Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47221

EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

State effective Missouri citation Title date EPA approval date Explanation

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri

******* 10–6.110 ...... Reporting Emission Data, Emis- 3/30/2021 8/24/2021, [Insert Federal Reg- Section (3)(A), Emission Fees, sion Fees, and Process Infor- ister citation]. has not been approved as part mation. of the SIP.

*******

* * * * * ACTION: Final rule. year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must designate PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and critical habitat for any species that we PROGRAMS Wildlife Service (Service), are listing the determine to be an endangered or Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus threatened species under the Act. ■ 3. The authority citation for part 70 franklini), an invertebrate species from Listing a species as an endangered or continues to read as follows: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine threatened species and designation of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and critical habitat can only be completed Trinity Counties in California, as an ■ 4. In appendix A to part 70 the entry by issuing a rule. endangered species under the What this document does. This rule for ‘‘Missouri’’ is amended by adding Endangered Species Act of 1973, as paragraph (jj) to read as follows: lists Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus amended (Act). This rule adds this franklini) as an endangered species Appendix A to Part 70—Approval species to the Federal List of under the Act. We are not designating Status of State and Local Operating Endangered and Threatened Wildlife critical habitat because we determined Permits Programs and applies the protections of the Act to that a designation is not prudent for this this species. We are not designating * * * * * species. critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble The basis for our action. Under the Missouri bee because we determined that such a Act, we may determine that a species is designation would not be beneficial to an endangered or threatened species * * * * * the species. (jj) The Missouri Department of because of any of five factors: (A) The DATES: This rule is effective September Natural Resources submitted revisions present or threatened destruction, 23, 2021. to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.110, modification, or curtailment of its ADDRESSES: ‘‘Reporting Emission Data, Emission This final rule and habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Fees, and Process Information’’ on May supporting documents are available on commercial, recreational, scientific, or 25, 2021. The state effective date is the internet at http:// educational purposes; (C) disease or March 30, 2021. This revision is www.regulations.gov in Docket No. predation; (D) the inadequacy of effective September 23, 2021. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044, or at https:// existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) ecos.fws.gov. * * * * * other natural or manmade factors [FR Doc. 2021–17713 Filed 8–23–21; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul affecting its continued existence. We BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and have determined that Franklin’s bumble Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and bee meets the definition of an Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., endangered species and therefore Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; warrants protection under the Act. The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR telephone 503–231–6179. Persons who threats to the species of pathogens, Fish and Wildlife Service use a telecommunications device for the pesticides, and small population size deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay are ongoing and rangewide; they are 50 CFR Part 17 Service at 800–877–8339. likely to continue to act individually SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and in combination to decrease the [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044; viability of the Franklin’s bumble bee. FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] Executive Summary The risk of extinction is high, the Why we need to publish a rule. Under suspected threats to the species persist, RIN 1018–BD25 the Act, if we determine that a species and the number of remaining Franklin’s Endangered and Threatened Wildlife may be an endangered or threatened bumble bees is presumably very small, and Plants; Endangered Species species throughout all or a significant as the species has not been observed Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee portion of its range, we are required to since 2006. Existing regulatory promptly publish a proposal in the mechanisms or conservation measures AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register and make a in place do not appreciably reduce or Interior. determination on our proposal within 1 ameliorate the existing threats to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

species, as evidenced by the species’ date of the final rule. Thus, the prior factors (both negative and beneficial) acute and rangewide decline. Therefore, version of the regulations at 50 CFR part affecting the species. on the basis of the best available 424 continues to apply to any In accordance with our joint policy on scientific and commercial information, rulemakings for which a proposed rule peer review published in the Federal we are listing the Franklin’s bumble bee was published before September 26, Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), as endangered in accordance with 2019, including this final rule for we sought the expert opinions of 10 sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. Franklin’s bumble bee. appropriate and independent specialists Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the regarding the scientific basis for this Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to Summary of Changes From the proposed rule, detailed in the Franklin’s designate critical habitat concurrent Proposed Rule Bumble Bee Species Status Assessment with listing to the maximum extent We considered all comments and report (SSA report) (Service 2018a, prudent and determinable. Section information we received during the entire). We received five reviews. The 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat comment period for the proposed rule to purpose of peer review is to ensure that as (i) the specific areas within the list the Franklin’s bumble bee (84 FR our listing and critical habitat geographical area occupied by the 40006; August 13, 2019). Based on these determinations are based on species, at the time it is listed, on which comments and additional internal scientifically sound data, assumptions, are found those physical or biological review, we made the following changes and analyses. The peer reviewers have features (I) essential to the conservation from the proposed rule in this final rule: expertise in Franklin’s bumble bee or of the species and (II) which may • Added to this rule and the SSA Bombus biology and habitat, and their require special management report additional climate change comments helped inform our considerations or protections; and (ii) information and analysis, as well as determinations. We also invited specific areas outside the geographical discussion on the likely effects of other comment on the SSA report from our area occupied by the species at the time potential threats in the future; partner agencies; the U.S. Forest • it is listed, upon a determination by the Updated this rule and the SSA Service, the Bureau of Land Secretary that such areas are essential report with information from the 2019 Management, and the Oregon for the conservation of the species. survey season; Department of Agriculture provided us • Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Corrected a mathematical error in with comments. The comments from Secretary must make the designation on our presentation of neonicotinoid peer and partner reviews were carefully the basis of the best scientific data pesticide applications in the historical considered in the process of finalizing available and after taking into range of the species in this rule and in the SSA report that provided the consideration the economic impact, the the SSA report; • scientific basis for both the proposed impact on national security, and any Added information from the SSA rule and this final rule. These other relevant impacts of specifying any report to this rule regarding nectaring comments, along with other public particular area as critical habitat. behavior, as well as the comments on our proposed rule, are Because the present or threatened commercialization of bumble bees for available in the docket for this final rule destruction, modification, or pollination; • (http://www.regulations.gov in Docket curtailment of habitat is not a threat to Updated information in this rule on No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044). the Franklin’s bumble bee (disease and pesticide regulation on National other manmade factors are likely the Wildlife Refuge System lands; I. Final Listing Determination • primary threat to the species within its Added further detail in the rule on Background habitat), in accordance with 50 CFR Tribal notifications; 424.12(a)(1), we determine that • Added several citations and A thorough review of the taxonomy, designating critical habitat is not clarifications to the rule to further life history, and ecology of Franklin’s prudent for Franklin’s bumble bee. support content; and bumble bee is presented in the SSA Peer review and public comment. We • Made minor editorial changes to the report (Service 2018a, entire) on http:// sought the expert opinions of 10 rule to improve readability. www.regulations.gov under Docket No. appropriate and independent specialists We carefully considered the FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. Franklin’s regarding the species status assessment additional information we received bumble bee is thought to have the most report. We received responses from 5 during the comment period, and while limited distribution of all known North specialists, which informed our much of this information was helpful, it American bumble bee species determination. We also considered all did not result in any further changes (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 479; 53 comments and information received from our proposal to this final rule to Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 6), from the public during the comment list Franklin’s bumble bee as and one of the most limited geographic period. endangered, nor did it result in a change distributions of any bumble bee in the to our determination that designation of world (Frison 1922, p. 315; Williams Previous Federal Actions critical habitat is not prudent at this 1998, p. 129). The species has been Please refer to the proposed rule (84 time. recorded from the Umpqua and Rogue FR 40006) for Franklin’s bumble bee River Valleys in Oregon (Stephen 1957, published on August 13, 2019, for a Supporting Documents p. 81) and from northern California, detailed description of previous Federal A species status assessment (SSA) suggesting its restriction to the Klamath actions concerning this species. team prepared an SSA report for Mountain region of southern Oregon On August 27, 2019, the Service Franklin’s bumble bee. The SSA team and northern California (Thorp et al. published a final rule (84 FR 45020) was composed of Service biologists, in 1983, p. 8). Elevations where it has been revising the regulations at 50 CFR part consultation with other species experts. observed range from 162 meters (m) 424 for listing species and designating The SSA report represents a (540 feet (ft)) in the northern part of its critical habitat. However, the revisions compilation of the best scientific and range, to over 2,340 m (7,800 ft) in the apply only to relevant rulemakings for commercial data available concerning southern part of its range. All confirmed which the proposed rule is published the status of the species, including the specimens have been found in an area after September 26, 2019, the effective impacts of past, present, and future about 306 kilometers (km) (190 miles

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47223

(mi)) to the north and south, and 113 km the species, and accessibility to workers along with the founding queen (70 mi) east to west, between 122° to surveyors. However, the surveyed area (Plath 1927, pp. 123–124; Thorp et al. 124° west longitude and 40° 58′ to 43° represents a relatively small percentage 1983, p. 2; Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). 30′ north latitude in Douglas, Jackson, of the historical range of the Franklin’s Two colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee and Josephine Counties in southern bumble bee; therefore, it is possible the that were initiated in the laboratory and Oregon, and Siskiyou and Trinity species may persist in other areas of the set out to complete development in the Counties in northern California (Thorp range. There are numerous instances of field contained over 60 workers by early 1999, p. 3; Thorp 2005, p. 1; species rediscovered after many years, September, and likely produced over International Union for Conservation of even decades, of having been believed 100 workers by the end of the season Nature 2009, p. 1). extinct (e.g., Scheffers et al. 2011, (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 477). Franklin’s bumble bee was first entire). As one example of such a case, The flight season of Franklin’s bumble observed in 1917, and first described in the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia bee is from mid-May to the end of 1921, and limited occurrence and icarioides fenderi) of Oregon was September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30); a observation data exist for Franklin’s believed extinct after the last recorded few individuals have been encountered bumble bee prior to 1998. The species observation in 1937, until it was in October (Southern Oregon University has been found on many privately rediscovered in 1989, 52 years later Bee Collection records, in Xerces owned sites as well as municipal, State, (Hammond and Wilson 1992, p. 175; Society and Thorp 2010, Appendix 1, p. and Federal land. Historical Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2). 39). At the end of the colony cycle, all observations and occurrence data for Recent approaches to evaluating the workers and the males die along Franklin’s bumble bee prior to 1998 extinction likelihood place increased with the founding queen; only the include opportunistic observations, emphasis on the extensiveness and inseminated hibernating females (gynes) student collections, and museum adequacy of survey effort (Keith et al. are left to carry on the genetic lineage specimens, as well as the collections 2017, p. 321; Thompson et al. 2017, p. into the following year (Duchateau and and notes of interested parties, natural 328), and caution against declaring a Velthius 1988). resource managers, and university staff species as extinct in the face of As with all Bombus species, (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, pp. 34– uncertainty (Akc¸akaya et al. 2017, p. Franklin’s bumble bee has a unique 40). A more intensive and targeted 340). genetic system called the haplodiploid search effort for the species began in The specific life-history sex determination system. In this 1998, in areas thought to have the characteristics and behavior of this rare system, unfertilized (haploid) eggs highest likelihood of Franklin’s bumble species have not been studied; much of become males that carry a single set of bee presence. There was initial success the information presented in the SSA chromosomes, and fertilized (diploid) at finding a higher abundance of the report (Service 2018a, entire) is inferred eggs become females that carry two sets species than ever previously reported; from information on Bombus in general of chromosomes. This system may result in one year (1998), 98 Franklin’s bumble and some closely related species in lower levels of genetic diversity than bees were observed (mostly from two (western bumble bee (B. occidentalis), the more common diploid-diploid sex sites). However, in subsequent years, rusty patched bumble bee (B. affinis), determination system, in which both searchers found fewer and fewer and yellow-faced bumble bee (B. males and females carry two sets of Franklin’s bumble bees, and none have vosnesenskii), among others). The report chromosomes. Haplodiploid organisms been found since the last sighting of a also relied heavily on information from may be more prone to population single individual in Oregon in 2006. species experts (Service 2018a, entire). extinction than diploid-diploid The variations in timing, scope, Franklin’s bumble bee is a primitively organisms, due to their susceptibility to intensity, and methodology of search eusocial bumble bee, meaning they are low population levels and loss of efforts (including those since 1998) and highly social and adults have flexible genetic diversity (Service 2018a, p. 37). the lack of observations since 2006 roles in their social order. They live in Inbreeding depression in bumble bees prevent the identification of any colonies made up of a queen and her can lead to the production of sterile population trends. Many of the male and worker offspring, and adult diploid males (Goulson et al. 2008, p. occurrence records provide only point females can switch from worker to 11.7) and negatively affects bumble bee data for an occurrence, with no details queen roles. Like other eusocial Bombus colony size (Herrman et al. 2007, p. on the size of the area searched or species, Franklin’s bumble bee typically 1167), which are key factors in a whether or not the record reflected a nests underground in abandoned rodent colony’s reproductive success. comprehensive search of an area. Many burrows or other cavities that offer As one of the rarest Bombus species, records also lack details on the level of resting and sheltering places, food Franklin’s bumble bees are somewhat survey effort per location (number of storage, nesting, and room for the enigmatic, and a specific habitat study searchers, hours of search effort per day, colony to grow (Plath 1927, pp. 122– for the species has not been completed. number of days per search effort). 128; Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. Such a study was initiated in 2006, The lack of systematic surveys across 1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). The when the Franklin’s bumble bee was the historical range of the species over species may also occasionally nest on last seen, but could not continue due to time prevents us from using occurrence the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or the subsequent absence of the species records to extrapolate reasonable in rock piles (Plowright and Stephen (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). However, estimates of species abundance or 1980, p. 475). It has even been found some general habitat associations of distribution or from concluding that the nesting in a residential garage in the city Bombus are known. Like all bumble species is extinct. Even though none limits of Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, bees, the Franklin’s bumble bee requires have been seen since 2006, Franklin’s pers. comm.). a constant and diverse supply of flowers bumble bee populations could Colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee that bloom throughout the colony’s life potentially persist undetected. The areas have an annual cycle, initiated each cycle, from spring to autumn (Xerces chosen for survey were selected due to spring when solitary queens emerge Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11); these a combination of abundance of floral from hibernation and seek suitable nest resources would typically be found in resources throughout the colony cycle, sites (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). open (non-forested) meadows in relatively recent historical occurrence of Colonies may contain from 50 to 400 proximity to seeps and other wet

