40006 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

§ 1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements relevant time period described in amended (Act). We find that disease and concerning certain conditions. paragraph (b) of this section. If prior to other natural or manmade factors are Head Start agencies must report in the award of that grant, ACF determines likely the primary threats to the species writing to the responsible HHS official that the grantee has met one of the within its habitat. If made final, this rule within 10 working days of occurrence conditions under § 1304.11 during the would add this species to the Federal any of the following events: relevant time period described in List of Endangered and Threatened (a) The agency has had a revocation paragraph (b) of this section, this Wildlife and apply the protections of of a license to operate a center by a state determination will change and the the Act to this species. or local licensing entity. grantee will receive notice under In this proposed rule, we determine (b) The agency has filed for paragraph (c)(1) of this section that it that designating critical habitat for the bankruptcy or agreed to a reorganization will be required to compete for funding Franklin’s bumble bee is not prudent, plan as part of a bankruptcy settlement. for an additional five-year period. because the Franklin’s bumble bee is a (c) The agency has been debarred habitat generalist, and the present or from receiving Federal or state funds PART 1305—DEFINITIONS threatened destruction, modification, or from any Federal or state department or ■ curtailment of habitat is not a threat to agency or has been disqualified from the 5. The authority citation for part 1305 continues to read as follows: Franklin’s bumble bee. Consequently, Child and Adult Care Food Program the designation of critical habitat would (CACFP). Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq. not be beneficial to the Franklin’s (d) The agency has received an audit, ■ 6. Section 1305.2 is amended by bumble bee. audit review, investigation, or adding, in alphabetical order, the DATES: We will accept comments inspection report from the agency’s definition ‘‘Denial of Refunding’’ to read received or postmarked on or before auditor, a state agency, or the cognizant as follows: October 15, 2019. Comments submitted Federal audit agency containing a electronically using the Federal § 1305.2 Terms. determination that the agency is at risk eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, for ceasing to be a going concern. * * * * * below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. ■ 4. Revise § 1304.15 to read as follows: Denial of Refunding means the refusal Eastern Time on the closing date. We of a funding agency to fund an § 1304.15 Designation request, review and must receive requests for public notification process. application for a continuation of a Head hearings, in writing, at the address Start program for a subsequent program (a) Grantees must apply to be shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION year when the decision is based on a CONTACT by September 27, 2019. considered for Designation Renewal. A determination that the grantee has ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Head Start or Early Head Start agency improperly conducted its program, or is wishing to be considered to have its by one of the following methods: incapable of doing so properly in the (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal designation as a Head Start or Early future, or otherwise is in violation of Head Start agency renewed for another eRulemaking Portal: applicable law, regulations, or other http://www.regulations.gov. In the five-year period without competition policies. must request that status from ACF at Search box, enter FWS–R1–ES–2018– least 12 months before the end of their * * * * * 0044, which is the docket number for five-year grant period or by such time [FR Doc. 2019–17024 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am] this rulemaking. Then, click on the required by the Secretary. BILLING CODE 4184–01–P Search button. On the resulting page, in (b) ACF will review the relevant data the Search panel on the left side of the to determine if one or more of the screen, under the Document Type conditions under § 1304.11 were met by DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR heading, click on the Proposed Rules the Head Start and Early Head Start link to locate this document. You may agency’s program during the current Fish and Wildlife Service submit a comment by clicking on grant period. ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (c) ACF will give notice to all grantees 50 CFR Part 17 (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments on Designation Renewal System status, [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044; except as provided in § 1304.14, at least 4500030113] Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2018– 12 months before the expiration date of 0044; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Head Start or Early Head Start RIN 1018–BD25 MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. agency’s current grant stating: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (1) The Head Start or Early Head Start We request that you send comments and Plants; Endangered Species agency will be required to compete for only by the methods described above. Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee funding for an additional five-year We will post all comments on http:// (Bombus franklini) period because ACF finds that one or www.regulations.gov. This generally more conditions under § 1304.11 were AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, means that we will post any personal met by the agency’s program during the Interior. information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more relevant time period described in ACTION: Proposed rule. paragraph (b) of this section, identifying information). the conditions ACF found, and SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul summarizing the basis for the finding; Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and or, list the Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and (2) That such agency has been franklini), an invertebrate species from Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave. Suite determined on a preliminary basis to be Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone eligible for renewed funding for five Counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and 503–231–6179. Persons who use a years without competition because ACF Trinity Counties in California, as an telecommunications device for the deaf finds that none of the conditions under endangered species under the (TDD) may call the Federal Relay § 1304.11 has been met during the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Service at 800–877–8339.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40007

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may submit your comments and Peer Review materials concerning this proposed rule Information Requested In accordance with our joint policy on by one of the methods listed in We intend that any final action peer review published in the Federal ADDRESSES. We request that you send Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), resulting from this proposed rule will be comments only by the methods based on the best scientific and we sought the expert opinions of 10 described in ADDRESSES. appropriate and independent specialists commercial data available and be as Please include sufficient information regarding the scientific basis for this accurate and as effective as possible. with your submission (such as scientific proposed rule; nine agreed to provide Therefore, we request comments or journal articles or other publications) to information from other concerned allow us to verify any scientific or review. The purpose of peer review is to governmental agencies, Native commercial information you include. ensure that our listing and critical American tribes, the scientific All comments submitted electronically habitat determinations are based on community, industry, or any other via http://www.regulations.gov will be scientifically sound data, assumptions, interested parties concerning this presented on the website in their and analyses. The peer reviewers have proposed rule. We particularly seek entirety as submitted. For comments expertise in Franklin’s bumble bee or comments concerning: submitted via hard copy, we will post Bombus biology and habitat, and their (1) Franklin’s bumble bee’s biology, your entire comment—including your comments helped inform our range, and population trends, including: personal identifying information—on determinations. We invited comment (a) Biological or ecological http://www.regulations.gov. You may from the peer reviewers during the requirements of the species, including request at the top of your document that analysis of the status of the species and habitat requirements for feeding, we withhold personal information such the creation of the species status breeding, and sheltering; as your street address, phone number, or assessment report (SSA Report; U.S. (b) Genetics and taxonomy; email address from public review; Fish and Wildlife Service 2018); these (c) Historical and current range, however, we cannot guarantee that we comments will be available along with including distribution patterns; will be able to do so. other public comments in the docket for (d) Historical and current population Comments and materials we receive, this proposed rule. levels, and current and projected trends; as well as supporting documentation we Previous Federal Actions and used in preparing this proposed rule, (e) Past and ongoing conservation will be available for public inspection We were petitioned to list Franklin’s measures for the species, its habitat, or on http://www.regulations.gov, or by bumble bee as endangered under Act on both. appointment, during normal business June 23, 2010, by the Xerces Society for (2) Our analysis of the current status hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Invertebrate Conservation and Dr. of Franklin’s bumble bee. As discussed Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office Robbin Thorp, Professor Emeritus from below (see Background below, for more (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). the University of California (Xerces information), based on the lack of Please note that submissions merely Society and Thorp 2010, p. 2). On observations of Franklin’s over the last stating support for or opposition to the September 13, 2011, we announced in 13 years it is possible that the species action under consideration without the Federal Register (76 FR 56381) that is extinct. We will be analyzing any new providing supporting information, the petition presented substantial information on this question before although noted, will not be considered information indicating that this species making a final determination; if we in making a determination, as section may be warranted for listing, and determine that the best available 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et announced the initiation of a status information indicates that the species is seq.) directs that determinations as to review for the species. This action likely extinct, we will withdraw this whether any species is an endangered or constitutes our 12-month finding on the proposed rule. Thus, we are seeking any threatened species must be made 2010 petition to list the Franklin’s information regarding the persistence or ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific bumble bee. extinction of the species within its and commercial data available.’’ In Background historical range including: making a final decision on this (a) Verifiable reports or evidence of proposal, we will take into A thorough review of the taxonomy, Franklin’s bumble bee occurrence in its consideration the comments and any life history, and ecology of Franklin’s range; or additional information we receive bumble bee is presented in the (b) any information that may indicate during the public comment period. Franklin’s Bumble Bee Species Status extinction of the species. Such communications could lead to a Assessment report (SSA Report; U.S. (3) Factors that may affect the final rule that differs from this proposal, Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) on continued existence of the species, including a withdrawal of this proposal. http://www.regulations.gov under which may include habitat modification Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. or destruction, overutilization, disease, Public Hearing Franklin’s bumble bee is thought to predation, the inadequacy of existing Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for have the most limited distribution of all regulatory mechanisms, or other natural one or more public hearings on this known North American bumble bee or manmade factors. proposal, if requested. Requests must be species (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. (4) Biological, commercial trade, or received by the date specified in DATES 479; Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. other relevant data concerning any and sent to the address shown in FOR 6), and one of the most limited threats (or lack thereof) to this species FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will geographic distributions of any bumble and existing regulations that may be schedule public hearings on this bee in the world (Frison 1922, p. 315; addressing those threats. proposal, if any are requested, and Williams 1998, p. 129). Stephen (1957, (5) Additional information concerning announce the dates, times, and places of p. 81) recorded the species from the the historical and current status, range, those hearings, as well as how to obtain Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys in distribution, and population size of this reasonable accommodations, in the Oregon. Thorp et al. (1983, p. 8) also species, including the locations of any Federal Register and local newspapers recorded it from northern California and additional populations of this species. at least 15 days before the hearing. suggested its restriction to the Klamath

