temperatures compared to other bees (Heinrich 1979). Bumble bees may continue to forage when temperatures are below freezing even in inclement weather (Heinrich (1979).

Queens end the year by locating a sheltering burrow, where they may spend the winter months under cover. Where nesting habitat is scarce, bumble bee species having queens that emerge early (mid-March) in the season like B. vosnesenskii which co-occurs with the later emerging B. occidentalis, may be able to monopolize available nest sites and reduce the chances of success for bumble bee species emerging later. Western bumble bees have a short proboscis or tongue length relative to other co-occurring bumble bee species, which restricts nectar gathering to flowers with short corolla lengths and limits the variety of flower species it is able to exploit. Western bumble bees have been observed taking nectar from a variety of flowering plants, including Aster spp., Brassica spp., Centaurea spp., Cimicifuga arizonica, Corydalis caseana, Chrysothamnus spp., Cirsium spp., Cosmos spp., Dahlia spp., Delphinium nuttallianum, Erica carnea, Erythronium grandiflorum, Foeniculum spp., Gaultheria shallon, Geranium spp., Gladiolus spp., Grindelia spp., Haplopappus spp., Hedysarum alpinum, Hypochoeris spp., Ipomopsis aggregata, Lathyrus spp., vulgaris, Lotus spp., Lupinus monticola, Mentha spp., Medicago spp., Melilotus spp., ciliata, Monardella spp., Nama spp., Origanum spp., Orthocarpus spp., Pedicularis capitata, P. kanei, and P. langsdorfii, P. groenlandica, Penstemon procerus, Phacelia spp., Prunus spp., Raphanus spp., Rhododendron spp., Salix spp., Salvia spp., Solidago spp., Symphoricarpos spp., Tanacetum spp., Taraxacum spp., Trifolium dasyphyllum, Trichostema spp., Trifolium spp. and Zea spp. (Evans et al. 2008).

5

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Proposed Management Activities

Treatments could occur on approximately 2,875 acres. The management actions include: • thinning of pre-commercial and commercial conifers; • mastication, piling and burning, broadcast burning, and lop and scatter of project generated slash; • maintenance and construction of existing roads/temporary roads for access (disturbance would be within road prism); • application of Borax on cut stumps, where needed.

Environmental Effects

Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) was added to the Modoc National Forest list of sensitive species on June 30, 2013. Casual sightings of bumble bees on the Warner Mountain Ranger District have taken place, but identification of species and detailed observations have not yet been undertaken by district personnel. For the purpose of this analysis, presence of the western bumble bee is assumed, but unconfirmed, within the Joseph Creek project area. The entire project area is composed of wildland habitats on the Forest System lands, which western bumble bees are adapted.

Direct and Indirect Effects Key Indicators for Effects Analysis: • Access to flowering plants from spring through autumn • Timing and intensity of management activities and potential impacts to bees • Presence of domestic bees and their impacts to western bumble bees • Use of and their impacts to bees

1. Do bumble bees have continuous access to flowering plants from spring through autumn? These floral resources should not be too fragmented or isolated in distribution to fully support the presence of viable bumble bee colonies (Evans et al. 2008).

The Joseph Creek Forest Health Project (Joseph Creek) is expected to have minimal impacts to floral resources for the following reasons. First, the best habitat for bees occurs in the meadows outside of the units. These areas would be protected by Best Management Practices (BMPs) set up to protect riparian resources.

Second, thinning overstory conifer stands releases nutrients and allows greater sunlight to reach the forest floor. Grass, forb, and shrub densities and species diversity increases with the decrease in overhead conifer canopy (Uresk and Severson 1989, Rasmussen 1990). This increase of understory vegetation would occur in response to both thinning and understory prescribed burns. As the canopy closes in the future, the trees would shade and outcompete the understory vegetation.

6

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

2. Are grazing and prescribed burns planned for the project area? If so, is utilization managed to leave some potential nesting habitat from rodent burrows, nests of ground nesting birds (i.e. grouse, quail, towhees, sparrows, some warblers (from Saab and Powell 2005)), downed wood and bunch grasses? Can the prescribed burns be scheduled to avoid periods when bumble bees are active from spring until autumn?

a) Livestock Grazing: There are portions of four livestock allotments in the Joseph Creek project area. This decision does not include livestock grazing, although livestock grazing currently does occur within the Joseph Creek project area.

The Joseph Creek Project’s impacts to the rangelands in proposed in units would be minimal, due to the fact that the treatment acres constitute less than 20% allotments. The majority of the thinning and prescribed burn treatments would occur in areas where livestock grazing is “none to slight”, due to the minimal amount of herbaceous understory and presence of heavy timber (Decker 2017). In addition, most of the forbs in the treatment units are not palatable or desirable to livestock (Decker 2017).

It is anticipated that rodent burrows in the project area are expected to increase following the expansion of understory vegetation in thinned stands. Increased rodent burrows could provide potential nesting sites for bumble bees. Due to the light use of livestock in treatment units, rodent burrows are expected to be unaffected by cattle.

b) Fuels Treatments: Prescribed fires are expected to have few effects to coniferous habitats and meadows, since the majority of the stands are targeted for pile burning. The use of BMPs would protect meadow habitats, because ignitions and firing operations need to follow guidelines to protect riparian resources.