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

meadow environments. The nectar from (A) The present or threatened Analytical Framework flowers provides carbohydrates, and the destruction, modification, or The SSA report documents the results pollen provides protein. Franklin’s curtailment of its habitat or range; of our comprehensive biological review bumble bee may have a foraging (B) Overutilization for commercial, of the best available scientific and distance of up to 10 km (6.2 mi) (Thorp recreational, scientific, or educational commercial data regarding the status of 2017, pers. comm.), but the species’ purposes; the species, including an assessment of typical dispersal distance is most likely (C) Disease or predation; the potential threats to the species. The 3 km (1.86 mi) or less (Hatfield 2017, SSA report does not represent a pers. comm.; Goulson 2010, p. 96). (D) The inadequacy of existing decision by the Service on whether the Franklin’s bumble bee have been regulatory mechanisms; or species should be listed as an observed collecting pollen from lupine (E) Other natural or manmade factors endangered or threatened species under (Lupinus spp.) and California poppy affecting its continued existence. the Act. It does, however, provide the (Eschscholzia californica), and These factors represent broad scientific basis that informs our collecting nectar from horsemint or regulatory decisions, which involve the nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an further application of standards within urticifolia) and mountain monardella the Act and its implementing (Monardella odoratissima) (Xerces effect on a species’ continued existence. In evaluating these actions and regulations and policies. The following Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). is a summary of the key results and Franklin’s bumble bee may also collect conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of conclusions from the SSA report; the both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia full SSA report can be found at Docket spp.), as well as rob nectar from it the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044 on http:// (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). www.regulations.gov. Short-tongued species, including negative effects or may have positive effects. To assess the viability of Franklin’s Franklin’s bumble bee, sometimes visit bumble bee, we used the three flowers that are quite elongated and We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in conservation biology principles of have difficulty reaching nectar deep in general to actions or conditions that are resiliency, redundancy, and the flower. These bees can ‘rob nectar’ known to or are reasonably likely to representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, by chewing a hole on the outside of the negatively affect individuals of a pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency flower at the base, through which they species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes supports the ability of the species to can easily reach the nectar with their actions or conditions that have a direct withstand environmental and tongues. impact on individuals (direct impacts), demographic stochasticity (for example, In summary, Franklin’s bumble bee as well as those that affect individuals wet or dry, warm or cold years), has been found in a wide array of through alteration of their habitat or redundancy supports the ability of the sheltered and exposed habitat types at a required resources (stressors). The term species to withstand catastrophic events broad elevational range, and the species ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either (for example, droughts, large pollution appears to be a generalist forager. together or separately—the source of the events), and representation supports the Despite uncertainties regarding the action or condition or the action or ability of the species to adapt over time species’ habitat needs, we know they condition itself. to long-term changes in the environment need (1) floral resources for nectaring However, the mere identification of (for example, climate changes). In throughout the colony cycle, and (2) any threat(s) does not necessarily mean general, the more resilient and relatively protected areas for breeding that the species meets the statutory redundant a species is and the more and shelter. The habitat elements that definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or representation it has, the more likely it Franklin’s bumble bee appears to prefer a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining is to sustain populations over time, even to fulfill those needs mentioned above whether a species meets either under changing environmental are relatively plentiful and widely definition, we must evaluate all conditions. Using these principles, we distributed. identified threats by considering the identified the species’ ecological expected response by the species, and requirements for survival and Regulatory and Analytical Framework the effects of the threats—in light of reproduction at the individual, Regulatory Framework those actions and conditions that will population, and species levels, and ameliorate the threats—on an described the beneficial and risk factors Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) individual, population, and species influencing the species’ viability. and its implementing regulations (50 level. We evaluate each threat and its The SSA process can be categorized CFR part 424) set forth the procedures expected effects on the species, then into three sequential stages. During the for determining whether a species is an analyze the cumulative effect of all of first stage, we evaluated the individual ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened the threats on the species as a whole. species’ life-history needs. The next species.’’ The Act defines an We also consider the cumulative effect stage involved an assessment of the endangered species as a species that is of the threats in light of those actions historical and current condition of the ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all and conditions that will have positive species’ demographics and habitat or a significant portion of its range,’’ and effects on the species, such as any characteristics, including an a threatened species as a species that is existing regulatory mechanisms or explanation of how the species arrived ‘‘likely to become an endangered conservation efforts. The Secretary at its current condition. The final stage species within the foreseeable future determines whether the species meets of the SSA involved making predictions throughout all or a significant portion of the definition of an ‘‘endangered about the species’ responses to positive its range.’’ The Act requires that we species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only and negative environmental and determine whether any species is an after conducting this cumulative anthropogenic influences. Throughout ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened analysis and describing the expected all of these stages, we used the best species’’ because of any of the following effect on the species now and in the available information to characterize factors: foreseeable future. viability as the ability of a species to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47225

sustain populations in the wild over description of the species was published the world (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2; time. We use this information to inform (Service 2018a, pp. 11). From 1998 to Kosior et al. 2010, p. 81), many our regulatory decision. 2006, we identified 14 potential researchers believe it is unlikely to be a populations. Since 2006, no populations main driver of the recent, widespread Summary of Biological Status and have been located. North American bee declines (Szabo et Threats The vulnerability resulting from the al. 2012, p. 236; Colla and Packer 2008, In this discussion, we review the Franklin’s bumble bee’s haplodiploid p. 1388; Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). biological condition of the species and genetic system, as well as the loss in the Despite uncertainties regarding the its resources, and the threats that abundance and spatial extent of its Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat needs, influence the species’ current and future populations, suggest the resiliency, we know they need (1) floral resources condition, in order to assess the species’ representation, and redundancy of the for nectaring throughout the colony overall viability and the risks to that Franklin’s bumble bee have all declined cycle, and (2) relatively protected areas viability. significantly since the late 1990s. The for breeding and shelter. Furthermore, To assess resiliency and redundancy, losses in both the number of the available information regarding we evaluated the change in Franklin’s populations and their spatial extent locations where the species has been bumble bee occurrences (populations) render the Franklin’s bumble bee found indicates that the Franklin’s over time. To assess representation (as vulnerable to extinction even without bumble bee is a generalist forager and an indicator of adaptive capacity) of the further external stressors (e.g., that the species’ specific needs and Franklin’s bumble bee, we evaluated the pathogens and insecticide exposure) preferences for these habitat elements spatial extent of occurrences over time. acting upon the species. are relatively flexible, plentiful, and We evaluated the change in resiliency, As part of our status assessment of the widely distributed. While we can say representation, and redundancy from Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at that Bombus species in general might the past until the present; however, due potential stressors affecting the species’ prefer protected meadows with an to the lack of observations of the species viability (Service 2018a, pp. 23–40). abundance of wildflowers, the since 2006, we did not project Potential stressors that we analyzed for Franklin’s bumble bee has been found anticipated future states of these the Franklin’s bumble bee generally fit in a wide array of sheltered and exposed conditions. into three groups that correspond with habitat types at elevations ranging from Our analyses indicate that the Factors A (habitat loss and 540 ft (162 m) to 7,800 ft (2,340 m) resiliency, redundancy, and fragmentation), C (pathogens), or E (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). representation of the Franklin’s bumble (pesticide use, competition with bee have all declined since the late nonnative bees, and effects of small Natural or Prescribed Fire 1990s. Historically, the species has population size). No potential stressors Fire caused by both natural and always been rare and has one of the of the Franklin’s bumble bee correspond human-caused factors has been an narrowest distributions of any Bombus with Factor B. There has never been any important change on the landscape in species in the world. Even so, the indication that the Franklin’s bumble the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee. abundance and distribution of bee was at risk of overutilization for Because fire reduces natural succession Franklin’s bumble bee has declined commercial, recreational, scientific, or of forests through the burning of significantly (Service 2018a, pp. 10–14); educational purposes, and we did not encroaching woody plants, fire is a the species has not been observed since find any new information to suggest this primary factor in the maintenance of 2006, despite intensive survey efforts in has changed. Existing regulatory grassland and meadow habitat that can select portions of its historical range. mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed support Bombus species (Shultz and Search efforts for the species have been below in the context of how they help Crone 1998, p. 244; Huntzinger 2003, p. varied in timing, scope, intensity, and to reduce or ameliorate stressors to the 2). With the increase in human methodology. During the more intensive Franklin’s bumble bee. development came fire suppression to surveys from 1998 until the last The 2010 petition identified limit damage to manmade structures. observation in 2006, the Franklin’s destruction, degradation, and Fire suppression allows woody bumble bee was observed at 14 conversion of habitat as a threat to the encroachment to occur, and the diverse locations, including 8 locations where it Franklin’s bumble bee. In our 90-day landscape created by fire (open areas had not been previously documented. In finding on the 2010 petition (76 FR mixed within forested areas) is slowly 1998, 98 bees were found among 11 56381; September 13, 2011), we noted being replaced by increasing areas of locations. Searchers found fewer and that the petitioners provided substantial denser forested habitat; the open areas fewer bees after that year even though information on threats to the Franklin’s that facilitated the growth of diverse they continued extensive searches in bumble bee from the destruction, understory plant communities are being multiple locations with the highest modification, or curtailment of habitat, reduced from their historical condition likelihood of finding the species. primarily due to the potential impacts of (Ruchty 2011, p. 26). Conifer species Twenty bees were located in 1999, nine natural or prescribed fire. Because the now cover some of the area that was individuals were observed in 2000, and loss and degradation of habitat has been previously open meadow habitat in the one individual was observed in 2001. shown to reduce both diversity and range of the Franklin’s bumble bee Although 20 Franklin’s bumble bees abundance in other Bombus species (Panzer 2002, p. 1297; Shultz and Crone were observed in 2002, only 3 were (Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348–349), we 1998, p. 244). Although this loss of observed in 2003 (all at a single looked at the potential stressors of habitat by fire suppression may have locality), and a single worker bee was natural or prescribed fire, agricultural limited the availability and diversity of observed in 2006. Despite continued intensification, urban development, floral resources, as well as nest and intensive search efforts in these areas livestock grazing, and the effects of overwintering habitat for the Franklin’s through 2019, there have been no climate change (Service 2018a, pp. 23– bumble bee, healthy meadow habitat confirmed observations of the Franklin’s 40). remains in areas where the Franklin’s bumble bee since 2006. Data allow us to Although conversion of natural bumble bee was previously found estimate 43 potential populations of the habitat appears to be the primary cause (Godwin 2017, pers comm.; Colyer species since 1921, when the first of bumble bee habitat loss throughout 2017, pers. comm.), and it is unlikely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