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40008 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Mountain region of southern Oregon species is extinct; even though none Colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee and northern California. Elevations have been seen since 2006, Franklin’s have an annual cycle, initiated each where it has been observed range from bumble bee populations could spring when solitary queens emerge 162 meters (m) (540 feet (ft)) in the potentially persist undetected. The areas from hibernation and seek suitable nest northern part of its range, to over 2,340 chosen for survey were selected due to sites (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). m (7,800 ft) in the southern part of its a combination of abundance of floral Colonies may contain from 50 to 400 range. All confirmed specimens have resources throughout the colony cycle, workers along with the founding queen been found in an area about 306 relatively recent historical occurrence of (Plath 1927, pp. 123–124; Thorp et al. kilometers (km) (190 miles (mi)) to the the species, and accessibility to 1983, p. 2; Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). north and south, and 113 km (70 mi) surveyors. However, the surveyed area Two colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee east to west, between 122° to 124° west represents a relatively small percentage that were initiated in the laboratory and longitude and 40°58′ to 43°30′ north of the historical range of the Franklin’s set out to complete development in the latitude in Douglas, Jackson, and bumble bee; therefore, it is possible the field, contained over 60 workers by Josephine Counties in southern Oregon, species may persist in other areas of the early September, and likely produced and Siskiyou and Trinity Counties in range. There are numerous instances of over 100 workers by the end of the northern California (Thorp 1999, p. 3; species rediscovered after many years, season (Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. Thorp 2005, p. 1; International Union even decades, of having been believed 477). The flight season of Franklin’s for Conservation of Nature 2009, p. 1). extinct (e.g., Scheffers et al. 2011, bumble bee is from mid-May to the end Franklin’s bumble bee was first entire). As one example of such a case, of September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30); observed in 1917 and first described in Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia a few individuals have been 1921, and limited occurrence and icarioides fenderi) of Oregon was encountered in October (Southern observation data exists for Franklin’s believed extinct after the last recorded Oregon University Bee Collection bumble bee prior to 1998. The species observation in 1937, until it was records, in Xerces Society and Thorp has been found on many privately rediscovered in 1989, 52 years later 2010, Appendix 1, p. 39). At the end of owned sites as well as municipal, State (Hammond and Wilson 1992, p. 175; the colony cycle, all the workers and the and federally owned land. Historical Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2). males die along with the founding observations and occurrence data for Recent approaches to evaluating queen; only the inseminated hibernating Franklin’s bumble bee prior to 1998 extinction likelihood place increased females (gynes) are left to carry on the include randomly reported emphasis on the extensiveness and genetic lineage into the following year observations, student collections, and adequacy of survey effort (Keith et al. (Duchateau and Velthius 1988). museum specimens, as well as the 2017, p. 321; Thompson et al. 2017, p. As with all Bombus species, collections and notes of interested 328), and caution against declaring a Franklin’s bumble bee has a unique parties, natural resource managers, and species as extinct in the face of genetic system called the haplodiploid university staff (Xerces Society and uncertainty (Akc¸akaya et al. 2017, p. sex determination system. In this Thorp 2010, pp. 34–40). A more 339). system, unfertilized (haploid) eggs intensive and targeted search effort for become males that carry a single set of The specific life-history the species began in 1998 in areas chromosomes, and fertilized (diploid) characteristics and behavior of this rare thought to have the highest likelihood of eggs become females that carry two sets species have not been studied; much of Franklin’s bumble bee presence. There of chromosomes. This system may result was initial success at finding a higher the information presented in the SSA in lower levels of genetic diversity than abundance of the species than ever Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the more common diploid-diploid sex previously reported in one year, 98 bees 2018) is inferred from information on determination system, in which both in 1998 (mostly from 2 sites). However, Bombus in general and some closely males and females carry two sets of in subsequent years searchers found related species (western bumble bee (B. chromosomes. Haplodiploid organisms fewer and fewer bees, and no Franklin’s occidentalis), rusty patched bumble bee may be more prone to population bumble bees have been found since the (B. affinis), and yellow-faced bumble extinction than diploid-diploid last sighting of a single individual in bee (B. vosnesenskii), among others). organisms, due to their susceptibility to Oregon in 2006. The variations in The report also relied heavily on low population levels and loss of timing, scope, intensity, and information from species experts. genetic diversity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife methodology of search efforts (including Franklin’s bumble bee is a primitively Service 2018, p. 37). Inbreeding those since 1998) and the lack of eusocial (highly social) bumble bee, depression in bumble bees can lead to observations since 2006 prevent the living in colonies made up of a queen the production of sterile diploid males identification of any population trends. and her offspring (males and workers). (Goulson et al. 2008, p. 11.7) and Many of the occurrence records just Like other eusocial Bombus species, negatively affects bumble bee colony provide point data for an occurrence, Franklin’s bumble bee typically nests size (Herrman et al. 2007, p. 1167), with no details on the size of the area underground in abandoned rodent which are key factors in a colony’s searched or whether or not the record burrows or other cavities that offer reproductive success. reflected a comprehensive search of an resting and sheltering places, food As one of the rarest Bombus species, area. Many records also lack details on storage, nesting, and room for the Franklin’s bumble bees are somewhat the level of survey effort per location colony to grow (Plath 1927, pp. 122– enigmatic, and a specific habitat study (number of searchers, hours of search 128; Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. for the species has not been completed. effort per day, number of days per 1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). The Such a study was initiated in 2006, search effort). species may also occasionally nest on when the Franklin’s bumble bee was The lack of systematic surveys across the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or last seen, but could not continue due to the historical range of the species over in rock piles (Plowright and Stephen the subsequent absence of the species time prevents us from using occurrence 1980, p. 475). It has even been found (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). However, records to extrapolate reasonable nesting in a residential garage in the city some general habitat associations of estimates of species abundance or limits of Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, Bombus are known. Like all bumble distribution or concluding that the pers. comm,). bees, the Franklin’s bumble bee requires