3. Are there commercial crops grown in the vicinity (within 800 meters or 0.5 miles) of the project area?

There are no commercial crops grown within ½ mile of the project area, so there are no expected contamination by commercial bees.

4. Are pesticides, specifically insecticides going to be applied as part of project management?

The Modoc National Forest (MDF) has not used insecticides for forest and rangeland management on the Warner Mountain Ranger District within the past 20 years. MDF records indicate that no herbicides have been previously applied within the Joseph Creek project area; no herbicides would be used as part of the Proposed Action (H. Guenther, pers. comm.). Therefore, the Joseph Creek Project would have no impact to bumble bees as a result of herbicides or insecticides.

7

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Cumulative Effects

The following information comes from the FACTS database. Various specialists might lump activities in a different manner, so there could be acre differences between reports.

The cumulative effects spatial analysis area equates to the Joseph Creek project area, due to the bees’ small home ranges. The cumulative effects timeframe is ten years and would be the extent a person could reasonably predict future projects for the temporal overlap discussed in Forest Service Handbook direction (1909.15). After this timeframe, it is anticipated that overhead tree canopy could cause a decrease in the amount of understory flowers in proposed units. The past and present activities affecting the project area include: livestock grazing, vegetation management, fire management, recreation, noxious weed treatments, and road management.

Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing is expected to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. Seasonal livestock grazing can decrease the amount of forbs in an area. However, the potential impacts from livestock are anticipated to be minor, due to the low percentage of treatment acres within the four allotment in addition to the small area of suitable range within that percentage (Decker, pers. comm.). Therefore, livestock grazing is not expected to contribute to cumulative effects with respect to the Joseph Creek project.

Vegetation Management: Various types of vegetation management activities have occurred within the Joseph Creek project area (Table 1). Most of the vegetation management projects would have had little effect on the best bumble bee habitat, due to the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs would protect the riparian vegetation in meadows, which is the best habitat. The Low Joe and Plum Joe fuel break projects removed small diameter conifers along roadsides. The more open conditions would favor understory flowers until conifer canopy grows back.

Table 1. Vegetation management activities from the FACTS database. Prescription Acres Commercial Thinning 1,252 Overstory Removal Harvest 34 Clear cut 430 Pre-commercial Thinning 111 Sanitation Cut 2,787 Seed tree 166 Wildlife Regeneration Cut 125

Site Preparation 430 Reforestation 881 Planting shrubs, forbs, grasses 33 Tree release 1,094

Planting trees could have a negative effect on understory floral resources over the long term as the overstory conifer cover shades out understory grasses and forbs. Although there were 33

8

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

acres of understory vegetation planting that could benefit bees (Table 1), the goal of planting generally is to return forested cover (around 50 years from the time of planting), which would limit potential forage for bees.

Fuelwood cutting on the project area is limited by distance from population centers. Removal of dead trees is not expected to affect flowers or rodent burrows.

To summarize, the Joseph Creek Project could have a minor benefit to floral resources. Therefore, the vegetation management is expected to contribute minor beneficial cumulative effects to the western bumble bee and potential habitat.

Fire Management: There has been a combination of broadcast, jackpot piling, and pile burning within the project area. Like timber harvest, prescribed fire activities could increase floral resources, since the post-fire overstory tree canopy is decreased and fires cause a short-term flush of nutrients. Although fire may reduce forbs right after the burns, recovery can occur within weeks of the fire depending on the species. Therefore, prescribed fire is anticipated to contribute short-term beneficial cumulative effects to the western bumble bee.

Recreation: The following information comes from the recreation report completed for this project (Smith 2017). The existing recreation opportunities in the analysis area consist of a few dispersed camping areas. The summer season is characterized by light camping use, while September and October accommodate heavier recreation use, mostly in the form of big game hunting. Due to the limited amount of visitor use, recreation would not contribute any cumulative effects to potential western bumble bee or its habitat.

Noxious Weed Treatments: Invasive plants may be treated with hand grubbing according to the Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Project standards and guidelines on an estimated 10 acres. Although some noxious weeds are used as food sources by bumble bees, the loss of native plant species could cause a decrease foraging opportunities for bumble bees. Therefore, the noxious weed treatment would contribute minor beneficial cumulative effects to bumble bees with respect to Joseph Creek Project.

Road Management: Road maintenance activities could occur within the Joseph Creek project area, but within the road prism outside of bee habitat. There would be no effects to road burrows or floral resources. Therefore, the road management and the Joseph Creek project would not contribute cumulative effects to bumble bees and their habitat.

Private lands: Timber harvest has occurred on many of the private lands within the Joseph Creek project area; however, there do not appear to be current Timber Harvest Plans at this time (D. Ramaley, pers. comm.). With no harvest planned on private lands, these lands would not contribute to cumulative effects.

To summarize, the Joseph Creek Project would contribute minor beneficial cumulative effects to the western bumble bee considering past, present and foreseeable actions.