that loss of habitat from fire suppression landscapes has led to decreases in observations of Franklin’s bumble bee: was a factor in the decline of the flowering plants (Potts et al. 2010, p. The creation of Lake Applegate upon species. 350). the completion of Applegate Dam in the Increased fuel loads from fire Within the historical range of the fall of 1980, and a report of soil suppression heighten the potential for Franklin’s bumble bee, total acres in modification on a portion of the Gold catastrophic, large-scale, and high agricultural cropland decreased in all Hill site in 2004; however, we have no temperature wildfires. Any Bombus three counties in Oregon (Douglas, information to indicate that Franklin’s colonies in the path of this type of fire Jackson, and Josephine) by greater than bumble bees were still in the vicinity or would be at risk of extirpation. Wildfire 50 percent from 1997 to 2012 (U.S. had any colonies in the area when these may have extirpated some historical Department of Agriculture—National events occurred. The Applegate Dam populations of the Franklin’s bumble Agriculture Statistics Service 2017, pers. project inundated two sites with bee, but we have no information comm.; Service 2018a, p. 33). While the historical observations of Franklin’s suggesting that any known Franklin’s total number of acres of agricultural bumble bee (from the 1960s), but no bumble bee occurrence sites were in the cropland is not synonymous with subsequent search efforts or path of catastrophic wildfires at the time agricultural intensification (specifically, observations (Xerces Society and Thorp the sites were occupied. Controlled the expansion of monocultures), a 2010, p. 13; Thorp, pers. comm. 2017). burning became a management tool for decrease in total acres of agriculture The June 23, 2010, petition noted that reducing potential fuel loads for leads us to conclude that agricultural in 2004, soil had been excavated and wildfire; controlled burning is carried intensification was not likely a factor in deposited in a portion of the Gold Hill out by Federal land management the decline of the Franklin’s bumble area (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. agencies including the U.S. Forest bee. We have no documentation in our 13). The last observation of Franklin’s Service and Bureau of Land files or any direct evidence that bumble bee at Gold Hill was in the year Management in the range of the agricultural intensification has 2000, and the site was revisited 14 times Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of contributed to the decline of the over the next 3 years with no fire on invertebrates depends greatly on Franklin’s bumble bee or will increase observations of Franklin’s bumble bee. the biology of the specific taxa (Gibson in the future to a degree that may affect In both of these cases, we have no et al. 1992, p. 166), and in the case of the viability of the species. information to suggest the species was the Franklin’s bumble bee, controlled Approximately 42 percent of sites where still using the habitat in the area by the burns could certainly cause death of Franklin’s bumble bees have ever been time the activities took place, and individual bees and negative effects to reported (18 of 43) occur on federally therefore no information to suggest that a colony. Prescribed fire is likely to owned land, primarily U.S. Forest either of these events affected the continue to be used as a management Service and Bureau of Land resiliency of any population of tool on some Federal land; however, the Management land; very little habitat on Franklin’s bumble bee. We have no practice is overall small in scale, these lands has been permanently documentation in our files or any direct opportunistic (depending on weather, altered or lost through agricultural evidence that urbanization or funding, and a host of other factors), intensification (Service 2018a, p. 32). development in the range of Franklin’s used to prevent catastrophic fire, and Urban Development bumble bee, or the incidents described often a net benefit to pollinators as it above, contributed to the decline of the opens habitat by decreasing canopy Ongoing urbanization contributes to species or will increase in the future to cover (U.S. Forest Service 1989, IV 87 to the loss and fragmentation of natural a degree that may affect the viability of IV 90, IV–113 to IV–119; U.S. Forest habitats. Urban gardens and parks the species (Portland State University Service 1990, pp 4–149 to 4–179). In provide habitat for some pollinators, 2015, p. 7). summary, we have no information to including bumble bees (Frankie et al. indicate that controlled burns were a 2005, p. 235; McFrederick and LeBuhn Livestock Grazing factor in the decline of the Franklin’s 2006, p. 372), but they tend not to Livestock grazing occurs on public bumble bee or will increase in the future support the species richness of bumble land in much of the historical range of to a degree that may affect the viability bees that can be found in nearby the Franklin’s bumble bee. Overgrazing of the species. undeveloped landscapes (Xerces Society by sheep between 1890 and 1920 and Thorp 2010, p. 13) or that which resulted in trampling vegetation and Agricultural Intensification was present historically (McFrederick denuding soils, and grazing is currently Agricultural intensification can result and LeBuhn 2006). However, Franklin’s evident today in the continuing erosion in habitat loss for bumble bees, as these bumble bee and western bumble bee of the granitic soils of the McDonald practices often result in the planting of have both been observed in urban areas Basin, Siskiyou Gap, Mt. Ashland, and monocultures that tend to provide floral of Ashland, Oregon, and in residential the Siskiyou Crest (LaLande 1995, p. 31; resources for a limited period of time, areas of Medford, Oregon. Furthermore, T. Atzet 2017, pers. comm.). Several rather than throughout the colony’s life approximately 42 percent of the sites studies on the impacts of livestock cycle. Agricultural intensification can where Franklin’s bumble bee have ever grazing on bees suggest that an increase negatively impact wild bees by reducing been reported (18 of 43) occur on in the intensity of livestock grazing floral resource diversity and abundance federally owned land, primarily U.S. affects the species richness of bees (Service 2018a, p. 32). Agricultural Forest Service and Bureau of Land (Service 2018a, p. 35). In contrast, intensification was determined to be a Management land, and very little habitat grazing, especially by cattle, can play a primary factor leading to the local on these lands has been permanently key positive role in maintaining the extirpation and decline of bumble bees altered or lost through development. abundance and species richness of in Illinois (Grixti et al. 2009, p. 75). An Generally good habitat conditions preferred bumble bee forage (Carvell increased use of herbicides often currently exist throughout the known 2002, p. 44). Evidence of livestock accompanies development and historical Franklin’s bumble bee grazing was observed interspersed agricultural intensification, and the locations and all of the recent focused within abundant floral resources in widespread use of herbicides in survey areas. Two notable events Franklin’s bumble bee habitat during agricultural, urban, and even natural occurred in areas with previous several recent targeted survey efforts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47227

(Brooks 1997, pers. comm.; Service resources, and we have no information species. Some studies suggest that 2016, entire; Service 2017, entire; Trail to suggest that they would not forage off pollinators are responding to climate 2017, pers. comm.). We have no new of whatever floral resource was in change with recent latitudinal and information that the timing, location, bloom at the time they emerge from elevational range shifts such that there intensity, or duration of grazing has their nests. We have no information to is spatial mismatch among plants and changed, with the exception of the suggest that any changes in the their pollinators; while this has been Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, vegetation community to date led to the demonstrated in butterflies, it may be where most grazing has been retired decline of the species. less of a factor for bumble bees (Service (Colyer 2018, pers. comm.). The lack of In order to understand the potential 2018a, p. 36). As generalist foragers, specific information on the impacts of future impact of climate change on bumble bees do not require synchrony livestock grazing on the Franklin’s Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at with a particular plant species, although bumble bee limits our ability to connect climate change projection models. some bumble bee populations are active the activity to any specific species’ Global climate projections are earlier in the season than in the past response, and we do not anticipate informative and, in some cases, the only (Bartomeus et al. 2011, p. 20646). grazing will increase in the future to a or the best scientific information Projections for an increase in degree that may affect the viability of available for us to use. However, temperature and decrease in the species (Bureau of Land projected changes in climate and related precipitation over the next 30 years may Management 2016, pp. 96–103). impacts can vary substantially across also affect the frequency or intensity of and within different regions of the wildfires and storm events (including Effects of Climate Change world (Intergovernmental Panel on flooding). These events could affect the Specific impacts of climate change on Climate Change 2007, pp. 8–12). availability of floral resources, the pollinators are not well understood; Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ suitability of nest locations, and the most of the existing information on projections when they are available and survival of overwintering queens. climate change impacts to pollinators have been developed through However, we do not have information comes from studies on butterflies. appropriate scientific procedures projecting the timing, scope, or intensity Studies specifically relating to bumble because such projections provide of wildfires or storms; the stochastic bees are scant, and we found no climate higher-resolution information that is nature of these events limits our ability change information specific to the more relevant to spatial scales used for to project the magnitude of impact on Franklin’s bumble bee. Changes in analyses of a given species (see Glick et the future condition of Franklin’s temperature and precipitation, and the al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of bumble bee or its habitat, and hinders increased frequency of storm events, can downscaling). our ability to assess their impact on the affect pollinator population sizes Downscaled projections as of 2016 viability of the species. directly, by affecting survival and were available for our analysis of the reproduction (Intergovernmental Panel Franklin’s bumble bee from the U.S. Summary on Climate Change 2013, entire; Bale et Geological Survey’s National Climate Although habitat loss has had al. 2002, p. 11; Roland and Matter 2016, Change Viewer (Alder, J. and S. negative effects on bumble bees, we p. 22). These climatic changes can also Hostetler. 2016, entire). The National conclude it is unlikely to be a main affect populations indirectly, by altering Climate Change Viewer is based on the driver of the decline of the Franklin’s resource availability and species mean of 30 models, which can be used bumble bee. Habitat appears generally interactions (Service 2018a, p. 36). to predict changes in air temperature intact and in good condition throughout Bumble bee abundance for three and precipitation for Jackson County, the known, historical locations of the species of Bombus in the Rocky Oregon (location of the last known Franklin’s bumble bee and throughout Mountains increased when floral occurrence record of Franklin’s bumble all of the recent focused survey areas resources were available for more days, bee), for two greenhouse gas emission (with the exceptions of the historical and the number of days when floral scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. From the sites affected by the creation of Lake resources were available increased with year 2020 to the year 2050, the model Applegate in the fall of 1980, and soil greater summer precipitation and later set shows an increase in the mean modification that occurred on a portion snowmelt dates (Ogilvie et al. 2017, p. maximum air temperature of between of the Gold Hill site in 2004). In our 4). Several of the targeted Franklin’s 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1 degree assessment, we found no information to bumble bee and western bumble bee Celsius (°C)) (RCP4.5) and 3.1 °F (1.7 °C) suggest that destruction, degradation, or survey reports between 2015 and 2017 (RCP8.5), and an increase in the mean conversion of habitat occurred at a include mention of widespread hot, dry annual minimum air temperature of scope and magnitude that would cause climate affecting timing and abundance between 1.0 °F (0.3 °C) (RCP4.5) and it to be a primary factor in the decline of floral resources during the surveys 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) (RCP8.5). For both of the Franklin’s bumble bee (Service (Bureau of Land Management 2015, p. 2; scenarios, mean precipitation is 2018a, pp. 35–37). Furthermore, we Trail 2017, pers. comm.). Although the predicted to decrease by approximately have no information to suggest that Olgilvie et al. study and the survey 0.4 inches (10 millimeters) for both habitat destruction or modification will reports suggest potential indirect effects scenarios. increase in scope and magnitude to the of climate change on Bombus, we have Projections for an increase in point where it will be a primary stressor no information to indicate that the temperature and decrease in to the species in its range in the near effects of climate change were precipitation over the next 30 years may future. connected to the decline of the lead to alteration in the vegetation A number of diseases and parasites Franklin’s bumble bee; numerous community in Franklin’s bumble bee are known to occur in bumble bee Bombus species persist in areas that are habitat, including the varieties of floral populations. These include the considered good quality habitat for the resources that Franklin’s bumble bee protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi (C. Franklin’s bumble bee (Pool 2014, relies on for nectar. However, we have bombi), the tracheal mite Locustacarus entire; Colyer 2016, entire). As a habitat no information to suggest that these buchneri, the microsporidium (parasitic generalist, Franklin’s bumble bee changes will result in a decrease in the fungus) Nosema bombi (N. bombi), as appears to forage on a variety of floral availability of nectar resources to the well as deformed wing virus. Pathogens