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40009

a constant and diverse supply of flowers biology principles of resiliency, likelihood of finding the species. that bloom throughout the colony’s life representation, and redundancy, or the Twenty bees were located in 1999, nine cycle, from spring to autumn (Xerces 3-Rs (Smith et al. 2018). Briefly, individuals were observed in 2000, and Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11); these resiliency supports the ability of the one individual was observed in 2001. resources would typically be found in species to withstand environmental and Although 20 Franklin’s bumble bees open (non-forested) meadows in demographic stochasticity (for example, were observed in 2002, only 3 were proximity to seeps and other wet wet or dry, warm or cold years); observed in 2003 (all at a single meadow environments. The nectar from representation supports the ability of locality), and a single worker bee was flowers provides carbohydrates, and the the species to adapt over time to long- observed in 2006. Despite continued pollen provides protein. Franklin’s term changes in the environment (for intensive search efforts in these areas bumble bee may have a foraging example, climate changes); and through 2017, there have been no distance of up to 10 km (6.2 mi) (Thorp redundancy supports the ability of the confirmed observations of the Franklin’s 2017, pers. comm.), but the species’ species to withstand catastrophic events bumble bee since 2006. Data allow us to typical dispersal distance is most likely (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In estimate 43 potential populations of the 3 km (1.86 mi) or less (Hatfield 2017, general, the more redundant, species since records have been kept. pers. comm.; Goulson 2010, p. 96). representative, and resilient a species is, From 1998 to 2006, 14 potential Franklin’s bumble bee have been the more likely it is to sustain populations could be identified. Since observed collecting pollen from lupine populations over time, even under 2006, no populations have been located. (Lupinus spp.) and California poppy changing environmental conditions. The vulnerability resulting from the (Eschscholzia californica), and Using these principles, we identified the Franklin’s bumble bee’s haplodiploid collecting nectar from horsemint or species’ ecological requirements for genetic system, as well as the loss in the nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache survival and reproduction at the abundance and spatial extent of its urticifolia) and mountain monardella individual, population, and species populations, suggest the resiliency, (Monardella odoratissima) (Xerces levels, and described the beneficial and representation, and redundancy of the Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). risk factors influencing the species’ Franklin’s bumble bee have all declined Franklin’s bumble bee may also collect viability. To assess resiliency and significantly since the late 1990s. The both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia redundancy, we evaluated the change in losses in both the number of spp.) as well as rob nectar from it Franklin’s bumble bee occurrences populations and their spatial extent (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). (populations) over time. To assess render the Franklin’s bumble bee In summary, Franklin’s bumble bee representation (as an indicator of vulnerable to extinction even without has been found in a wide array of adaptive capacity) of the Franklin’s further external stressors (e.g., sheltered and exposed habitat types at a bumble bee, we evaluated the spatial pathogens and insecticide exposure) broad elevational range, and the species extent of occurrences over time. We acting upon the species. As part of our status assessment of the appears to be a generalist forager. Our evaluated the change in resiliency, Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at certainty regarding the Franklin’s representation, and redundancy from potential stressors affecting the species’ bumble bee’s habitat needs is limited to the past until the present; however, due viability. Our full assessment of the (1) floral resources for nectaring to the lack of observations of the species stressors can be found in the SSA throughout the colony cycle, and (2) since 2006, we did not project Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relatively protected areas for breeding anticipated future states of these 2018). In accordance with section 4(a)(1) and shelter. The habitat elements that conditions. Franklin’s bumble bee appears to prefer of the Act, in reviewing the status of the to fulfill those needs mentioned above Our analyses indicate that the species to determine if it meets the are relatively flexible, plentiful, and resiliency, redundancy, and definition of endangered or of widely distributed. representation of the Franklin’s bumble threatened, we determine whether a bee have all declined since the late species is an endangered species or a Summary of Biological Status and 1990s. Historically, the species has threatened species because of any of the Threats always been rare and has one of the following five factors: (A) The present or The Act directs us to determine narrowest distributions of any Bombus threatened destruction, modification, or whether any species is an endangered species in the world. Even so, the curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) species or a threatened species because abundance and distribution of overutilization for commercial, of any factors affecting its continued Franklin’s bumble bee has declined recreational, scientific, or educational existence. We completed a significantly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) comprehensive assessment of the Service 2018, pp. 10–14); the species the inadequacy of existing regulatory biological status of the Franklin’s has not been observed since 2006, mechanisms; and (E) other natural or bumble bee and prepared a report of the despite an intensive survey effort in manmade factors affecting its continued assessment (i.e., the SSA Report), which select portions of the historical range. existence. provides a thorough account of the Search efforts for the species have been Potential stressors that we analyzed species’ overall viability. We define varied in timing, scope, intensity, and for the Franklin’s bumble bee generally viability here as the likelihood of the methodology. During the more intensive fit into three groups that correspond species to persist over the long term surveys from 1998 until the last with Factors A (habitat loss and and, conversely, to avoid extinction. observation in 2006, the Franklin’s fragmentation), C (pathogens), or E Below, we summarize the conclusions bumble bee was observed at 14 (pesticide use, competition with of that assessment, which can be locations, including 8 locations where it nonnative bees, and effects of small accessed on http://www.regulations.gov had not been previously documented. In population size). No potential stressors at Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. 1998, 98 bees were found among 11 of the Franklin’s bumble bee correspond locations. Searchers found fewer and with Factor B. There has never been any 3-R Analysis fewer bees after that year even though indication that the Franklin’s bumble To assess the Franklin’s bumble bee’s they continued extensive searches in bee was at risk of overutilization for viability, we used the three conservation multiple locations with the highest commercial, recreational, scientific, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40010 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