9

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

DETERMINATION

The Joseph Creek Project “May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability” for western bumble bee or its habitat.

LITERATURE CITED/PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Alaux, C., J. Brunet, C. Dussaubat, F. Mondet, S. Tchamitchan, M. Cousin, J. Brillard, A. Baldy, L.P. Belzunces and Y. Le Conte. 2010. Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera). Environmental Microbiology 12: 774–78.

Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662-667. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/662.full.pdf+html .

Carvell, C., W.R. Meek, R.F. Pywell, D. Goulson, M. Nowakowski. 2007. Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44:29-40.

Decker, Jaycee. 2017. Joseph Creek Forest Health Project Range Resource Specialist Report. On file at the Devil’s Garden Ranger District Office in Alturas, CA.

Decker, Jaycee. 2017. Personal Communication. Rangeland Management Specialist. Alturas, CA.

Dupont, Y.L, C. Damgaard, V. Simonsen. 2011. Quantitative Historical Change in (Bombus spp.) Assemblages of Red Clover Fields. PuPLoS One Volumbe 6: Issue 9. Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025172

Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen and S.H. Black. 2008. Status Review of Three Formerly Common Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus: (the rusty patched bumble bee), B. terricola (the yellowbanded bumble bee), and B. occidentalis (the western bumble bee). The Xerces society, Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf

Fürst, M.A., McMahon, D.P., Osborne, J.L., Paxton, R.J. & Brown, M.J.F., 2014. Disease associations between honeybees and as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature, 506, 364–366.

Goulson, D., G.C. Lye and B. Darvill. 2008. Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees. Annual Review of Entomology 53:191–208

Guenther, Heidi. 2017. Personal Communication. Forest Botanist, MDF. Alturas, CA.

Hatfield, R. 2012. Records of western and Franklin’s bumble bees in the . Database records provided by the Xerces Society, Portland, OR on 2/29/12.

Heinrich, B. 1979. Bumblebee Economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 245 pp.

10

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Henry,M., M. Beguin, F. Requier, O. Rollin, J. Odoux, P. Aupinel, J. Aptel, S. Tchamitchian and A. Decourtye. 2012. A Common Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. SciencExpress available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215039.full.pdf

Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D. Biddinger, E. Mader, S. Hoffman Black and C. Mazzacano. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are-Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces- Society1.pdf .

Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U.S. Forest Service and the Pollinator Partnership, , D.C. 144 pp.

Kreyer, D., A. Oed, K. Walther-Hellwig and R. Franklin. 2004. Are forests potential landscape barriers for foraging bumblebees? Landscape scale experiments with agg. and Bombus pascuorum (, ). Biological Conservation 116 :111–118.

Krupke, C.H., G.J. Hunt, B.D. Eitzer, G. Andino and K. Given. 2012. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE 7(1):e29268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029268.

Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. Black and G. LeBuhn. 2011. Attracting Native Pollinators: Protecting North America's Bees and Butterflies. The Xerces Society Guide to Conserving North American Bees and Butterflies and Their Habitat. Storey Publishing, North Adams, MA. 371 pp.

McFrederick QS, Le Buhn G. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees? Biol. Conserv. 129:372– 382.

Mikkola, K. 1984. Migration of wasp and bumblebee queens across the Gulf of Finland (Hymenoptera: Vespidae and Apidae). Notulae Entomologicae 64: 125-128.

Osborne, J.L., A.P. Martin, N.L. Carreck, J.L. Swain, M.E. Knight, D. Goulson, R.J. Hale and R.A. Sanderson. 2008. Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. Journal of Ecology 77:406–415.

Rao, S., W.P. Stephen, C. Kimoto and S.J. DeBano. 2011. The Status of the ‘Red-Listed’ Bombus occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 85: 64-67.

John Ramaley. 2017. Personal Communication. CALFIRE, Forest Practice Program Manager. Ukiah, CA.

Rasmussen, M. 1990. Understory production and plant nitrogen on limestone soils in the Black Hills of . M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D. 116 p.

Saab, V. A. and H. D. W. Powell. 2005. Fire and avian ecology in North America: Process influencing pattern. Studies in Avian Biology 30:1-13.

Schweitzer, D.F., N.A. Capuano, B.E. Young, and S.R. Colla. 2012. Conservation and management of North American bumble bees. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 11

Joseph Creek Forest Health Western Bumble Bee Biological Evaluation

Smith, Krystina. 2017. Joseph Creek Forest Health Project Recreation Report. 7 pages. On file at the Warner Mountain Ranger District Office in Cedarville, CA.

The Xerces Society, 2015. Bumble bees: western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). http://www.xerces.org/western-bumble-bee/. Accessed 11-20-2015.

Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator of North America. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.

Tommasi, D., A. Miro, H. A. Higo and M. L. Winston. 2004. Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting. The Canadian Entomologist 136: 851–869.

Uresk, D. and K. Severson. 1989. Understory-overstory relationships in ponderosa pine forests, Black Hills, South Dakota. J. Range Management 42: 203-208.

Williams, P.H. and J.L. Osborne. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie 40:367–387.

12