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

and parasites are widespread generalists and Schmid-Hempel 2007, pp. 122– 4). Although Cordes et al. (2011, p. 7) in the host genus, but affect species 123). Malfi and Roulston (2014, p. 24) found a new allele in N. bombi, the differently according to host found that N. bombi infections are more recent study by Cameron et al. (2016) susceptibility and tolerance to infection frequent and more severe in rare found no evidence of an exotic strain of (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 221; Malfi and species, and the species with the highest N. bombi. Roulston 2014, p. 18). The host species’ percentages of infected individuals were In summary, known pathogens occur life history plays a role in the virulence rare species. Furthermore, the effects of within the historical range of the of a given pathogen; for instance, pathogen infection on bumble bees may Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have parasites may have relatively smaller be amplified by other influence factors. evidence of several pathogens infecting effects on species with shorter colony Nutritional stress may compromise the closely related species within that range life cycles and smaller colony sizes ability of bumble bees to survive that have also likely affected the (Rutrecht and Brown 2009, entire). parasitic infections, as evidenced by a Franklin’s bumble bee. Although we Pathogen spillover is a process significant difference in mortality in have no direct evidence of pathogens whereby parasites and pathogens spread bumble bees on a restricted diet playing a role in the decline of the from commercial bee colonies to native compared to well-fed bees infected with Franklin’s bumble bee, the bee populations (Colla et al. 2006, p. C. bombi (Brown et al. 2000, pp. 424– disappearance of the Franklin’s bumble 461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 425). bee occurred soon after a period of 1). The decline of certain Bombus A virulent strain of Nosema bombi potential exposure to introduced pathogens, particularly N. bombi, which species from the mid-1990s to present, from the buff-tailed bumble bee particularly species in the subgenus is known to have a more severe impact (Bombus terrestris) may have spread to Bombus sensu stricto (including on rare species like the Franklin’s the eastern bumble bee (B. impatiens) Franklin’s bumble bee), was bumble bee. Decline of other closely and western bumble bee from Europe. In contemporaneous with the collapse of related pollinators has been associated the mid-1990s, companies shipped commercially bred western bumble bee with these pathogens, and it is highly queen eastern and western bumble bees (raised primarily to pollinate likely pathogens have had some to Europe for their development into greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper negative influence on the resiliency of colonies to use in commercial crops beginning in the late 1980s) Franklin’s bumble bee populations. pollination services. When the colonies (Szabo et al. 2012, pp. 232–233). This had reached sufficient size, they were Pesticide Use collapse was attributed to infections of Nosema bombi. shipped back to the United States and Exposure to pesticides can occur to Nosema bombi has been detected in deployed in industrial greenhouse bumble bees from direct spray or drift, native bumble bees in North America, operations in California, primarily to or from gathering or consuming and has been found to be a part of the pollinate tomatoes and peppers. The contaminated nectar or pollen (Johansen natural pathogen load. The fungus has colonies may have picked up N. bombi and Mayer 1990; Morandin et al. 2005, been reported in Canada since the 1940s prior to their shipment back into the p. 619). Lethal and sublethal effects on (Cordes et al. 2011, p. 7) and appears to United States, and once in this country, bumble bee eggs, larvae, and adults have have a broad host range in North the commercially reared colonies may been documented for many different American (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 222). have spread the virulent strain to wild pesticides under various scenarios Infections of the pathogen primarily populations of Franklin’s bumble bee (Service 2018a, p. 28). Documented sub- occur in the malpighian tubules (small (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 14). lethal effects to individual bumble bees excretory or water regulating glands), In work partially funded by the Service, and colonies include reduced or no but also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and the University of Illinois conducted male production, reduced or no egg sometimes the trachea (Macfarlane et al. surveys for parasites and pathogens in hatch, reduced queen production, 1995). Bombus colonies can appear to bumble bee populations of the Pacific reduced queen longevity, reduced be healthy but still carry N. bombi and Northwest and Midwest between 2005 colony weight gain, reduced brood size, transmit it to other colonies, most likely and 2009. The goal was to assess reduced feeding, impaired ovary when spores are fed to larvae and then Bombus populations for presence and development, and an increased number infected adults drift into non-natal prevalence of pathogens, particularly of foragers or foraging trips or duration colonies (Service 2018a, p. 25). microsporidia, in an effort to provide (interpreted as risky behaviors) (Service While we have no evidence of direct baseline data to assess disease as a 2018a, p. 28). Bumble bee habitat can effects of a virulent strain of N. bombi potential factor in the decline of the also be impacted by pesticides due to on the Franklin’s bumble bee, N. bombi Franklin’s bumble bee, western bumble changes in vegetation and the removal has been detected in closely related bee, and American bumble bee (B. or reduction of flowers needed to species in the range of the Franklin’s pensylvanicus) (Solter et al. 2010, p. 1). provide consistent sources of pollen, bumble bee. Furthermore, N. bombi The highest prevalence of N. bombi was nectar, and nesting material (Service infections in rare species like the found in western bumble bee, with 26 2018a, p. 28). Declines in bumble bees Franklin’s bumble bee are more percent of collected individuals in parts of Europe have been at least frequent, are more severe, and seem to infected. Crithidia bombi infections of partially attributed to the use of affect a higher percentage of individuals western bumble bee were 2.8 percent pesticides (Williams 1986, p. 54; Kosior of the species (Cameron et al. 2011, overall (Solter et al. 2010, pp. 3–4); no et al. 2007, p. 81). entire; Cordes et al. 2011, p. 2). Franklin’s bumble bees were collected Although the use of land for The effect of pathogens on bumble during the study. However, Mt. agricultural purposes has traditionally bees varies from mild to severe Ashland, Oregon, was one of only three involved the use of pesticides and other (Macfarlane et al. 1995; Rutrecht et al. sites in the Pacific Northwest study area products toxic to bees, one particular 2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel where N. bombi infections were found class of insecticides known as 2008, p. 577). Bumble bees infected in multiple Bombus species (the neonicotinoids have been strongly with Nosema bombi may have crippled indiscriminate cuckoo bumble bee (B. implicated in the decline of honey bees wings, and queens may have distended insularis) and black-notched bumble bee (Apis spp.) worldwide, and implicated abdomens and be unable to mate (Otti (B. bifarius)) (Solter et al. 2010, pp. 3– in the decline of several Bombus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47229

species, including rusty patched bumble populations are likely to suffer exposure pp. 32–33; Thomson 2004, p. 458; bee, buff-tailed bumble bee, and eastern to and impacts from pesticides in Thomson 2006, p. 407). Additionally, bumble bee (Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69; similar measure to other Bombus the size of workers of native Bombus Goulson 2013, pp. 7–8; Colla and Packer species when the Franklin’s bumble bee species were noticeably reduced where 2008, p. 10; Lundin et al. 2015, p. 7). is in areas where pesticides are applied. European honey bees were present, which may be detrimental to Bombus Neonicotinoids are a broad class of Effects of Small Population Size insecticides based on nicotine colony success (Goulson and Sparrow compounds used in a variety of The Franklin’s bumble bee is rare and 2009, p. 177). It is likely that the effects agricultural applications; they act as a has always had very small populations discussed in these studies are local in neurotoxin, affecting the central nervous (relative to other similar, native bumble space and time, and most pronounced system of insects by interfering with the bees in the western United States), and where floral resources are limited and receptors of the insects’ nervous system, likely has low genetic diversity due to large numbers of commercial European causing overstimulation, paralysis, and the haplodiploid genetic system it honey bee colonies are introduced death (Douglas and Tooker 2015, pp. shares with all Bombus species (Zayed (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). 5090–5092). The neonicotinoid family 2009, p. 238). These factors make the We have no information to indicate that of insecticides includes acetamiprid, species more vulnerable to habitat any area of Franklin’s bumble bee clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, change or loss, parasites, diseases, habitat in the range of the species has nithiazine, thiacloprid, and stochastic events, and other natural limited floral resources and large thiamethoxam. In the range of the disasters such as droughts (Xerces numbers of European honey bees. We Franklin’s bumble bee (Jackson, Society and Thorp 2010, p. 20). Between have no information related to the Douglas, and Josephine Counties in 1998 and 2006, the number of Franklin’s specific placement of commercial honey Oregon, as well as Trinity and Siskiyou bumble bee observations went from a bee colonies in or near Franklin’s Counties in California), the first high of 98 at 11 locations, to a lone bumble bee habitat. Furthermore, reported use of imidacloprid was in individual in 2006. No observations of European honey bees have been present 1996, thiamethoxam in 2001, and the Franklin’s bumble bee have without noticeable declines in Bombus clothianidin in 2004. The use of occurred since 2006, despite an increase populations over large portions of their neonicotinoid pesticides continued in in survey effort. Diploid male ranges (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, the range of the species through 2006, production has been detected in p. 21), and we have no new information naturally occurring populations of when the last observation of the that connects competition from bumble bees, and recent modeling work Franklin’s bumble bee was recorded. European honey bees to the decline of has shown that diploid male production Across all five counties, total estimated the Franklin’s bumble bee. may initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a applications of these three There is potential for nonnative, situation in which genetic and neonicotinoids increased from 53.31 commercially raised bumble bees to demographic traits and environmental pounds (lbs) (24.19 kilograms (kg)) in naturalize and outcompete native conditions reinforce each other in a 1996, to 1,144.6 lbs (519.9 kg) in 2014. bumble bees for limited resources such downward spiral, leading to extinction) However, the exponential growth of as nesting sites and forage areas. Five (Goulsen et al. 2008, p. 11.8). Because neonicotinoid applications started in commercially reared eastern bumble bee of inbreeding and the production of 2011, 5 years after the last observation workers and one queen were captured sterile males, the haplodiploid genetic in the wild near greenhouses where of the species. The vast majority of system makes bumble bees very commercial bumble bees are used, neonicotinoids are used as seed vulnerable when populations get small suggesting this species may have treatments on grains and other field (Colla 2018, pers. comm.). Although we naturalized outside of its native range. crops (Oregon Department of have no direct evidence that small The eastern bumble bee, which has a Agriculture 2018, pers. comm.), and population size or a rapid extinction native range in eastern North America, total agricultural land within the vortex contributed to the decline of the was detected in western Canada (Ratti historical range of the species is less species, the genetic system and and Colla 2010, pp. 29–31). In Japan, than 2 percent of the total land base historically small population size of the nonnative buff-tailed bumble bee (2011 National Land Cover Data Set and Franklin’s bumble bee likely heightened colonies founded by bees that had 2016 USDA Crop Data Layers (CDL) in the species’ vulnerability to other escaped from commercially produced Syngenta 2019, pers. comm). threats in the environment; we, colonies had more than four times the No studies have investigated the therefore, consider the effects of small mean reproductive output of native effects of pesticide use on the Franklin’s population size a synergistic threat to bumble bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p. bumble bee, and no discoveries have the species. 93). In England, commercially raised been documented of any Franklin’s buff-tailed bumble bee colonies had Competition With Nonnative Bees bumble bees injured or killed by higher nectar-foraging rates and greater pesticides. The Franklin’s bumble bee is The European honey bee (Apis reproductive output than a native a habitat generalist and is not known to mellifera) was first introduced to eastern subspecies of the buff-tailed bumble bee have a close association with North America in the early 1620s, and (Ings et al. 2006, p. 940). Colonies of agricultural lands; therefore, it may have into California in the early 1850s eastern bumble bee were imported to less exposure to pesticides than some (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). pollinate agricultural crops and other Bombus species. However, The resource needs of the European strawberries in Grants Pass, Oregon, in pesticide use occurs in the range of the honey bee and native Bombus species the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee Franklin’s bumble bee. The similarity in may overlap, resulting in the potential (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 18). foraging traits that the Franklin’s for increased competition for resources Although nonnative Bombus species bumble bee has with both honey bees (Thomson 2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, in the range of Franklin’s bumble bee and the other Bombus species (e.g., p. 407). Decreased foraging activity and could outcompete Franklin’s bumble generalist foragers collecting pollen lowered reproductive success of bee for floral resources and nesting from similar food sources) allows us to Bombus colonies have been noted near habitat, we have no information to infer that Franklin’s bumble bee European honey bee hives (Evans 2001, definitively connect competition with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