educational purposes, and we did not the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee. burns were a factor in the decline of the find any new information to suggest this Because fire reduces natural succession Franklin’s bumble bee. has changed. Existing regulatory of forests through the burning of Agricultural Intensification mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed encroaching woody plants, fire is a below in the context of how they help primary factor in the maintenance of Agricultural intensification can result to reduce or ameliorate stressors to the grassland and meadow habitat that can in habitat loss for bumble bees, as these Franklin’s bumble bee. support Bombus species (Shultz and practices often result in the planting of Crone 1998, p. 244; Huntzinger 2003). monocultures that tend to provide floral Influence Factors Related to resources for a limited period of time, Destruction, Modification or With the increase in human development came fire suppression to rather than throughout the colony’s life Curtailment of Habitat cycle. Agricultural intensification can limit damage to manmade structures. The 2010 petition identified negatively impact wild bees by reducing Fire suppression allows woody destruction, degradation, and floral resource diversity and abundance encroachment to occur, and the diverse conversion of habitat as a threat to the (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. Franklin’s bumble bee. In our 90-day landscape created by fire (open areas 32). Agricultural intensification was finding on the 2010 petition (76 FR mixed within forested areas) is slowly determined to be a primary factor 56381; September 13, 2011), we noted being replaced by increasing areas of leading to the local extirpation and that the petitioners provided substantial denser forested habitat; the open areas decline of bumble bees in Illinois (Grixti information on threats to the Franklin’s that facilitated the growth of diverse et al. 2009, p. 75). An increased use of bumble bee from the destruction, understory plant communities are being herbicides often accompanies modification, or curtailment of habitat, reduced from their historical condition development and agricultural primarily due to the potential impacts of (Ruchty 2011, p. 26). Conifer species intensification, and the widespread use natural or prescribed fire. Because the now cover some of the area that was of herbicides in agricultural, urban, and loss and degradation of habitat has been previously open meadow habitat in the even natural landscapes has led to shown to reduce both diversity and range of the Franklin’s bumble bee decreases in flowering plants (Potts et abundance in other Bombus species (Panzer 2002; Shultz and Crone 1998, p. al. 2010, p. 350). (Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348–349), our SSA 244). Although this loss of habitat by Within the historical range of the Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fire suppression may have limited the Franklin’s bumble bee, total acres in 2018) looked at the potential stressor of availability and diversity of floral agricultural cropland decreased in all habitat loss and fragmentation (from resources, as well as nest and three counties in Oregon (Douglas, natural or prescribed fire, agricultural overwintering habitat for the Franklin’s Jackson, and Josephine) by greater than intensification, urban development, bumble bee, healthy meadow habitat 50 percent from 1997 to 2012 (U.S. livestock grazing, and the effects of remains in areas where the Franklin’s Department of Agriculture—National climate change). bumble bee was previously found Agriculture Statistics Service 2017, pers. Although conversion of natural (Godwin 2017, pers comm.; Colyer comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat appears to be the primary cause 2017, pers. comm.), and it is unlikely 2018, p. 33). While the total number of of bumble bee habitat loss throughout that loss of habitat from fire suppression acres of agricultural cropland is not the world (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2; was a factor in the decline of the synonymous with agricultural Kosior et al. 2010, p. 81), many species. intensification (specifically, the researchers believe it is unlikely to be a expansion of monocultures), a decrease Increased fuel loads from fire main driver of the recent, widespread in total acres of agriculture leads us to suppression heighten the potential for North American bee declines (Szabo et conclude that agricultural catastrophic, large-scale, and high al. 2012, p. 236; Colla and Packer 2008, intensification was not likely a factor in temperature wildfires. Any Bombus p. 1388; Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). the decline of the Franklin’s bumble Our certainty regarding the Franklin’s colonies in the path of this type of fire bee. We have no documentation in our bumble bee’s habitat needs is limited to would be at risk of extirpation. Wildfire files or any direct evidence that (1) floral resources for nectaring may have extirpated some historical agricultural intensification has throughout the colony cycle, and (2) populations of the Franklin’s bumble contributed to the decline of the relatively protected areas for breeding bee, but we have no information Franklin’s bumble bee. Approximately and shelter. Furthermore, the available suggesting that any known Franklin’s 42 percent of sites where Franklin’s information regarding locations where bumble bee occurrence sites were in the bumble bee have been reported (18 of the species has been found indicates path of catastrophic wildfires at the time 43) occur on federally owned land, that the Franklin’s bumble bee is a the sites were occupied. Controlled primarily U.S. Forest Service and generalist forager and the species’ burning became a management tool for Bureau of Land Management land; very specific needs and preferences for these reducing potential fuel loads for little habitat on these lands has been habitat elements are relatively flexible, wildfire; controlled burning is carried permanently altered or lost through plentiful, and widely distributed. While out by Federal land management agricultural intensification (U.S. Fish we can say that Bombus species in agencies including the U.S. Forest and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 32). general might prefer protected meadows Service and Bureau of Land Urban Development with an abundance of wildflowers, the Management in the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee has been found Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of Ongoing urbanization contributes to in a wide array of sheltered and exposed fire on invertebrates depends greatly on the loss and fragmentation of natural habitat types at elevations ranging from the biology of the specific taxa (Gibson habitats. Urban gardens and parks 540 ft (162 m) to 7,800 ft (2,340 m). et al. 1992), and in the case of the provide habitat for some pollinators Franklin’s bumble bee, controlled burns including bumble bees (Frankie et al. Natural or Prescribed Fire could certainly cause death of 2005; McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006), Fire caused by both natural and individual bees and negative effects to but they tend not to support the species human-caused factors has been an a colony. However, we have no richness of bumble bees that can be important change on the landscape in information to indicate that controlled found in nearby undeveloped

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40011

landscapes (Xerces Society and Thorp contrast, grazing, especially by cattle, greater summer precipitation and later 2010, p. 13), or that which was present can play a key positive role in snowmelt dates (Ogilvie et al. 2017, p. historically (McFrederick and LeBuhn maintaining the abundance and species 4). Several of the targeted Franklin’s 2006). However, Franklin’s bumble bee richness of preferred bumble bee forage bumble bee and western bumble bee and western bumble bee have both been (Carvell 2002, p. 44). Evidence of survey reports between 2015 and 2017 observed in urban areas of Ashland, livestock grazing was observed include mention of widespread hot, dry Oregon, and in residential areas of interspersed within abundant floral climate affecting timing and abundance Medford, Oregon. Furthermore, resources in Franklin’s bumble bee of floral resources during the surveys approximately 42 percent of the sites habitat during several recent targeted (Bureau of Land Management 2015; where Franklin’s bumble bee have been survey efforts (Brooks 1997, pers. Trail 2017, pers. comm.). Although the reported (18 of 43) occur on federally comm.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Olgilvie et al. study and the survey owned land, primarily U.S. Forest 2016; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports suggest potential indirect effects Service and Bureau of Land 2017; Trail 2017, pers. comm.). We have of climate change on Bombus, we have Management land, and very little habitat no new information that the timing, no information to indicate that the on these lands has been permanently location, intensity, or duration of effects of climate change were altered or lost through development. grazing has changed, with the exception connected to the decline of the Generally good habitat conditions of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Franklin’s bumble bee; numerous currently exist throughout the known Monument, where most grazing has Bombus species persist in areas historical B. franklini locations and all been retired (Colyer 2018, pers. comm.). considered to maintain good quality of the recent focused survey areas, with The lack of specific information on the habitat for the Franklin’s bumble bee the notable exceptions being the impacts of livestock grazing on the (Pool 2014, entire; Colyer 2016, entire). creation of Lake Applegate upon the Franklin’s bumble bee limits our ability Summary completion of Applegate Dam in the fall to connect the activity to any specific of 1980 and a report of soil modification species’ response. Therefore, we do not Although habitat loss has had on a portion of the Gold Hill site. The consider livestock grazing a threat to the negative effects on bumble bees, we Applegate Dam project inundated two Franklin’s bumble bee. conclude it is unlikely to be a main historical B. franklini locations (Copper driver of the decline of the Franklin’s and 2 miles north of Copper), with Effects of Climate Change bumble bee. Habitat appears generally historical observations from 1963 and Specific impacts of climate change on intact and in good condition throughout 1968 (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. pollinators are not well understood; the known, historical locations of the 13; Thorp, pers. comm. 2017). It is not most of the existing information on Franklin’s bumble bee and all of the known if Franklin’s bumble bees were climate change impacts to pollinators recent focused survey areas(with still in the area and using the habitat at comes from studies on butterflies. notable exceptions of the historical the time of the inundation. The Petition Studies specifically relating to bumble habitat lost by the creation of Lake noted that in 2004, soil had been bees are scant, and we found no climate Applegate in the fall of 1980 and soil excavated and deposited in a portion of change information specific to the modification that occurred on a portion the Gold Hill area (Xerces Society and Franklin’s bumble bee. Changes in of the Gold Hill site in 2004). In our Thorp 2010, p. 13). The last observation temperature and precipitation, and the assessment, we found no information to of Franklin’s bumble bee at Gold Hill increased frequency of storm events, can suggest the destruction, degradation, was in the year 2000, and the site was affect pollinator population sizes and conversion of habitat was a revisited 14 times over the next three directly, by affecting survival and significant factor in the decline of the years with no observations of Franklin’s reproduction (Intergovernmental Panel Franklin’s bumble bee (U.S. Fish and bumble bee. In both of these cases, we on Climate Change 2013, entire; Bale et Wildlife Service 2018, pp. 35–37), and don’t know if the species was still using al. 2002, p. 11; Roland and Matter 2016, we have no information to suggest that the habitat in the area by the time the p. 22). These climatic changes can also habitat destruction or modification will activities took place. We have no affect populations indirectly, by altering increase in intensity to the point where documentation in our files or any direct resource availability and species it will be a primary stressor to the evidence that these incidents or interactions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife species in its range in the near future. urbanization or development in the Service 2018, p. 36). Some studies suggest that pollinators Influence Factors Related to Disease or range of Franklin’s bumble bee Predation contributed to the decline of the species. are responding to climate change with recent latitudinal and elevational range A number of diseases are known to Livestock Grazing shifts such that there is spatial naturally occur in bumble bee Livestock grazing occurs on public mismatch among plants and their populations. These include the land in much of the historical range of pollinators; while this has been protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi (C. the Franklin’s bumble bee. Overgrazing demonstrated in butterflies, it may be bombi), the tracheal mite Locustacarus by sheep between 1890 and 1920 less of a factor for bumble bees (U.S. buchneri, the microsporidium (parasitic resulted in trampling vegetation and Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 36). fungus) Nosema bombi (N. bombi), as denuding soils, and grazing is currently As generalist foragers, bumble bees do well as deformed wing virus. Pathogens evident today in the continuing erosion not require synchrony with a particular and parasites are widespread generalists of the granitic soils of the McDonald plant species, although some bumble in the host genus, but affect species Basin, Siskiyou Gap, Mt. Ashland, and bee populations are active earlier in the differently according to host the Siskiyou Crest (LaLande 1995, p. 31; season than in the past (Bartomeus et al. susceptibility and tolerance to infection T. Atzet 2017, pers. comm.). Several 2011, p. 20646). Bumble bee abundance (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 221; Malfi and studies on the impacts of livestock for three species of Bombus in the Rocky Roulston 2014, p. 18). The host species’ grazing on bees suggest an increase in Mountains increased when floral life history plays a role in the virulence the intensity of livestock grazing affects resources were available for more days, of a given pathogen; for instance, the species richness of bees (U.S. Fish and the number of days where floral parasites may have relatively smaller and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 35). In resources were available increased with effects on species with shorter colony

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40012 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

life cycles and smaller colony sizes bee prior to their shipment back into the likely pathogens have had some (Rutrecht and Brown 2009, entire). United States, and once in this country, negative influence on the health of Pathogen spillover is a process the commercially reared colonies may Franklin’s bumble bee populations. whereby parasites and pathogens spread have spread the virulent strain to wild Influence Factors Related to Other from commercial bee colonies to native populations of Franklin’s bumble bee Natural or Manmade Factors bee populations (Colla et al. 2006, p. (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 14). 461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. In work partially funded by the Service, Pesticide Use 1). The decline of certain Bombus the University of Illinois conducted Exposure to pesticides can occur to species from the mid-1990s to present, surveys for parasites and pathogens in bumble bees from direct spray or drift, particularly species in the subgenus bumble bee populations of the Pacific or from gathering or consuming Bombus sensu stricto (including Northwest and Midwest between 2005 contaminated nectar or pollen (Johansen Franklin’s bumble bee), was and 2009. The goal was to assess and Mayer 1990; Morandin et al. 2005, contemporaneous with the collapse of Bombus populations for presence and p. 619). Lethal and sublethal effects on commercially bred western bumble bee prevalence of pathogens, particularly bumble bee eggs, larvae, and adults have (raised primarily to pollinate microsporidia, in an effort to provide been documented for many different greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper baseline data to assess disease as a pesticides under various scenarios (U.S. crops beginning in the late 1980s) potential factor in the decline of the Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28). (Szabo et al. 2012, pp. 232–233). This Franklin’s bumble bee, western bumble Documented sub-lethal effects to collapse was attributed to infections of bee, and American bumble bee (B. individual bumble bees and colonies N. bombi. pensylvanicus) (Solter et al. 2010, p. 1). Nosema bombi has been detected in include reduced or no male production, The highest prevalence of N. bombi was reduced or no egg hatch, reduced queen native bumble bees in North America, found in western bumble bee, with 26 and has been found to be a part of the production, reduced queen longevity, percent of collected individuals reduced colony weight gain, reduced natural pathogen load. The fungus has infected. Crithidia bombi infections of been reported in Canada since the 1940s brood size, reduced feeding, impaired western bumble bee were 2.8 percent ovary development, and an increased (Cordes et al. 2011, p. 7) and appears to overall. No Franklin’s bumble bees were have a broad host range in North number of foragers or foraging trips or collected during the study. However, duration (interpreted as risky behaviors) American (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 222). Mt. Ashland, Oregon, was one of only Infections of the pathogen primarily (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, p. three sites in the Pacific Northwest 28). Studies have also found evidence of occur in the malpighian tubules (small study area where N. bombi infections excretory or water regulating glands), adverse impacts to bumble bee habitat were found in multiple Bombus species associated with pesticides due to but also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and (the indiscriminate cuckoo bumble bee sometimes the trachea (Macfarlane et al. changes in vegetation and the removal (B. insularis) and black-notched bumble 1995). Bombus colonies can appear to or reduction of flowers needed to bee (B. bifarius)) (Solter et al. 2010, pp. be healthy but still carry N. bombi and provide consistent sources of pollen, 3–4). Although Cordes et al. (2011, p. 7) transmit it to other colonies, most likely nectar, and nesting material (U.S. Fish found a new allele in N. bombi, the when spores are fed to larvae and then and Wildlife Service 2018, p. 28). recent study by Cameron et al. (2016) infected adults drift into non-natal Declines in bumble bees in parts of found no evidence of an exotic strain of colonies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Europe have been at least partially N. bombi. While we have no evidence 2018, p. 25). attributed to the use of pesticides The effect of pathogens on bumble of direct effects of a virulent strain of N. (Williams 1986, p. 54; Kosior et al. bees varies from mild to severe bombi on the Franklin’s bumble bee, N. 2007, p. 81). (Macfarlane et al. 1995; Rutrecht et al. bombi has been detected in closely Although the use of land for 2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel related species in the range of the agricultural purposes has traditionally 2008, p. 577). Bumble bees infected Franklin’s bumble bee. Furthermore, N. involved the use of pesticides and other with Nosema bombi may have crippled bombi infections in rare species like the products toxic to bees, one particular wings, and queens may have distended Franklin’s bumble bee are more class of insecticides known as abdomens and be unable to mate (Otti frequent, are more severe, and seem to neonicotinoids have been strongly and Schmid-Hempel 2007, pp. 122– affect a higher percentage of individuals implicated in the decline of honey bees 123). Malfi and Roulston (2014, p. 24) of the species. (Apis spp.) worldwide, and implicated found that N. bombi infections are more In summary, known pathogens occur in the decline of several Bombus species frequent and more severe in rare within the historical range of the including rusty patched bumble bee, species, and the species with the highest Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have buff-tailed bumble bee, and eastern percentages of infected individuals were evidence of several pathogens infecting bumble bee (Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69; rare species. Furthermore, the effects of closely related species within that range Goulson 2013, pp. 7–8; Colla and Packer pathogen infection on bumble bees may that have also likely affected the 2008, p. 10; Lundin et al. 2015, p. 7). be amplified by other stressors on the Franklin’s bumble bee. Although we Neonicotinoids are a broad class of landscape. Nutritional stress may have no direct evidence of pathogens insecticides based on nicotine compromise the ability of bumble bees playing a role in the decline of the compounds used in a variety of to survive parasitic infections, as Franklin’s bumble bee, the agricultural applications; they act as a evidenced by a significant difference in disappearance of the Franklin’s bumble neurotoxin, affecting the central nervous mortality in bumble bees on a restricted bee occurred soon after a period of system of insects by interfering with the diet compared to well-fed bees infected potential exposure to introduced receptors of the insects’ nervous system, with C. bombi (Brown et al. 2000, pp. pathogens, particularly N. bombi, which causing overstimulation, paralysis, and 424–425). is known to have a more severe impact death. The neonicotinoid family of A virulent strain of N. bombi from the on rare species like the Franklin’s insecticides includes acetamiprid, buff-tailed bumble bee (B. terrestris) bumble bee. Decline of other closely clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, may have spread to the eastern bumble related pollinators has been associated nithiazine, thiacloprid, and bee (B. impatiens) and western bumble with these pathogens, and it is highly thiamethoxam. In the range of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40013