nonnative bumble bees to the decline of of bees to locate floral resources and mitigations to create and enhance the Franklin’s bumble bee. Furthermore, extract nectar and pollen, therefore pollinator habitat (Colyer 2018, pers. invertebrate surveys in Franklin’s exacerbating nutritional stresses comm.). The Oregon Department of bumble bee habitat continue to show (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Further, Agriculture restricts some potential evidence of healthy populations of other declining North American species with sources of Nosema bombi from entering native Bombus species unaffected by low genetic diversity have higher the State for agricultural uses, including competition from nonnative bees (Pool prevalence of the pathogen Nosema commercially produced colonies of 2014, entire; Colyer 2016, entire). bombi (Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). In eastern bumble bee; only Bombus summary, we, therefore, find that species native to Oregon are allowed for Summary pathogens in combination with commercial pollination purposes We find that several natural and other pesticides, as well as pathogens in (Oregon Department of Agriculture human-caused factors contributed to the combination with the effects of small 2017, p. 5). However, California allows, decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. population size, may have hastened and with appropriate permits, the While it is unlikely that pesticides alone amplified the decline of the Franklin’s importation of eastern bumble bee, and can account for the decline of the bumble bee to a greater degree than any other species such as the blue orchard Franklin’s bumble bee, documented one of the three threats would cause on bee (Osmia lignaria), for greenhouse effects of pesticides on closely related its own. pollination (California Department of Bombus species suggest pesticide use Food and Agriculture 2017), making the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and was likely a factor in the decline of the potential for pathogen spillover from Conservation Efforts Franklin’s bumble bee. The nonnative bees higher in California. haplodiploid genetic system of the Surveys conducted by Dr. Robbin Some local municipalities in Oregon Franklin’s bumble bee, combined with Thorp, other private individuals, enacted legislation against aerial its historically small population size, university classes and researchers, the pesticide applications but none in the was also likely a factor in the decline of U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land range of the Franklin’s bumble bee the species. Although nonnative Management have significantly (Powell 2017, p. 1; City of Portland Bombus species in the range of the contributed to the existing information 2015, p. 2). However, in the 2017 Franklin’s bumble bee could on Franklin’s bumble bee. However, legislative session, Oregon passed an outcompete the Franklin’s bumble bee other than those search efforts, we are Avoidance of Adverse Effects on for floral resources and nesting habitat, aware of no conservation efforts or Pollinating Insects law (Oregon Revised we have no information connecting beneficial actions specifically taken to Statutes (ORS) 634.045) that is competition with nonnative bumble address threats to the Franklin’s bumble providing enhanced training of licensed bees to the decline of the Franklin’s bee. Oregon does not include and unlicensed pesticide applicators in bumble bee. Additionally, surveys in invertebrates on their State endangered the State (Melathopoulos 2018, pers. Franklin’s bumble bee habitat continue species list (Oregon Department of Fish comm.), and could thereby reduce to show evidence of healthy populations and Wildlife 2018, entire) and California effects of pesticides on pollinators, of other native Bombus species has no bee species included on its list including Franklin’s bumble bee. unaffected by competition from of threatened and endangered In January 2017, the U.S. nonnative bees. invertebrates (California Department of Environmental Protection Agency’s Fish and Wildlife 2018, entire). Office of Pesticide Programs published Synergistic and Cumulative Effects California has the Franklin’s bumble bee their ‘‘Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk It is likely that several threats are listed on its list of terrestrial and vernal to Bees from Pesticide Products,’’ which acting cumulatively and synergistically pool invertebrates of conservation recommended new labeling statements on many Bombus species, including the priority but has no required actions or for pesticide products, including Franklin’s bumble bee (Goulson et al. special protections associated with the warnings for pesticides with a known 2015, p. 5), and the combination of listing (California Department of Fish acute toxicity to bees (Tier 1 pesticides), multiple threats is likely more harmful and Wildlife 2017, p. 10). The including neonicotinoids (specifically than any one acting alone (Gill et al. Franklin’s bumble bee is on the species including imidacloprid, clothianidin, 2012, p. 108; Coors and DeMeester 2008, index for the U.S. Forest Service and and thiamethoxam) (U.S. Environmental p. 1821; Sih et al. 2004, p. 274). There Bureau of Land Management Protection Agency 2017, p. 31). In is recent evidence that the interactive Interagency Special Status/Sensitive addition, the Environmental Protection effects of pesticides and pathogens Species Program (ISSSSP). Although the Agency is working with State and Tribal could be particularly harmful for Federal agencies include the species in agencies to develop and implement bumble bees (Service 2018a, p. 39). survey efforts and conduct general local pollinator protection plans, known Nutritional stress may compromise the meadow enhancement activities, there as Managed Pollinator Protection Plans ability of bumble bees to survive are no actions resulting from the ISSSSP (MP3s). The Environmental Protection parasitic infections (Brown et al. 2000, classification that address known Agency is promoting MP3s to address pp. 424–425). Bumble bees with threats to the Franklin’s bumble bee potential pesticide exposure to bees and activated immunity may have metabolic (ISSSSP 2018, entire). other pollinators at and beyond the site costs, such as increased food General awareness of colony collapse of the application. However, States and consumption (Tyler et al. 2006, p. 2; disorder and increase of conservation Tribes have the flexibility to determine Moret and Schmid-Hempel 2000, pp. efforts for pollinators in general has the scope of pollinator protection plans 1166–1167). Additionally, exposure to likely had limited, indirect effects on that best responds to pollinator issues in pesticides may increase with increased policies and regulations. The U.S. Forest their regions. For example, State and food consumption in infected bees Service is working to include a section Tribal MP3s may address pesticide- (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Activating in all biological evaluations to address related risks to all pollinators, including immunity impairs learning in bumble the effects from agency actions on managed bees and wild insect and non- bees (Riddell and Mallon 2006; pollinators. In addition, the Rogue insect pollinators (U.S. Environmental Alghamdi et al. 2008, p. 480). Impaired River-Siskiyou National Forest is Protection Agency 2018). The Service learning is thought to reduce the ability implementing ongoing projects and implemented a ban on the use of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47231

neonicotinoids on all lands in the proposal by October 15, 2019. All report, we rely heavily on information National Wildlife Refuge System in comments we received are posted at from closely-related species from the 2014 (Service 2014); however, no refuge http://www.regulations.gov under same sub-genus, Bombus sensu stricto, lands occur within the range of the Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. particularly the rusty patched bumble Franklin’s bumble bee, and the Service We contacted appropriate Federal and bee and the western bumble bee. The rescinded the ban in 2018 (Service State agencies (in both Oregon and range of the western bumble bee 2018b, entire). None of these California), scientific experts and completely overlaps the historical range aforementioned regulatory or organizations, and other interested of Franklin’s bumble bee, and the conservation measures has appreciably parties and invited them to comment on western bumble bee is still found at reduced or fully ameliorated threats to the proposal, even if they previously several known Franklin’s bumble bee the Franklin’s bumble bee, as evidenced provided peer or partner review locations, most recently in 2019 at Mt. by the species’ acute and rangewide comments on the SSA report. We did Ashland, the last known location of decline. not receive any additional comments Franklin’s bumble bee. As mentioned in We note that, by using the SSA from individuals or agencies who had the August 13, 2019, proposed rule (84 framework to guide our analysis of the previously provided peer review or FR 40006) and the SSA report, a specific scientific information documented in partner review on the SSA report. We habitat study for the species has not the SSA report, we have not only did not receive any requests for a public been completed, nor have the specific analyzed individual effects on the hearing. We reviewed all comments for life-history characteristics and behavior species, but we have also analyzed their substantive issues and new information of this rare species been studied. potential cumulative effects. We regarding the Franklin’s bumble bee. Despite uncertainties regarding the incorporate the cumulative effects into During the comment period, we Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat needs, our SSA analysis when we characterize received 53 letters or statements directly we know they need (1) floral resources the current and future condition of the addressing the proposed action, for nectaring throughout the colony species. Our assessment of the current including one comment with 15,749 cycle, and (2) relatively protected areas status of the Franklin’s bumble bee signatures (supporting the listing of the for breeding and shelter. The habitat incorporates the threats individually Franklin’s bumble bee). All but one of elements appearing to fulfill those needs and cumulatively. Our assessment is the commenters supported the listing of that have documented use by the iterative because it accumulates and the Franklin’s bumble bee as Franklin’s bumble bee are relatively evaluates the effects of all the factors endangered. All but one of the plentiful and widely distributed. that may be influencing the species, commenters disagreed with our In our expert elicitation, we asked the including threats and conservation determination that designating critical following question: In looking at the efforts. Because the SSA framework habitat is not prudent. Substantive distribution map of all known considers not just the presence of the comments we received during the occurrences of Franklin’s bumble bee, factors, but to what degree they comment period are addressed below are there areas in Douglas, Jackson, collectively influence risk to the entire and, where appropriate, are Josephine, Siskiyou, and Trinity species, our assessment integrates the incorporated directly into this final rule. cumulative effects of the factors and Counties in addition to these occurrence Public Comments replaces a standalone cumulative effects sites that might contain the species’ analysis. (1) Comment: Several commenters known foraging plants: Lupine (Lupinus disagreed with our conclusion that spp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia Summary of Status Franklin’s bumble bees are habitat californica), horsemint or nettle-leaf The significant decrease in abundance generalists. Commenters stated that the giant hyssop (Agastache urticifolia), and and distribution of the Franklin’s limited range of the species mountain monardella (Monardella bumble bee to date has greatly reduced demonstrates that it is only found in odoratissima)? Dr. Thorp (the the species’ ability to adapt to changing specific habitats and that if the species preeminent authority on Franklin’s environmental conditions and to guard was truly a habitat generalist, it would bumble bee) responded that he was against further losses of adaptive be expected to have a much larger range. ‘‘trying to figure out what defined or diversity and potential extinction due to They noted that the range of the species limited habitat at the time that [the catastrophic events. It also substantially is limited to the Siskiyou Mountains, a species] disappeared.’’ Dr. Thorp noted reduced the ability of the Franklin’s subset of the Klamath Mountain region that the species had historically ranged bumble bee to withstand environmental of southern Oregon and southwestern from 500 ft in elevation at Sutherland to variation, catastrophic events, and California, and that there are specific over 6,700 ft at Mt. Shasta and Mt. changes in physical and biological characteristics of Franklin’s bumble bee Ashland, meaning they could go conditions. Coupled with the increased habitat in that area that can be through multiple mountain passes to risk of extirpation due to the interaction identified, such as montane meadows extend east or south, but they did not; of reduced population size and the rich in lupine, California poppy, they were not limited by geography. species’ haplodiploid genetic system, mountain monardella, and clover. Further, they were also not limited by the Franklin’s bumble bee may lack the Commenters note that the Siskiyou flowering plants; they are generalist resiliency required to sustain Range is known for its high number of foragers (Thorp 2018, pers. comm). In populations into the future, even endemic species and these other addition, bumble bees ‘‘are classic without further exposure to pathogens endemic species are not considered generalist foragers, capable of working a and pesticides. habitat generalists. wide variety of plants for their Our Response: As stated in the SSA resources’’ (Williams et al. 2014, p. 15). Summary of Comments and report, our analyses are predicated on The historical record also suggests the Recommendations multiple assumptions due to the Franklin’s bumble bee may use a variety In our proposed rule published on significant lack of species-specific of nesting substrates given that a colony August 13, 2019 (84 FR 40006), we information for Franklin’s bumble bee was found in a residential garage in requested that all interested parties (2018a, p. 6). We further note that for Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, pers. submit written comments on the the purposes of the analyses in the SSA comm.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

We agree that the Klamath-Siskiyou We agree that narrow pollen diets Our Response: In our analysis of the ecoregion, which hosts much of the likely play a role in the decline of some threats facing Franklin’s bumble bee in historical range of the Franklin’s bumble Bombus species as the distribution and the SSA report, we completed a review bee, is very diverse and relatively rich abundance of their floral resources of the best available scientific and in endemic species. The Klamath- change, but we do not have sufficient commercial information on threats that Siskiyou ecoregion is considered a information to determine if this was a have been present in the range of the global center of biodiversity, is an significant causal factor in the decline of bee (Service 2018a, pp. 23–40). During International Union for Conservation of the Franklin’s bumble bee. We do have the public comment period on the Nature (IUCN) Area of Global Botanical some records of the species of plants proposed rule we did not receive any Significance (1 of 7 in North America), visited by Franklin’s bumble bee, but we new information regarding potential and is proposed as a World Heritage Site do not have an exhaustive or threats that prompted us to change the and United Nations Educational, comprehensive list. Of the plants conclusions in our analysis. The Scientific and Cultural Organization Franklin’s bumble bee is known to use, viability analysis takes into account the (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve (World many are widely distributed. For threats to the species that have Wildlife Fund 2020, entire). Extensive example, California poppy is found in influenced historical populations, literature is available describing some of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, threats that are influencing the current the biologic investigations in this Minnesota, and northwestern Baja condition of populations, and threats ecoregion (University of Oregon 2020, California, Mexico. Nettle-leaf giant which are likely to play a role in the entire). However, we are not aware of hyssop (horse mint) is native throughout species’ overall viability into the future. any information linking Franklin’s western North America from British In our SSA report for Franklin’s bumble bumble bee exclusively to endemic Columbia in Canada, to California to bee, we noted those threats that are habitat features, including floral Colorado, where it grows in a wide likely to play a role in the future resources specific to this ecosystem. variety of habitat types. Mountain (pathogens, pesticides, and the (2) Comment: One commenter noted monardella is found in montane forests synergistic effects of small population that forage is only one component of between 600 m and 3,100 m (1,969 ft size), but did not complete a full future Franklin’s bumble bee’s niche and does and 10,170 ft) in elevation in Oregon, condition analysis; the dearth of not alone define a habitat generalist, Washington, Nevada, and Utah. information on this species, particularly citing Devictor et al. 2010. They stated Regarding tongue length, although the the lack of species occurrence that even if the species is a general Franklin’s bumble bee is a short- information after 2006, limited our forager it could still have a relatively tongued species, Wood et al. found no ability to compare current and future narrow habitat niche, adding that evidence of tongue length as a predictor condition. narrow pollen diets are associated with of dietary breadth (2019, p. 9). other rare bumble bees like Franklin’s Although empirical data are currently bumble bee. They referenced a recent (3) Comment: Several commenters unavailable regarding the level of study, Wood et al. 2019, that looked at disagreed that the present or threatened habitat loss and degradation specifically the diets of two species closely related destruction, modification, or affecting the Franklin’s bumble bee, we to Franklin’s bumble bee, the American curtailment of habitat is not a threat to do know that habitat impacts have bumble bee and rusty patch bumble bee, the Franklin’s bumble bee. One caused the decline of other Bombus and found these declining species had commenter stated that the Service species (e.g., Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2; a narrow pollen diet, collecting around analyzed fire suppression, agricultural Goulson and Darvill 2008, pp. 193–194; one-third fewer pollen types than other intensification, urban development, Brown and Paxton 2009, pp. 411–412). more stable species. The study further livestock grazing, and effects of climate Although habitat loss has had negative noted that these two species are short- change, but only as to whether they effects on Bombus species in general, tongued and the anatomical feature was contributed to the historical decline of available information did not indicate it mentioned as a potential factor in their Franklin’s bumble bee, not as current was a driver of the decline of Franklin’s narrower diet. threats. One commenter stated that the bumble bee. Habitat appears generally Our Response: There are many factors climate change effects of increased intact and in good condition throughout related to Franklin’s bumble bees and drought severity, wildfire risk, and the known historical locations of the their habitat that we do not yet, and may winter or early season flood risk are Franklin’s bumble bee and in all recent never, understand; however, the clear threats to Franklin’s bumble bee focused survey areas, and many of these information gathered for our habitat in the current and near future; habitats currently host a wide variety of assessment, including the opinion of the they noted that flood risk is especially other bumble bees, including closely- preeminent authority on the species (Dr. concerning for overwintering related species like the western bumble Robbin Thorp), indicates that Franklin’s hibernating queens who may suffer bee. As noted above in Summary of bumble bee is likely a habitat generalist. mortality or respond by emerging too Biological Status and Threats, we have The commenter cites Devictor et al. early for floral resources. The no information to suggest that any 2010, when noting forage is only one commenter also noted that due to the known Franklin’s bumble bee locations component of Franklin’s bumble bee’s myriad of threats outlined in the August were in the path of wildfire at the time niche and may not alone define a 13, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 40006), those locations were occupied. Further, habitat generalist. However, the same it is incorrect to conclude that as made evident in our geographic paper also states that a measure of Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat is information system (GIS) analysis, most ecological specialization is the unlimited in its capacity to provide of the recent locations with confirmed assumption that specialists should co- uncontaminated resources to the Franklin’s bumble bee observations are occur with relatively few species; this is species. One commenter stated that all- on publicly owned land that is managed in contrast to generalist species who terrain vehicle (ATV) use and herbicide to preserve habitat conditions through a should co-occur with many different use are current threats to Franklin’s variety of mechanisms, including fire species across sites (Devictor et al. 2010, bumble bee’s habitat, but provided no suppression. Furthermore, we have no p. 23), as has been observed with additional information upon which to information to suggest that habitat Franklin’s bumble bees. base those claims. destruction or modification from fire

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47233

suppression, agricultural intensification, habitat study for the Franklin’s bumble give Franklin’s bumble bee access to urban development, and livestock bee has been completed; such a study more high-quality habitat to combat the grazing will increase in intensity to the was initiated in 2006, when the threats of pathogens and pesticides and point where they will be threats to the Franklin’s bumble bee was last seen, but to recover from them; (3) competition viability of the species in the future could not continue due to the and disease from nonnative honey bees, (Bureau of Land Management 2016, p. subsequent absence of the species. As as well as pesticides from both 103; Portland State University 2015, p. such, we cannot with specificity agriculture and siliviculture, are threats 7; U.S. Forest Service 1989, IV–87 to IV– articulate the physical or biological that will be unregulated without the 90, IV–113 to IV–119; U.S. Forest features essential to the conservation of designation of critical habitat; (4) Service 1990, pp. 4–149 to 4–179; the Franklin’s bumble bee, or determine critical habitat would provide concrete Service 2018a, p. 32). whether or not any area would meet the objective locations in which to protect Future changes in temperature and definition of critical habitat for the the species through section 7 of the Act; precipitation may lead to changes in the Franklin’s bumble bee (see discussion and (5) critical habitat would inform the vegetation community in Franklin’s under Prudency Determination, below). species recovery plan and where exactly bumble bee habitat. However, as a Even if physical and biological the Service would implement recovery habitat generalist, Franklin’s bumble bee features can be articulated for the actions to ameliorate threats to the appears to forage on a variety of floral species, the regulations in effect at the species. resources, and we have no information time the species was proposed for Our Response: The implementing to suggest that they would not seek the listing indicated that we may find that regulations of the Act upon which the nectar of whatever floral resource was in designating critical habitat is not August 13, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR bloom at the time they emerge from prudent if it is not beneficial to the 40006) and this final rule are based set their nests. Additionally, the risk of species. With the exception of the forth that the factors the Service may catastrophic wildfire and seasonal inundation of two sites with older consider in determining that a critical flooding, as well as other effects from historical occurrences of Franklin’s habitat designation would not be storm events, are naturally present in bumble bee locations by the prudent include, but are not limited to, the ecosystems within the range of the construction of Applegate Dam, and a whether the species is threatened by Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of report of soil modification on a portion taking or other human activity, and climate change may affect the frequency of the Gold Hill site 4 years after the last identification of critical habitat can be and intensity of these events, thereby occurrence of Franklin’s bumble bee in expected to increase the degree of threat affecting the availability of floral the area, no noticeable destruction, to the species; or whether such resources, the suitability of nest modification, or curtailment of habitat designation of critical habitat would not locations, and the survival of or range can be identified in areas where be beneficial to the species (50 CFR overwintering queens. However, we the species had been previously located. 424.12(a)(1)). We determine that the cannot project the likelihood of when or No significant destruction or designation of critical habitat would not where these events will occur, or how modification of Franklin’s bumble bee be beneficial to the species because the intense they will be if they do occur. habitat can be attributed to natural fire, present or threatened destruction, We agree that Franklin’s bumble bee prescribed fire, agricultural modification, or curtailment of the habitat is not unlimited. As we point intensification, urban development, species’ habitat or range (Factor A) is out in the beginning of the SSA report, livestock grazing, or the effects of not a threat to the Franklin’s bumble bee Franklin’s bumble bee is the most climate change. Additionally, as and because we cannot with specificity narrowly endemic bumble bee in North discussed above, the Franklin’s bumble articulate the physical or biological America, and possibly the world. In bee has been documented using a wide features essential to the conservation of accordance with listing Franklin’s variety of habitats throughout its range. the Franklin’s bumble bee, or determine bumble bee as endangered under the Because habitat for the Franklin’s whether or not any area would meet the Act, we will develop a recovery outline bumble bee is not limiting, and because definition of critical habitat for the for this species. Current and possible the bee is considered to be flexible with Franklin’s bumble bee (see discussion future threats will be considered during regards to its habitat, the availability of under Prudency Determination, below). recovery planning for this species. habitat does not limit the conservation As mentioned in our response to (4) Comment: One commenter of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor Comments (3) and (4), no noticeable disagreed that critical habitat could not will it in the future (see response to destruction, modification, or be defined. They point to our proposed Comment (3)). Therefore, we have curtailment of Franklin’s bumble bee rule, which states that surveys have determined that designation of critical habitat or range can be identified in been done in areas that appear to have habitat for the Franklin’s bumble bee is areas where the species had been good habitat for Bombus and Franklin’s not beneficial to the species and, previously located, and could not be bumble bee, as evidence that there are therefore, not prudent. shown to have affected the resiliency of known and defined characteristics of (5) Comment: Two commenters any population of Franklin’s bumble potential critical habitat in previously disagreed that the designation of critical bee. None of the potential threats to occupied areas. habitat would not be beneficial to the Franklin’s bumble bee habitat we Our Response: While we acknowledge conservation of the species. They argue assessed appears to threaten the that some general habitat associations of it would be beneficial due to the viability of the species (USFWS 2018a, Bombus are known, the Franklin’s following: (1) Critical habitat would pp. 23–41). Therefore, we find that bumble bee has been found in a wide promote connectivity between habitat because the present or threatened array of habitat types, from foraging in patches, which will help reduce the risk destruction, modification, or montane meadows in a remote of inbreeding depression and promote curtailment of a species’ habitat or range wilderness area of California to nesting recovery of the species; (2) many studies is not a threat to Franklin’s bumble bee, in a residential garage in the city limits have shown the link between quality designating critical habitat is not of Medford, Oregon. Furthermore, habitat and nutrition and health of beneficial and, therefore, not prudent. elevation does not appear to limit the bumble bee colonies, and critical habitat Furthermore, regarding section 7 species’ dispersal capabilities. No would be beneficial because it would consultation, because of the listing of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