Franklin’s bumble bee (Jackson, in the survey effort. Diploid male that connects competition from Douglas, and Josephine Counties in production has been detected in European honey bees to the decline of Oregon, as well as Trinity and Siskiyou naturally occurring populations of the Franklin’s bumble bee. Counties in California), the first bumble bees, and recent modeling work There is potential for nonnative reported use of imidacloprid was in has shown that diploid male production commercially raised bumble bees to 1996, thiamethoxam in 2001, and may initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a naturalize and outcompete native clothianidin in 2004. The use of situation in which genetic traits and bumble bees for limited resources such neonicotinoid pesticides continued in environmental conditions combine to as nesting sites and forage areas. Five the range of the species through 2006, lead a species to extinction) (Goulsen et commercially reared eastern bumble bee when the last observation of the al. 2008, p. 11.8). Because of inbreeding workers and one queen were captured Franklin’s bumble bee was recorded. and the production of sterile males, the in the wild near greenhouses where Total estimated neonicotinoid haplodiploid genetic system makes commercial bumble bees are used, applications increased from 53.35 bumble bees very vulnerable when suggesting this species may have pounds per acre (lbs/ac) (24.19 populations get small (Colla 2018, pers. naturalized outside of its native range. kilograms per hectare)(kg/ac) in 1996 to comm.). Although we have no direct In this study, the eastern bumble bee, 1,144.128 lbs/ac (518.86 kg/ha) in 2014; evidence that small population size or a which has a native range in eastern however, the exponential growth of rapid extinction vortex contributed to North America, was detected in western neonicotinoid applications started in the decline of the species, the genetic Canada (Ratti and Colla 2010, pp. 29– 2011, 5 years after the last observation system and historically small 31). A study in Japan found that of the species. The vast majority of population size of the Franklin’s bumble nonnative buff-tailed bumble bee neonicotinoids are used as seed bee likely heightened the species’ colonies, founded by bees that had treatments on grains and other field vulnerability to other stressors in the escaped from commercially produced crops (Oregon Department of environment; we, therefore, consider the colonies, had more than four times the Agriculture 2018, pers. comm.). effects of small population size a threat mean reproductive output of native No studies have investigated the to the species. bumble bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p. effects of pesticide use on the Franklin’s 93). A study in England found that bumble bee, and no discoveries have Competition With Nonnative Bees commercially raised buff-tailed bumble been documented of any Franklin’s The European honey bee (Apis bee colonies had higher nectar-foraging bumble bees injured or killed by mellifera) was first introduced to eastern rates and greater reproductive output pesticides. The Franklin’s bumble bee is North America in the early 1620s and than a native subspecies of the buff- a habitat generalist and is not known to into California in the early 1850s tailed bumble bee (Ings et al. 2006, p. have a close association with (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). 940). Colonies of eastern bumble bee agricultural lands; therefore, it may have The resource needs of the European were imported to pollinate agricultural less exposure to pesticides than some honey bee and native Bombus species crops and strawberries in Grants Pass, other Bombus species. However, may overlap, resulting in the potential Oregon, in the range of the Franklin’s pesticide use occurs in the range of the for increased competition for resources bumble bee (Xerces Society and Thorp Franklin’s bumble bee. The similarity in (Thomson 2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, 2010, p. 18). foraging traits that the Franklin’s p. 407). Decreased foraging activity and Although nonnative Bombus species bumble bee has with both honey bees lowered reproductive success of in the range of Franklin’s bumble bee and the other Bombus species (e.g., Bombus colonies have been noted near could outcompete Franklin’s bumble generalist foragers collecting pollen European honey bee hives (Evans 2001, bee for floral resources and nesting from similar food sources) allows us to pp. 32–33; Thomson 2004, p. 458; habitat, we could not find any infer that the Franklin’s bumble bee Thomson 2006, p. 407). Additionally, information to definitively connect would suffer exposure to and impacts the size of workers of native Bombus competition with nonnative bumble from pesticides in similar measure to species were noticeably reduced where bees to the decline of the Franklin’s other Bombus species when the European honey bees were present, bumble bee. Furthermore, invertebrate Franklin’s bumble bee is in areas where which may be detrimental to Bombus surveys in Franklin’s bumble bee habitat pesticides are applied. colony success (Goulson and Sparrow continue to show evidence of healthy 2009, p. 177). It is likely that the effects populations of other native Bombus Effects of Small Population Size discussed in these studies are local in species unaffected by competition from The Franklin’s bumble bee is rare and space and time, and most pronounced nonnative bees (Pool 2014, entire; has always had very small populations where floral resources are limited and Colyer 2016, entire). (relative to other similar, native bumble large numbers of commercial European bees in the western United States), and honey bee colonies are introduced Summary likely has low genetic diversity due to (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). We find that several natural and other the haplodiploidy genetic system it We could not find information to human-caused factors contributed to the shares with all Bombus species (Zayed indicate that any area of Franklin’s decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. 2009, p. 238). These factors make the bumble bee habitat in the range of the While it is unlikely that pesticides alone species more vulnerable to habitat species has limited floral resources and can account for the decline of the change or loss, parasites, diseases, large numbers of European honey bees. Franklin’s bumble bee, documented stochastic events, and other natural We have no information related to the effects of pesticides on closely related disasters such as droughts (Xerces specific placement of commercial honey Bombus species suggest pesticide use Society and Thorp 2010, p. 20). Between bee colonies in or near Franklin’s was likely a factor in the decline of the 1998 and 2006, the number of Franklin’s bumble bee habitat. Furthermore, Franklin’s bumble bee. The bumble bee observations went from a European honey bees have been present haplodiploid genetic system of the high of 98 at 11 locations, to a lone without noticeable declines in Bombus Franklin’s bumble bee, combined with individual in 2006. No observations of populations over large portions of their its historically small population size, the Franklin’s bumble bee have ranges (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, was also likely a factor in the decline of occurred since 2006, despite an increase p. 21), and we have no new information the species. Although nonnative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40014 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40015