the species (absent critical habitat), Franklin’s bumble bee occurred soon Franklin’s bumble bee. The risk of Federal agencies will still be required to after a period of introduction of new extinction is high because the species consult under section 7 of the Act on pathogens. Furthermore, documented has not been found since 2006, and the activities that may affect this species in effects to other closely related species suspected threats to the species persist. areas where the Franklin’s bumble bee lead many species experts to suspect We find that a threatened species status is reasonably certain to occur. The that the effects of pathogens had some is not appropriate for the Franklin’s Federal action agency will be required connection to the decline of the bumble bee because of the extreme loss to identify any listed species that could Franklin’s bumble bee. We evaluated of abundance of the species, because the be within the project area of any existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor threats are occurring rangewide and are proposed activity, and consult with the D) and conservation measures and their not localized, and because the threats Service if that activity is likely to effects on the threats and the status of are ongoing and expected to continue adversely affect the species. the Franklin’s bumble bee; we found into the future. Thus, after assessing the that the existing regulatory mechanisms Determination of the Status of best available information, we or conservation measures in place do Franklin’s Bumble Bee determine that the Franklin’s bumble not appreciably reduce or ameliorate the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) existing threats to the species, as bee is in danger of extinction and its implementing regulations (50 evidenced by the species’ acute and throughout all of its range. CFR part 424) set forth the procedures rangewide decline. Although we have Status Throughout a Significant Portion for determining whether a species meets no direct evidence that pesticide use of Its Range the definition of an endangered species contributed to the decline of the or a threatened species. The Act defines Franklin’s bumble bee, confirmed Under the Act and our implementing an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species effects to other closely related Bombus regulations, a species may warrant that is ‘‘in danger of extinction species suggest that pesticide use listing if it is in danger of extinction or throughout all or a significant portion of (Factor E) was likely a factor in the likely to become so in the foreseeable its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. future throughout all or a significant a species that is ‘‘likely to become an Additionally, given the historically portion of its range. We have endangered species within the small population size (Factor E) of the determined that the Franklin’s bumble foreseeable future throughout all or a Franklin’s bumble bee and its bee is in danger of extinction significant portion of its range.’’ The Act haplodiploid genetic system, it is more throughout all of its range and requires that we determine whether a vulnerable to extirpation than other accordingly did not undertake an species meets the definition of species, and it is likely the genetic analysis of whether there are any ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened system and the rarity of this species species’’ because of any of the following significant portions of its range. Because contributed to the decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee warrants listing factors: (A) The present or threatened Franklin’s bumble bee (Factor E). destruction, modification, or The combination of multiple threats is as endangered throughout all of its curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) typically more harmful than any one range, our determination is consistent overutilization for commercial, acting alone, and it is likely that several with the decision in Center for recreational, scientific, or educational of the threats mentioned above acted Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) cumulatively and synergistically on the 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the inadequacy of existing regulatory Franklin’s bumble bee. Pathogens in the court vacated only the aspect of our mechanisms; or (E) other natural or combination with pesticides, as well as July 1, 2014, Final Policy on manmade factors affecting its continued pathogens in combination with the Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant existence. effects of small population size, may Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of Status Throughout All of Its Range have hastened and amplified the decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee to a greater ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened We evaluated the past, present, and degree than any one of the three factors Species’’ (79 FR 37578) that provided future threats to the Franklin’s bumble caused on its own. Although the the Services do not undertake an bee and assessed the cumulative effect ultimate source of the decline is analysis of significant portions of a of the threats under the Act’s section unknown, the acute and rangewide species’ range if the species warrants 4(a)(1) factors. Our assessment did not decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee is listing as threatened throughout all of its find habitat loss or modification (Factor undisputable. range. A) to be the cause of the decline of the The Act defines an ‘‘endangered Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no species’’ as any species that is in danger Determination of Status information to suggest that habitat of extinction throughout all or a destruction or modification will significant portion of its range, and a Our review of the best available increase in intensity in the near future. ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that scientific and commercial information There is no indication that the is likely to become endangered within indicates that the Franklin’s bumble bee Franklin’s bumble bee was at risk of the foreseeable future throughout all or meets the definition of an endangered overutilization for commercial, a significant portion of its range. We species. Therefore, we are listing the recreational, scientific, or educational find that, based on the severity and Franklin’s bumble bee as an endangered purposes (Factor B). Known pathogens immediacy of threats currently affecting species in accordance with sections 3(6) occur within the historical range of the the species, the Franklin’s bumble bee and 4(a)(1) of the Act. Although this Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have meets the definition of an endangered species has not been observed since evidence of several pathogens (Factor C) species. The threats of pathogens, 2006, we conclude it is premature at infecting closely related species within pesticides, and small population size this time to determine that the species that range. Although we do not have are ongoing and rangewide; they will is extinct absent a more thorough survey direct evidence of pathogens playing a continue to act individually and in effort. We recommend expanded survey role in the decline of the Franklin’s combination to decrease the resiliency, efforts to help verify the status of this bumble bee, the disappearance of the redundancy, and representation of the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47235

Available Conservation Measures often established to develop recovery adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Conservation measures provided to plans. When completed, the recovery Federal action may affect a listed species listed as endangered or outline, draft recovery plan, and the species or its critical habitat, the threatened species under the Act final recovery plan will be available on responsible Federal agency must enter include recognition, recovery actions, our website (http://www.fws.gov/ into consultation with the Service. Federal agency actions within the requirements for Federal protection, and endangered), or from our Oregon Fish FOR FURTHER species’ habitat that may require prohibitions against certain practices. and Wildlife Office (see INFORMATION CONTACT conference or consultation or both Recognition through listing results in ). Implementation of recovery actions include management and any other public awareness, and conservation by generally requires the participation of a landscape-altering activities on Federal Federal, State, Tribal, and local broad range of partners, including other lands administered by the U.S. Forest agencies; private organizations; and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, Service and Bureau of Land individuals. The Act encourages nongovernmental organizations, Management, the National Park Service, cooperation with States and other businesses, and private landowners. and the Bureau of Reclamation; countries and calls for recovery actions Examples of recovery actions include technical assistance and projects funded to be carried out for listed species. The habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of through the U.S. Department of protection required by Federal agencies native vegetation), research, captive Agriculture Natural Resources and the prohibitions against certain propagation and reintroduction, and Conservation Service; issuance of activities are discussed, in part, below. outreach and education. The recovery of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Recovery Actions many listed species cannot be 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army accomplished solely on Federal lands Corps of Engineers, and construction The primary purpose of the Act is the because their range may occur primarily and maintenance of roads or highways conservation of endangered and or solely on non-Federal lands. To by the Federal Highway Administration. threatened species and the ecosystems achieve recovery of these species The Act and its implementing upon which they depend. The ultimate requires cooperative conservation efforts regulations set forth a series of general goal of such conservation efforts is the on private, State, and tribal lands. prohibitions and exceptions that apply recovery of these listed species, so that Following publication of this final to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions they no longer need the protective listing rule, funding for recovery actions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of will be available from a variety of 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any the Act calls for the Service to develop sources, including Federal budgets, person subject to the jurisdiction of the and implement recovery plans for the State programs, and cost share grants for United States to take (which includes conservation of endangered and non-Federal landowners, the academic harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, threatened species. The recovery community, and nongovernmental wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or planning process involves the organizations. In addition, pursuant to to attempt any of these) endangered identification of actions that are section 6 of the Act, the States of Oregon wildlife within the United States or on necessary to halt or reverse a species’ and California will be eligible for the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful decline by addressing the threats to its Federal funds to implement to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, survival and recovery. The goal of this management actions that promote the transport, or ship in interstate or foreign process is to restore listed species to a protection or recovery of the Franklin’s commerce in the course of commercial point where they are secure, self- bumble bee. Information on our grant activity; or sell or offer for sale in sustaining, and functioning components programs that are available to aid interstate or foreign commerce any of their ecosystems. species recovery can be found at: http:// species listed as an endangered species. Recovery planning includes the www.fws.gov/grants. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, development of a recovery outline Please let us know if you are carry, transport, or ship any such shortly after a species is listed, and interested in participating in recovery wildlife that has been taken illegally. preparation of a draft and final recovery efforts for the Franklin’s bumble bee. Certain exceptions apply to employees plan. The recovery outline guides the Additionally, we invite you to submit of the Service, the National Marine immediate implementation of urgent any new information on this species Fisheries Service, other Federal land recovery actions and describes the whenever it becomes available and any management agencies, and State process we will use to develop a information you may have for recovery conservation agencies. recovery plan. Revisions of the plan planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER We may issue permits to carry out may be done to address continuing or INFORMATION CONTACT). otherwise prohibited activities new threats to the species, as new involving endangered wildlife under substantive information becomes Regulatory Provisions certain circumstances. Regulations available. The recovery plan also Section 7(a) of the Act requires governing permits are codified at 50 identifies recovery criteria for review of Federal agencies to evaluate their CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered when a species may be ready for actions with respect to any species that wildlife, a permit may be issued for the reclassification from endangered to is proposed or listed as an endangered following purposes: For scientific threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal or threatened species and with respect purposes, to enhance the propagation or from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and to its critical habitat, if any is survival of the species, and for methods for monitoring recovery designated. Regulations implementing incidental take in connection with progress. Recovery plans also establish this interagency cooperation provision otherwise lawful activities. There are a framework for agencies to coordinate of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part also certain statutory exemptions from their recovery efforts and provide 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires the prohibitions, which are found in estimates of the cost of implementing Federal agencies to ensure that activities sections 9 and 10 of the Act. recovery tasks. Recovery teams they authorize, fund, or carry out are not It is our policy, as published in the (composed of species experts, Federal likely to jeopardize the continued Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR and State agencies, nongovernmental existence of any endangered or 34272), to identify to the maximum organizations, and stakeholders) are threatened species or destroy or extent practicable at the time a species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47236 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

is listed, those activities that would or determination that such areas are Under the first prong of the Act’s would not constitute a violation of essential for the conservation of the definition of critical habitat, areas section 9 of the Act. The intent of this species. within the geographical area occupied policy is to increase public awareness of Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 by the species at the time it was listed the effect of a listing on proposed and define ‘‘geographical area occupied by are included in a critical habitat ongoing activities within the range of the species’’ as an area that may designation if they contain physical or the listed species. Based on the best generally be delineated around species’ biological features (1) which are available information, the following occurrences, as determined by the essential to the conservation of the actions are unlikely to result in a Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may species and (2) which may require violation of section 9 of the Act if these include those areas used throughout all special management considerations or activities are carried out in accordance or part of the species’ life cycle, even if protection. For these areas, critical with existing regulations and permit not used on a regular basis (e.g., habitat designations identify, to the requirements; this list is not migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, extent known using the best scientific comprehensive: and habitats used periodically, but not and commercial data available, those (1) Recreation, specifically skiing at solely by vagrant individuals). physical or biological features that are Mt. Ashland, and use of the Pacific Conservation, as defined under essential to the conservation of the Crest Trail; section 3 of the Act, means to use and species (such as space, food, cover, and (2) Timber sales; and the use of all methods and procedures protected habitat). In identifying those (3) Livestock grazing. that are necessary to bring an physical or biological features within an Based on the best available endangered or threatened species to the area, we focus on the specific features information, the following actions may point at which the measures provided that support the life-history needs of the potentially result in a violation of pursuant to the Act are no longer species, including, but not limited to, section 9 of the Act if they are not necessary. Such methods and water characteristics, soil type, authorized in accordance with procedures include, but are not limited geological features, prey, vegetation, applicable law; this list is not to, all activities associated with symbiotic species, or other features. A comprehensive: scientific resources management such as feature may be a single habitat (1) Unauthorized handling or research, census, law enforcement, characteristic, or a more complex collecting of the Franklin’s bumble bee; habitat acquisition and maintenance, combination of habitat characteristics. (2) Unauthorized release of biological propagation, live trapping, and Features may include habitat control agents that attack any life stage transplantation, and, in the characteristics that support ephemeral of the Franklin’s bumble bee, including extraordinary case where population or dynamic habitat conditions. Features the unauthorized use of herbicides, pressures within a given ecosystem may also be expressed in terms relating pesticides, or other chemicals in areas cannot be otherwise relieved, may to principles of conservation biology, in which the Franklin’s bumble bee is include regulated taking. such as patch size, distribution Critical habitat receives protection known to occur (i.e., in the Franklin’s distances, and connectivity. under section 7 of the Act through the bumble bee’s historical range); and Under the second prong of the Act’s requirement that Federal agencies (3) Unauthorized release of nonnative definition of critical habitat, we can ensure, in consultation with the Service, species or native species that carry designate critical habitat in areas that any action they authorize, fund, or pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are outside the geographical area occupied carry out is not likely to result in the known or suspected to adversely affect by the species at the time it is listed, destruction or adverse modification of the Franklin’s bumble bee where the upon a determination that such areas critical habitat. The designation of are essential for the conservation of the species is known to occur (i.e., in the critical habitat does not affect land Franklin’s bumble bee’s historical species. We determine whether ownership or establish a refuge, unoccupied areas are essential for the range). wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other Questions regarding whether specific conservation of the species by conservation area. Such designation considering the life-history, status, and activities would constitute a violation of does not allow the government or public section 9 of the Act should be directed conservation needs of the species. This to access private lands. Such is further informed by any generalized to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office designation does not require conservation strategy, criteria, or outline (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). implementation of restoration, recovery, that may have been developed for the II. Critical Habitat or enhancement measures by non- species to provide a substantive Federal landowners. Where a landowner Background foundation for identifying which requests Federal agency funding or features and specific areas are essential Critical habitat is defined in section 3 authorization for an action that may to the conservation of the species and, of the Act as: affect a listed species or critical habitat, as a result, to the development of the (1) The specific areas within the the Federal agency would be required to critical habitat designation. For geographical area occupied by the consult with the Service under section example, an area currently occupied by species, at the time it is listed in 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the the species but that was not occupied at accordance with the Act, on which are Service were to conclude that the the time of listing may be essential to found those physical or biological proposed activity would result in the conservation of the species and may features destruction or adverse modification of be included in the critical habitat (a) Essential to the conservation of the the critical habitat, the Federal action designation. species, and agency and the landowner are not Section 4 of the Act requires that we (b) Which may require special required to abandon the proposed designate critical habitat on the basis of management considerations or activity, or to restore or recover the the best scientific data available. protection; and species; instead, they must implement Further, our Policy on Information (2) Specific areas outside the ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ Standards Under the Endangered geographical area occupied by the to avoid destruction or adverse Species Act (published in the Federal species at the time it is listed, upon a modification of critical habitat. Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47237

the Information Quality Act (section 515 increase threats to a species, we next after the last occurrence of Franklin’s of the Treasury and General determine whether such designation of bumble bee in the area), no noticeable Government Appropriations Act for critical habitat would be beneficial to destruction, modification, or Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. the Franklin’s bumble bee. For the curtailment of habitat or range can be 5658)), and our associated Information reasons discussed below, we have identified in areas where the species Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, determined that designating critical had been previously located. No establish procedures, and provide habitat would not be beneficial. significant destruction or modification guidance to ensure that our decisions Designating Habitat Would Not Be of Franklin’s bumble bee habitat can be are based on the best scientific data Beneficial to the Species attributed to natural fire, prescribed fire, available. They require our biologists, to agricultural intensification, urban the extent consistent with the Act and The Franklin’s bumble bee was development, livestock grazing, or the with the use of the best scientific data widely distributed throughout its range effects of climate change. Additionally, available, to use primary and original and considered flexible with regard to as discussed above, the Franklin’s sources of information as the basis for habitat requirements. We know that the bumble bee has been documented using recommendations to designate critical Franklin’s bumble bee needs (1) floral a wide variety of habitats throughout its habitat. resources for nectaring throughout the range. Because habitat for the Franklin’s colony cycle, and (2) relatively Prudency Determination bumble bee is not limiting, and because protected areas for breeding and shelter. the bee is considered to be flexible with Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as In addition, because the best available regards to its habitat, the availability of amended, and implementing regulations scientific information indicates that the habitat does not limit the conservation (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the Franklin’s bumble bee is a generalist of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor maximum extent prudent and forager, its habitat preferences and will it in the foreseeable future. determinable, the Secretary shall needs are relatively plentiful and widely In the Service and National Marine designate critical habitat at the time the distributed. While Bombus species in Fisheries Service’s response to species is determined to be an general might prefer protected meadows comments on the February 11, 2016, endangered or threatened species. with an abundance of wildflowers, the final rule (81 FR 7414) revising the On August 27, 2019, the Service Franklin’s bumble bee has been found critical habitat regulations (the published a final rule (84 FR 45020) in a wide array of habitat types, from regulations in effect at the time the revising the regulations at 50 CFR part foraging in montane meadows in a Franklin’s bumble bee was proposed for 424 for listing species and designating remote wilderness area of California to listing), the Services expressly critical habitat. However, the revisions nesting in a residential garage in the city contemplated a fact pattern where apply only to relevant rulemakings for limits of Medford, Oregon. The species designating critical habitat may not be which the proposed rule is published has a broad elevational range from 162 beneficial to the species: ‘‘[I]n some after September 26, 2019, the effective m (540 ft) to 2,340 m (7,800 ft); circumstances, a species may be listed date of the final rule. Thus, the prior elevation does not appear to limit the because of factors other than threats to version of the regulations at 50 CFR part species’ dispersal capabilities. its habitat or range, such as disease, and Some general habitat associations of 424 continues to apply to any the species may be a habitat generalist. Bombus are known; however, as one of rulemakings for which a proposed rule In such a case, on the basis of the the rarest Bombus species, the was published before September 26, existing and revised regulations, it is 2019, including this final rule for Franklin’s bumble bee is somewhat enigmatic and a specific habitat study permissible to determine that critical Franklin’s bumble bee. habitat is not beneficial and, therefore, The prior version of the regulations at for the Franklin’s bumble bee has not not prudent’’ (81 FR 7425). This is the 50 CFR part 424 (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) been completed. Such a study was fact pattern we are presented with in the state that the designation of critical initiated in 2006, when the Franklin’s case of the Franklin’s bumble bee. In habitat is not prudent when one or both bumble bee was last seen, but could not view of the foregoing, we conclude that of the following situations exist: continue due to the subsequent absence present or threatened destruction, (1) The species is threatened by taking of the species. Therefore, we cannot modification, or curtailment of habitat is or other human activity, and with specificity articulate the physical not a threat to the Franklin’s bumble identification of critical habitat can be or biological features essential to the bee; rather, disease and other manmade expected to increase the degree of threat conservation of the Franklin’s bumble factors are likely the primary threat to to the species, or bee, or determine whether or not any (2) Such designation of critical habitat area would meet the definition of the species within its habitat. Therefore, would not be beneficial to the species. critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), In determining whether a designation bee. we determine that critical habitat is not would not be beneficial, the factors the Since it was first identified in 1921, beneficial and, therefore, not prudent Services may consider includes whether the Franklin’s bumble bee appears to for the Franklin’s bumble bee. the present or threatened destruction, have always been a rare species with a Required Determinations modification, or curtailment of a limited range. In fact, the species has species’ habitat or range is not a threat perhaps the most limited range of any National Environmental Policy Act (42 to the species. Bombus species in the world. U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) As discussed above in the threats Nonetheless, Franklin’s bumble bee We have determined that analysis, there is currently no imminent habitat is not known to be limiting, and environmental assessments and threat of take attributed to collection or habitat loss is not a threat to the species. environmental impact statements, as vandalism identified under Factor B for With the exception of the inundation of defined under the authority of the this species, and identification and two sites with older historical National Environmental Policy Act mapping of critical habitat is not occurrences of Franklin’s bumble bee (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not expected to initiate any such threat. In (through the construction of Applegate be prepared in connection with listing the absence of finding that the Dam, and a report of soil modification a species as an endangered or designation of critical habitat would on a portion of the Gold Hill site 4 years threatened species under the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 47238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Endangered Species Act. We published to make information available to tribes. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 a notice outlining our reasons for this On July 17, 2017, as part of our status Endangered and threatened species, determination in the Federal Register review process, we sent out notification Exports, Imports, Reporting and on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). letters to 11 Tribes that are in proximity recordkeeping requirements, to the known historical range of the Government-To-Government Transportation. Relationship With Tribes Franklin’s bumble bee (6 Tribes in Oregon and 5 Tribes in California). The Regulation Promulgation In accordance with the President’s letter provided the Tribes early Accordingly, we amend part 17, memorandum of April 29, 1994 notification that were conducting a subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the (Government-to-Government Relations status review for Franklin’s bumble bee Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth with Native American Tribal and solicited their input to ensure that below: Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive we had the best scientific data available Order 13175 (Consultation and to inform our subsequent finding on the Coordination With Indian Tribal PART 17—ENDANGERED AND status. We did not receive a response THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Governments), and the Department of from any of the Tribes. the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we ■ acknowledge our responsibility to References Cited 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: communicate meaningfully with A complete list of references cited in recognized Federal Tribes on a this rule is available on the internet at AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– government-to-government basis. In http://www.regulations.gov under 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044 and of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal upon request from the Oregon Fish and ■ 2. Amend § 17.11 in paragraph (h) by Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER adding an entry for ‘‘Bee, bumble, Responsibilities, and the Endangered INFORMATION CONTACT). Franklin’s’’ to the List of Endangered Species Act), we acknowledge our and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical Authors responsibilities to work directly with order under INSECTS to read as follows: tribes in developing programs for The primary authors of this rule are healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that the staff members of the Fish and § 17.11 Endangered and threatened tribal lands are not subject to the same Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment wildlife. controls as Federal public lands, to Team and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife * * * * * remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Office. (h) * * *

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules

******* INSECTS Bee, bumble, Franklin’s .. Bombus franklini ...... Wherever found ...... E ...... 85 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], 8/24/21.

*******

Martha Williams, ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason icon, complete the required fields, and Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the adjustment; request for comments. enter or attach your comments. Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish • Mail: Submit written comments to and Wildlife Service. SUMMARY: This document announces Barry Thom, c/o Kathryn Blair, West [FR Doc. 2021–17832 Filed 8–23–21; 8:45 am] two additional season dates of August Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 27 and September 24 for the Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Washington South Coast and Columbia Instructions: NMFS may not consider River subareas for Pacific halibut comments if they are sent by any other DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE recreational fisheries in the method, to any other address or International Pacific Halibut individual, or received after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Commission’s regulatory Area 2A off comment period ends. All comments Administration Washington, Oregon, and California. received are a part of the public record This action is intended to conserve and NMFS will post them for public 50 CFR Part 300 Pacific halibut and provide angler viewing on www.regulations.gov opportunity where available. without change. All personal identifying [Docket No.: 210415–0082] DATES: This action is effective August information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 20, 2021, through September 30, 2021. confidential business information, or RTID 0648–XB316 Submit comments on or before otherwise sensitive information September 8, 2021. submitted voluntarily by the sender is Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch publicly accessible. NMFS will accept Sharing Plan; Inseason Action ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in identified by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0157, the required fields if you wish to remain AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries by either of the following methods: anonymous). Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to Docket: This rule is accessible via the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA- internet at the Office of the Federal Commerce. NMFS-2020-0157, click the ‘‘Comment’’ Register website at https://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Aug 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM 24AUR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1