reduced the ability of the Franklin’s effects of pathogens had some on the basis of the best available bumble bee to withstand environmental connection to the decline of the scientific and commercial information, variation, catastrophic events, and Franklin’s bumble bee. We evaluated we propose to list the Franklin’s bumble changes in physical and biological existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor bee as endangered in accordance with conditions. Coupled with the increased D) and conservation measures and their sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We risk of extirpation due to the interaction effects on the stressors and the status of find that a threatened species status is of reduced population size and the the Franklin’s bumble bee; we found not appropriate for the Franklin’s species’ haplodiploid genetic system, that the existing regulatory mechanisms bumble bee because of the extreme loss the Franklin’s bumble bee may lack the or conservation measures in place do of abundance of the species, because the resiliency required to sustain not appreciably reduce or ameliorate the threats are occurring rangewide and are populations into the future, even existing threats to the species, as not localized, and because the threats without further exposure to pathogens evidenced by the species’ acute and are ongoing and expected to continue and pesticides. rangewide decline. Although we have into the future. no direct evidence that pesticide use Under the Act and our implementing Determination contributed to the decline of the regulations, a species may warrant Section 4 of the Act and its Franklin’s bumble bee, confirmed listing if it is endangered or threatened implementing regulations at 50 CFR part effects to other closely related Bombus throughout all or a significant portion of 424 set forth the procedures for adding species suggest that pesticide use its range. Because we have determined species to the Federal Lists of (Factor E) was likely a factor in the that the Franklin’s bumble bee is in Endangered and Threatened Wildlife decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. danger of extinction throughout its and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the Additionally, given the historically range, we find it unnecessary to proceed Secretary is to make endangered or small population size (Factor E) of the to an evaluation of potentially threatened determinations required by Franklin’s bumble bee and its significant portions of the range. Where subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of haplodiploid genetic system, it is more the best available information allows the the best scientific and commercial data vulnerable to extirpation than other Services to determine a status for the available to him after conducting a species, and it is likely the genetic species rangewide, that determination review of the status of the species and system and the rarity of this species should be given conclusive weight after taking into account conservation contributed to the decline of the because a rangewide determination of efforts by States or foreign nations. The Franklin’s bumble bee (Factor E). status more accurately reflects the standards for determining whether a The combination of multiple stressors species’ degree of imperilment and species is endangered or threatened are is typically more harmful than a stressor better promotes the purposes of the provided in section 3 of the Act. An acting alone, and it is likely that several statute. Under this reading, we should endangered species is any species that of the stressors mentioned above acted first consider whether listing is is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout cumulatively and synergistically on the appropriate based on a rangewide all or a significant portion of its range.’’ Franklin’s bumble bee. Pathogens in analysis and proceed to conduct a A threatened species is any species that combination with pesticides, as well as ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is ‘‘likely to become an endangered pathogens in combination with the analysis if, and only if, a species does species within the foreseeable future effects of small population size, may not qualify for listing as either throughout all or a significant portion of have hastened and amplified the decline endangered or threatened according to its range.’’ of the Franklin’s bumble bee to a greater the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the We have carefully assessed the best degree than any one of the three factors court in Desert Survivors v. Department scientific and commercial information caused on its own. Although the of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, available regarding the past, present, ultimate source of the decline is 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, and future threats to the Franklin’s unknown, the acute and rangewide 2018), did not address this issue, and bumble bee. Our assessment did not decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee is our conclusion is therefore consistent find habitat loss or modification (Factor undisputable. with the opinion in that case. A) to be the cause of the decline of the The Act defines an endangered Although this species has not been Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no species as any species that is ‘‘in danger found since 2006, we conclude it is information to suggest that habitat of extinction throughout all or a premature at this time to determine that destruction or modification will significant portion of its range’’ and a the species is extinct absent a more increase in intensity in the near future. threatened species as any species ‘‘that thorough survey effort. We invite public There is no indication that the is likely to become endangered comment on the probability of Franklin’s bumble bee was at risk of throughout all or a significant portion of extinction for this species and will overutilization for commercial, its range within the foreseeable future.’’ revisit this conclusion as appropriate recreational, scientific, or educational We find that the Franklin’s bumble bee with respect to available information for purposes (Factor B). Known pathogens is presently in danger of extinction the final determination. We recommend occur within the historical range of the throughout all of its range based on the expanded future survey efforts to help Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have severity and immediacy of threats verify the status of this species. evidence of several pathogens (Factor C) currently affecting the species. infecting closely related species within The threats of pathogens, pesticides, Available Conservation Measures that range. Although we do not have and small population size are ongoing Conservation measures provided to direct evidence of pathogens playing a and rangewide; they will continue to act species listed as endangered or role in the decline of the Franklin’s individually and in combination to threatened species under the Act bumble bee, the disappearance of the decrease the resiliency, redundancy, include recognition, recovery actions, Franklin’s bumble bee occurred soon and representation of the Franklin’s requirements for Federal protection, and after a period of introduction of new bumble bee. The risk of extinction is prohibitions against certain practices. pathogens. Furthermore, documented high because the species has not been Recognition through listing results in effects to other closely related species found since 2006, and the suspected public awareness, and conservation by lead many species experts to suspect the threats to the species persist. Therefore, Federal, State, Tribal, and local

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40016 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40017

accordance with applicable law; this list periodically, but not solely by vagrant protected habitat). In identifying those is not comprehensive: individuals). physical or biological features within an (1) Recreation, specifically skiing at Conservation, as defined under area, we focus on the specific features Mt. Ashland, and use of the Pacific section 3 of the Act, means to use and that support the life-history needs of the Crest Trail; the use of all methods and procedures species, including but not limited to, (2) Timber sales; and that are necessary to bring an water characteristics, soil type, (3) Livestock grazing. endangered or threatened species to the geological features, prey, vegetation, Based on the best available point at which the measures provided symbiotic species, or other features. A information, the following actions may pursuant to the Act are no longer feature may be a single habitat potentially result in a violation of necessary. Such methods and characteristic, or a more complex section 9 of the Act if they are not procedures include, but are not limited combination of habitat characteristics. authorized in accordance with to, all activities associated with Features may include habitat applicable law; this list is not scientific resources management such as characteristics that support ephemeral comprehensive: research, census, law enforcement, or dynamic habitat conditions. Features (1) Unauthorized handling or habitat acquisition and maintenance, may also be expressed in terms relating collecting of the Franklin’s bumble bee; propagation, live trapping, and to principles of conservation biology, (2) The unauthorized release of transplantation, and, in the such as patch size, distribution biological control agents that attack any extraordinary case where population distances, and connectivity. life stage of the Franklin’s bumble bee, pressures within a given ecosystem Under the second prong of the Act’s including the unauthorized use of cannot be otherwise relieved, may definition of critical habitat, we can herbicides, pesticides, or other include regulated taking. designate critical habitat in areas chemicals in habitats in which the Critical habitat receives protection outside the geographical area occupied Franklin’s bumble bee is known to under section 7 of the Act through the by the species at the time it is listed, occur; and requirement that Federal agencies upon a determination that such areas (3) Unauthorized release of nonnative ensure, in consultation with the Service, are essential for the conservation of the species or native species that carry that any action they authorize, fund, or species. We will determine whether pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are carry out is not likely to result in the unoccupied areas are essential for the known or suspected to adversely affect destruction or adverse modification of conservation of the species by the Franklin’s bumble bee where the critical habitat. The designation of considering the life-history, status, and species is known to occur. critical habitat does not affect land conservation needs of the species. This Questions regarding whether specific ownership or establish a refuge, will be further informed by any activities would constitute a violation of wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other generalized conservation strategy, section 9 of the Act should be directed conservation area. Such designation criteria, or outline that may have been to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office does not allow the government or public developed for the species to provide a (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). to access private lands. Such substantive foundation for identifying designation does not require which features and specific areas are Critical Habitat implementation of restoration, recovery, essential to the conservation of the Background or enhancement measures by non- species and, as a result, the Federal landowners. Where a landowner development of the critical habitat Critical habitat is defined in section 3 requests Federal agency funding or designation. For example, an area of the Act as: authorization for an action that may currently occupied by the species but (1) The specific areas within the affect a listed species or critical habitat, that was not occupied at the time of geographical area occupied by the the consultation requirements of section listing may be essential to the species, at the time it is listed in 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even conservation of the species and may be accordance with the Act, on which are in the event of a destruction or adverse included in the critical habitat found those physical or biological modification finding, the obligation of designation. features the Federal action agency and the Section 4 of the Act requires that we (a) Essential to the conservation of the landowner is not to restore or recover designate critical habitat on the basis of species, and the species, but to implement the best scientific data available. (b) Which may require special reasonable and prudent alternatives to Further, our Policy on Information management considerations or avoid destruction or adverse Standards Under the Endangered protection; and modification of critical habitat. Species Act (published in the Federal (2) Specific areas outside the Under the first prong of the Act’s Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), geographical area occupied by the definition of critical habitat, areas the Information Quality Act (section 515 species at the time it is listed, upon a within the geographical area occupied of the Treasury and General determination that such areas are by the species at the time it was listed Government Appropriations Act for essential for the conservation of the are included in a critical habitat Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. species. designation if they contain physical or 5658)), and our associated Information Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 biological features (1) which are Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, define ‘‘geographical area occupied by essential to the conservation of the establish procedures, and provide the species’’ as: An area that may species and (2) which may require guidance to ensure that our decisions generally be delineated around species’ special management considerations or are based on the best scientific data occurrences, as determined by the protection. For these areas, critical available. They require our biologists, to Secretary of the Interior (i.e., range). habitat designations identify, to the the extent consistent with the Act and Such areas may include those areas extent known using the best scientific with the use of the best scientific data used throughout all or part of the and commercial data available, those available, to use primary and original species’ life cycle, even if not used on physical or biological features that are sources of information as the basis for a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, essential to the conservation of the recommendations to designate critical seasonal habitats, and habitats used species (such as space, food, cover, and habitat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 40018 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Prudency Determination remote wilderness area of California to not be beneficial to the species: ‘‘[I]n Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as nesting in a residential garage in the city some circumstances, a species may be amended, and implementing regulations limits of Medford, Oregon. The species listed because of factors other than (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the has a broad elevational range from 162 threats to its habitat or range, such as maximum extent prudent and m (540 ft) to 2,340 m (7,800 ft); disease, and the species may be a determinable, the Secretary shall elevation does not appear to limit the habitat generalist. In such a case, on the designate critical habitat at the time the species’ dispersal capabilities. basis of the existing and revised Some general habitat associations of regulations, it is permissible to species is determined to be an Bombus are known; however, as one of determine that critical habitat is not endangered or threatened species. Our the rarest Bombus species, the beneficial and, therefore, not prudent’’ regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state Franklin’s bumble bee is somewhat (81 FR 7425). This is the fact pattern we that the designation of critical habitat is enigmatic and a specific habitat study are presented with in the case of the not prudent when one or both of the for the Franklin’s bumble bee has not Franklin’s bumble bee. In view of the following situations exist: been completed. Such a study was foregoing, we conclude that present or (1) The species is threatened by taking initiated in 2006, when the Franklin’s threatened destruction, modification, or or other human activity, and bumble bee was last seen, but could not curtailment of habitat is not a threat to identification of critical habitat can be continue due to the subsequent absence the Franklin’s bumble bee; rather, expected to increase the degree of threat of the species. Therefore, we cannot, disease and other manmade factors are to the species, or with specificity, articulate the physical likely the primary threat to the species (2) Such designation of critical habitat or biological features essential to the within its habitat. Therefore, in would not be beneficial to the species. conservation of the Franklin’s bumble accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), The regulations also provide that, in bee, or determine whether or not any we determine that critical habitat is not determining whether a designation area would meet the definition of beneficial and, therefore, not prudent would not be beneficial, the factors the critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble for the Franklin’s bumble bee. Service may consider include but are bee. not limited to: Whether the present or Since it was first identified in 1921, Required Determinations threatened destruction, modification, or the Franklin’s bumble bee appears to Clarity of the Rule curtailment of a species’ habitat or range have always been a rare species limited We are required by Executive Orders is not a threat to the species, or whether in abundance. In fact, the species has 12866 and 12988 and by the any areas meet the definition of ‘‘critical perhaps the most limited range of any Presidential Memorandum of June 1, habitat’’ (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)). Bombus species in the world. 1998, to write all rules in plain As discussed above in the threats Nonetheless, Franklin’s bumble bee language. This means that each rule we analysis, there is currently no imminent habitat is not in short supply, and publish must: threat of take attributed to collection or habitat loss is not a threat to the species. vandalism identified under Factor B for (1) Be logically organized; With the exception of the inundation of (2) Use the active voice to address this species, and identification and two historical Franklin’s bumble bee readers directly; mapping of critical habitat is not locations by the construction of (3) Use clear language rather than expected to initiate any such threat. In Applegate dam and a report of soil jargon; the absence of finding that the modification on a portion of the Gold (4) Be divided into short sections and designation of critical habitat would Hill site four years after the last sentences; and increase threats to a species, we next occurrence of Franklin’s bumble bee in (5) Use lists and tables wherever determine whether such designation of the area, no noticeable destruction, possible. critical habitat would be beneficial to modification, or curtailment of habitat If you feel that we have not met these the Franklin’s bumble bee. For the or range can be identified in areas where requirements, send us comments by one reasons discussed below, we have the species had been previously located. of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To determined that designating critical No significant destruction or better help us revise the rule, your habitat would not be beneficial. modification of Franklin’s bumble bee comments should be as specific as Designating Habitat Would Not Be habitat can be attributed to natural fire, possible. For example, you should tell Beneficial to the Species prescribed fire, agricultural us the numbers of the sections or intensification, urban development, paragraphs that are unclearly written, The Franklin’s bumble bee was livestock grazing, or the effects of which sections or sentences are too widely distributed throughout its range climate change. Additionally, as long, the sections where you feel lists or and considered flexible with regards to discussed above, the Franklin’s bumble tables would be useful, etc. habitat requirements. We know that the bee has been documented using a wide Franklin’s bumble bee needs (1) floral variety of habitat throughout its range. National Environmental Policy Act (42 resources for nectaring throughout the Because habitat for the Franklin’s U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) colony cycle, and (2) relatively bumble bee is not limiting, and because We have determined that protected areas for breeding and shelter. the bee is considered to be flexible with environmental assessments and In addition, because the best available regards to its habitat, the availability of environmental impact statements, as scientific information indicates that the habitat does not limit the conservation defined under the authority of the Franklin’s bumble bee is a generalist of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor National Environmental Policy Act forager, its habitat preferences and will it in the foreseeable future. (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not needs are relatively plentiful and widely In the Service and National Marine be prepared in connection with listing distributed. While Bombus species in Fisheries Service’s response to a species as an endangered or general might prefer protected meadows comments on the February 11, 2016, threatened species under the with an abundance of wildflowers, the final rule (81 FR 7414) revising the Endangered Species Act. We published Franklin’s bumble bee has been found critical habitat regulations, the Services a notice outlining our reasons for this in a wide array of habitat types, from expressly contemplated a fact pattern determination in the Federal Register foraging in montane meadows in a where designating critical habitat may on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 40019

Government-to-Government controls as Federal public lands, to Proposed Regulation Promulgation Relationship With Tribes remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Accordingly, we propose to amend In accordance with the President’s to make information available to tribes. part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title memorandum of April 29, 1994 References Cited 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (Government-to-Government Relations as set forth below: with Native American Tribal A complete list of references cited in Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive this proposed rule is available on the PART 17—ENDANGERED AND Order 13175 (Consultation and internet at http://www.regulations.gov THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Coordination With Indian Tribal under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018– Governments), and the Department of 0044 and upon request from the Oregon ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR continues to read as follows: readily acknowledge our responsibility FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– to communicate meaningfully with Authors 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise recognized Federal Tribes on a noted. government-to-government basis. In The primary authors of this proposed ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 rule are the staff members of the Oregon entry for ‘‘Bumble bee, Franklin’s’’ to of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Fish and Wildlife Office and Pacific the List of Endangered and Threatened Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Region Office in Portland, Oregon. Wildlife in alphabetical order under Responsibilities, and the Endangered List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 INSECTS to read as follows: Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly Endangered and threatened species, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened with tribes in developing programs for Exports, Imports, Reporting and wildlife. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that recordkeeping requirements, * * * * * tribal lands are not subject to the same Transportation. (h) * * *

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

*******

INSECTS

******* Bumble bee, Franklin’s Bombus franklini ...... Wherever found ...... E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]

*******

Dated: January 31, 2019. Margaret E. Everson, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on August 7, 2019. [FR Doc. 2019–17337 Filed 8–12–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM 13AUP1 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS