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

EPA–APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

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

Missouri 

*******

10–6.110 ........... Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.3/30/2021 8/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Section (3)(A), Emission Fees, 

has not been approved as part 

of the SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT 

PROGRAMS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 4. In appendix A to part 70 the entry 

for ‘‘Missouri’’ is amended by adding 

paragraph (jj) to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

Missouri 

* * * * * 

(jj) The Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources submitted revisions 

to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.110, 

‘‘Reporting Emission Data, Emission 

Fees, and Process Information’’ on May 

25, 2021. The state effective date is 

March 30, 2021. This revision is 

effective September 23, 2021. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–17713 Filed 8–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD25 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are listing the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus 

franklini), an invertebrate species from 

Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine 

Counties in Oregon, and Siskiyou and 

Trinity Counties in California, as an 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This rule adds this 

species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and applies the protections of the Act to 

this species. We are not designating 

critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble 

bee because we determined that such a 

designation would not be beneficial to 

the species. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and 

supporting documents are available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044, or at https://

ecos.fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone 503–231–6179. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

may be an endangered or threatened 

species throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, we are required to 

promptly publish a proposal in the 

Federal Register and make a 

determination on our proposal within 1 

year. To the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we must designate 

critical habitat for any species that we 

determine to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

lists Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus 

franklini) as an endangered species 

under the Act. We are not designating 

critical habitat because we determined 

that a designation is not prudent for this 

species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that Franklin’s bumble 

bee meets the definition of an 

endangered species and therefore 

warrants protection under the Act. The 

threats to the species of pathogens, 

pesticides, and small population size 

are ongoing and rangewide; they are 

likely to continue to act individually 

and in combination to decrease the 

viability of the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

The risk of extinction is high, the 

suspected threats to the species persist, 

and the number of remaining Franklin’s 

bumble bees is presumably very small, 

as the species has not been observed 

since 2006. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation measures 

in place do not appreciably reduce or 

ameliorate the existing threats to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

species, as evidenced by the species’ 

acute and rangewide decline. Therefore, 

on the basis of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we are listing the Franklin’s bumble bee 

as endangered in accordance with 

sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Because the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat is not a threat to 

the Franklin’s bumble bee (disease and 

other manmade factors are likely the 

primary threat to the species within its 

habitat), in accordance with 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1), we determine that 

designating critical habitat is not 

prudent for Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought the expert opinions of 10 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding the species status assessment 

report. We received responses from 5 

specialists, which informed our 

determination. We also considered all 

53 comments and information received 

from the public during the comment 

period. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed rule (84 

FR 40006) for Franklin’s bumble bee 

published on August 13, 2019, for a 

detailed description of previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. 

On August 27, 2019, the Service 

published a final rule (84 FR 45020) 

revising the regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 for listing species and designating 

critical habitat. However, the revisions 

apply only to relevant rulemakings for 

which the proposed rule is published 

after September 26, 2019, the effective 

date of the final rule. Thus, the prior 

version of the regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 continues to apply to any 

rulemakings for which a proposed rule 

was published before September 26, 

2019, including this final rule for 

Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

We considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

comment period for the proposed rule to 

list the Franklin’s bumble bee (84 FR 

40006; August 13, 2019). Based on these 

comments and additional internal 

review, we made the following changes 

from the proposed rule in this final rule: 

• Added to this rule and the SSA 

report additional climate change 

information and analysis, as well as 

discussion on the likely effects of other 

potential threats in the future; 

• Updated this rule and the SSA 

report with information from the 2019 

survey season; 

• Corrected a mathematical error in 

our presentation of neonicotinoid 

pesticide applications in the historical 

range of the species in this rule and in 

the SSA report; 

• Added information from the SSA 

report to this rule regarding nectaring 

behavior, as well as the 

commercialization of bumble bees for 

pollination; 

• Updated information in this rule on 

pesticide regulation on National 

Wildlife Refuge System lands; 

• Added further detail in the rule on 

Tribal notifications; 

• Added several citations and 

clarifications to the rule to further 

support content; and 

• Made minor editorial changes to the 

rule to improve readability. 

We carefully considered the 

additional information we received 

during the comment period, and while 

much of this information was helpful, it 

did not result in any further changes 

from our proposal to this final rule to 

list Franklin’s bumble bee as 

endangered, nor did it result in a change 

to our determination that designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent at this 

time. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we sought the expert opinions of 10 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding the scientific basis for this 

proposed rule, detailed in the Franklin’s 

Bumble Bee Species Status Assessment 

report (SSA report) (Service 2018a, 

entire). We received five reviews. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing and critical habitat 

determinations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. The peer reviewers have 

expertise in Franklin’s bumble bee or 

Bombus biology and habitat, and their 

comments helped inform our 

determinations. We also invited 

comment on the SSA report from our 

partner agencies; the U.S. Forest 

Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the Oregon 

Department of Agriculture provided us 

with comments. The comments from 

peer and partner reviews were carefully 

considered in the process of finalizing 

the SSA report that provided the 

scientific basis for both the proposed 

rule and this final rule. These 

comments, along with other public 

comments on our proposed rule, are 

available in the docket for this final rule 

(http://www.regulations.gov in Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044). 

I. Final Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Franklin’s 

bumble bee is presented in the SSA 

report (Service 2018a, entire) on http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. Franklin’s 

bumble bee is thought to have the most 

limited distribution of all known North 

American bumble bee species 

(Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 479; 

Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 6), 

and one of the most limited geographic 

distributions of any bumble bee in the 

world (Frison 1922, p. 315; Williams 

1998, p. 129). The species has been 

recorded from the Umpqua and Rogue 

River Valleys in Oregon (Stephen 1957, 

p. 81) and from northern California, 

suggesting its restriction to the Klamath 

Mountain region of southern Oregon 

and northern California (Thorp et al. 

1983, p. 8). Elevations where it has been 

observed range from 162 meters (m) 

(540 feet (ft)) in the northern part of its 

range, to over 2,340 m (7,800 ft) in the 

southern part of its range. All confirmed 

specimens have been found in an area 

about 306 kilometers (km) (190 miles 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47223 

(mi)) to the north and south, and 113 km 

(70 mi) east to west, between 122° to 

124° west longitude and 40° 58′ to 43° 

30′ north latitude in Douglas, Jackson, 

and Josephine Counties in southern 

Oregon, and Siskiyou and Trinity 

Counties in northern California (Thorp 

1999, p. 3; Thorp 2005, p. 1; 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature 2009, p. 1). 

Franklin’s bumble bee was first 

observed in 1917, and first described in 

1921, and limited occurrence and 

observation data exist for Franklin’s 

bumble bee prior to 1998. The species 

has been found on many privately 

owned sites as well as municipal, State, 

and Federal land. Historical 

observations and occurrence data for 

Franklin’s bumble bee prior to 1998 

include opportunistic observations, 

student collections, and museum 

specimens, as well as the collections 

and notes of interested parties, natural 

resource managers, and university staff 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, pp. 34– 

40). A more intensive and targeted 

search effort for the species began in 

1998, in areas thought to have the 

highest likelihood of Franklin’s bumble 

bee presence. There was initial success 

at finding a higher abundance of the 

species than ever previously reported; 

in one year (1998), 98 Franklin’s bumble 

bees were observed (mostly from two 

sites). However, in subsequent years, 

searchers found fewer and fewer 

Franklin’s bumble bees, and none have 

been found since the last sighting of a 

single individual in Oregon in 2006. 

The variations in timing, scope, 

intensity, and methodology of search 

efforts (including those since 1998) and 

the lack of observations since 2006 

prevent the identification of any 

population trends. Many of the 

occurrence records provide only point 

data for an occurrence, with no details 

on the size of the area searched or 

whether or not the record reflected a 

comprehensive search of an area. Many 

records also lack details on the level of 

survey effort per location (number of 

searchers, hours of search effort per day, 

number of days per search effort). 

The lack of systematic surveys across 

the historical range of the species over 

time prevents us from using occurrence 

records to extrapolate reasonable 

estimates of species abundance or 

distribution or from concluding that the 

species is extinct. Even though none 

have been seen since 2006, Franklin’s 

bumble bee populations could 

potentially persist undetected. The areas 

chosen for survey were selected due to 

a combination of abundance of floral 

resources throughout the colony cycle, 

relatively recent historical occurrence of 

the species, and accessibility to 

surveyors. However, the surveyed area 

represents a relatively small percentage 

of the historical range of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee; therefore, it is possible the 

species may persist in other areas of the 

range. There are numerous instances of 

species rediscovered after many years, 

even decades, of having been believed 

extinct (e.g., Scheffers et al. 2011, 

entire). As one example of such a case, 

the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi) of Oregon was 

believed extinct after the last recorded 

observation in 1937, until it was 

rediscovered in 1989, 52 years later 

(Hammond and Wilson 1992, p. 175; 

Hammond and Wilson 1993, p. 2). 

Recent approaches to evaluating 

extinction likelihood place increased 

emphasis on the extensiveness and 

adequacy of survey effort (Keith et al. 

2017, p. 321; Thompson et al. 2017, p. 

328), and caution against declaring a 

species as extinct in the face of 

uncertainty (Akc ̧akaya et al. 2017, p. 

340). 

The specific life-history 

characteristics and behavior of this rare 

species have not been studied; much of 

the information presented in the SSA 

report (Service 2018a, entire) is inferred 

from information on Bombus in general 

and some closely related species 

(western bumble bee (B. occidentalis), 

rusty patched bumble bee (B. affinis), 

and yellow-faced bumble bee (B. 

vosnesenskii), among others). The report 

also relied heavily on information from 

species experts (Service 2018a, entire). 

Franklin’s bumble bee is a primitively 

eusocial bumble bee, meaning they are 

highly social and adults have flexible 

roles in their social order. They live in 

colonies made up of a queen and her 

male and worker offspring, and adult 

females can switch from worker to 

queen roles. Like other eusocial Bombus 

species, Franklin’s bumble bee typically 

nests underground in abandoned rodent 

burrows or other cavities that offer 

resting and sheltering places, food 

storage, nesting, and room for the 

colony to grow (Plath 1927, pp. 122– 

128; Hobbs 1968, p. 157; Thorp et al. 

1983, p. 1; Thorp 1999, p. 5). The 

species may also occasionally nest on 

the ground (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 1) or 

in rock piles (Plowright and Stephen 

1980, p. 475). It has even been found 

nesting in a residential garage in the city 

limits of Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, 

pers. comm.). 

Colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee 

have an annual cycle, initiated each 

spring when solitary queens emerge 

from hibernation and seek suitable nest 

sites (Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). 

Colonies may contain from 50 to 400 

workers along with the founding queen 

(Plath 1927, pp. 123–124; Thorp et al. 

1983, p. 2; Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 7). 

Two colonies of Franklin’s bumble bee 

that were initiated in the laboratory and 

set out to complete development in the 

field contained over 60 workers by early 

September, and likely produced over 

100 workers by the end of the season 

(Plowright and Stephen 1980, p. 477). 

The flight season of Franklin’s bumble 

bee is from mid-May to the end of 

September (Thorp et al. 1983, p. 30); a 

few individuals have been encountered 

in October (Southern Oregon University 

Bee Collection records, in Xerces 

Society and Thorp 2010, Appendix 1, p. 

39). At the end of the colony cycle, all 

the workers and the males die along 

with the founding queen; only the 

inseminated hibernating females (gynes) 

are left to carry on the genetic lineage 

into the following year (Duchateau and 

Velthius 1988). 

As with all Bombus species, 

Franklin’s bumble bee has a unique 

genetic system called the haplodiploid 

sex determination system. In this 

system, unfertilized (haploid) eggs 

become males that carry a single set of 

chromosomes, and fertilized (diploid) 

eggs become females that carry two sets 

of chromosomes. This system may result 

in lower levels of genetic diversity than 

the more common diploid-diploid sex 

determination system, in which both 

males and females carry two sets of 

chromosomes. Haplodiploid organisms 

may be more prone to population 

extinction than diploid-diploid 

organisms, due to their susceptibility to 

low population levels and loss of 

genetic diversity (Service 2018a, p. 37). 

Inbreeding depression in bumble bees 

can lead to the production of sterile 

diploid males (Goulson et al. 2008, p. 

11.7) and negatively affects bumble bee 

colony size (Herrman et al. 2007, p. 

1167), which are key factors in a 

colony’s reproductive success. 

As one of the rarest Bombus species, 

Franklin’s bumble bees are somewhat 

enigmatic, and a specific habitat study 

for the species has not been completed. 

Such a study was initiated in 2006, 

when the Franklin’s bumble bee was 

last seen, but could not continue due to 

the subsequent absence of the species 

(Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). However, 

some general habitat associations of 

Bombus are known. Like all bumble 

bees, the Franklin’s bumble bee requires 

a constant and diverse supply of flowers 

that bloom throughout the colony’s life 

cycle, from spring to autumn (Xerces 

Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11); these 

resources would typically be found in 

open (non-forested) meadows in 

proximity to seeps and other wet 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47224 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

meadow environments. The nectar from 

flowers provides carbohydrates, and the 

pollen provides protein. Franklin’s 

bumble bee may have a foraging 

distance of up to 10 km (6.2 mi) (Thorp 

2017, pers. comm.), but the species’ 

typical dispersal distance is most likely 

3 km (1.86 mi) or less (Hatfield 2017, 

pers. comm.; Goulson 2010, p. 96). 

Franklin’s bumble bee have been 

observed collecting pollen from lupine 

(Lupinus spp.) and California poppy 

(Eschscholzia californica), and 

collecting nectar from horsemint or 

nettle-leaf giant hyssop (Agastache 

urticifolia) and mountain monardella 

(Monardella odoratissima) (Xerces 

Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). 

Franklin’s bumble bee may also collect 

both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia 

spp.), as well as rob nectar from it 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 11). 

Short-tongued species, including 

Franklin’s bumble bee, sometimes visit 

flowers that are quite elongated and 

have difficulty reaching nectar deep in 

the flower. These bees can ‘rob nectar’ 

by chewing a hole on the outside of the 

flower at the base, through which they 

can easily reach the nectar with their 

tongues. 

In summary, Franklin’s bumble bee 

has been found in a wide array of 

sheltered and exposed habitat types at a 

broad elevational range, and the species 

appears to be a generalist forager. 

Despite uncertainties regarding the 

species’ habitat needs, we know they 

need (1) floral resources for nectaring 

throughout the colony cycle, and (2) 

relatively protected areas for breeding 

and shelter. The habitat elements that 

Franklin’s bumble bee appears to prefer 

to fulfill those needs mentioned above 

are relatively plentiful and widely 

distributed. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

endangered species as a species that is 

‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range,’’ and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial data regarding the status of 

the species, including an assessment of 

the potential threats to the species. The 

SSA report does not represent a 

decision by the Service on whether the 

species should be listed as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. It does, however, provide the 

scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044 on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess the viability of Franklin’s 

bumble bee, we used the three 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47225 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

To assess resiliency and redundancy, 

we evaluated the change in Franklin’s 

bumble bee occurrences (populations) 

over time. To assess representation (as 

an indicator of adaptive capacity) of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, we evaluated the 

spatial extent of occurrences over time. 

We evaluated the change in resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy from 

the past until the present; however, due 

to the lack of observations of the species 

since 2006, we did not project 

anticipated future states of these 

conditions. 

Our analyses indicate that the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee have all declined since the late 

1990s. Historically, the species has 

always been rare and has one of the 

narrowest distributions of any Bombus 

species in the world. Even so, the 

abundance and distribution of 

Franklin’s bumble bee has declined 

significantly (Service 2018a, pp. 10–14); 

the species has not been observed since 

2006, despite intensive survey efforts in 

select portions of its historical range. 

Search efforts for the species have been 

varied in timing, scope, intensity, and 

methodology. During the more intensive 

surveys from 1998 until the last 

observation in 2006, the Franklin’s 

bumble bee was observed at 14 

locations, including 8 locations where it 

had not been previously documented. In 

1998, 98 bees were found among 11 

locations. Searchers found fewer and 

fewer bees after that year even though 

they continued extensive searches in 

multiple locations with the highest 

likelihood of finding the species. 

Twenty bees were located in 1999, nine 

individuals were observed in 2000, and 

one individual was observed in 2001. 

Although 20 Franklin’s bumble bees 

were observed in 2002, only 3 were 

observed in 2003 (all at a single 

locality), and a single worker bee was 

observed in 2006. Despite continued 

intensive search efforts in these areas 

through 2019, there have been no 

confirmed observations of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee since 2006. Data allow us to 

estimate 43 potential populations of the 

species since 1921, when the first 

description of the species was published 

(Service 2018a, pp. 11). From 1998 to 

2006, we identified 14 potential 

populations. Since 2006, no populations 

have been located. 

The vulnerability resulting from the 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s haplodiploid 

genetic system, as well as the loss in the 

abundance and spatial extent of its 

populations, suggest the resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee have all declined 

significantly since the late 1990s. The 

losses in both the number of 

populations and their spatial extent 

render the Franklin’s bumble bee 

vulnerable to extinction even without 

further external stressors (e.g., 

pathogens and insecticide exposure) 

acting upon the species. 

As part of our status assessment of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at 

potential stressors affecting the species’ 

viability (Service 2018a, pp. 23–40). 

Potential stressors that we analyzed for 

the Franklin’s bumble bee generally fit 

into three groups that correspond with 

Factors A (habitat loss and 

fragmentation), C (pathogens), or E 

(pesticide use, competition with 

nonnative bees, and effects of small 

population size). No potential stressors 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee correspond 

with Factor B. There has never been any 

indication that the Franklin’s bumble 

bee was at risk of overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes, and we did not 

find any new information to suggest this 

has changed. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed 

below in the context of how they help 

to reduce or ameliorate stressors to the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. 

The 2010 petition identified 

destruction, degradation, and 

conversion of habitat as a threat to the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. In our 90-day 

finding on the 2010 petition (76 FR 

56381; September 13, 2011), we noted 

that the petitioners provided substantial 

information on threats to the Franklin’s 

bumble bee from the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat, 

primarily due to the potential impacts of 

natural or prescribed fire. Because the 

loss and degradation of habitat has been 

shown to reduce both diversity and 

abundance in other Bombus species 

(Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348–349), we 

looked at the potential stressors of 

natural or prescribed fire, agricultural 

intensification, urban development, 

livestock grazing, and the effects of 

climate change (Service 2018a, pp. 23– 

40). 

Although conversion of natural 

habitat appears to be the primary cause 

of bumble bee habitat loss throughout 

the world (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2; 

Kosior et al. 2010, p. 81), many 

researchers believe it is unlikely to be a 

main driver of the recent, widespread 

North American bee declines (Szabo et 

al. 2012, p. 236; Colla and Packer 2008, 

p. 1388; Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). 

Despite uncertainties regarding the 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat needs, 

we know they need (1) floral resources 

for nectaring throughout the colony 

cycle, and (2) relatively protected areas 

for breeding and shelter. Furthermore, 

the available information regarding 

locations where the species has been 

found indicates that the Franklin’s 

bumble bee is a generalist forager and 

that the species’ specific needs and 

preferences for these habitat elements 

are relatively flexible, plentiful, and 

widely distributed. While we can say 

that Bombus species in general might 

prefer protected meadows with an 

abundance of wildflowers, the 

Franklin’s bumble bee has been found 

in a wide array of sheltered and exposed 

habitat types at elevations ranging from 

540 ft (162 m) to 7,800 ft (2,340 m) 

(Thorp 2017, pers. comm.). 

Natural or Prescribed Fire 

Fire caused by both natural and 

human-caused factors has been an 

important change on the landscape in 

the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Because fire reduces natural succession 

of forests through the burning of 

encroaching woody plants, fire is a 

primary factor in the maintenance of 

grassland and meadow habitat that can 

support Bombus species (Shultz and 

Crone 1998, p. 244; Huntzinger 2003, p. 

2). With the increase in human 

development came fire suppression to 

limit damage to manmade structures. 

Fire suppression allows woody 

encroachment to occur, and the diverse 

landscape created by fire (open areas 

mixed within forested areas) is slowly 

being replaced by increasing areas of 

denser forested habitat; the open areas 

that facilitated the growth of diverse 

understory plant communities are being 

reduced from their historical condition 

(Ruchty 2011, p. 26). Conifer species 

now cover some of the area that was 

previously open meadow habitat in the 

range of the Franklin’s bumble bee 

(Panzer 2002, p. 1297; Shultz and Crone 

1998, p. 244). Although this loss of 

habitat by fire suppression may have 

limited the availability and diversity of 

floral resources, as well as nest and 

overwintering habitat for the Franklin’s 

bumble bee, healthy meadow habitat 

remains in areas where the Franklin’s 

bumble bee was previously found 

(Godwin 2017, pers comm.; Colyer 

2017, pers. comm.), and it is unlikely 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

that loss of habitat from fire suppression 

was a factor in the decline of the 

species. 

Increased fuel loads from fire 

suppression heighten the potential for 

catastrophic, large-scale, and high 

temperature wildfires. Any Bombus 

colonies in the path of this type of fire 

would be at risk of extirpation. Wildfire 

may have extirpated some historical 

populations of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee, but we have no information 

suggesting that any known Franklin’s 

bumble bee occurrence sites were in the 

path of catastrophic wildfires at the time 

the sites were occupied. Controlled 

burning became a management tool for 

reducing potential fuel loads for 

wildfire; controlled burning is carried 

out by Federal land management 

agencies including the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management in the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of 

fire on invertebrates depends greatly on 

the biology of the specific taxa (Gibson 

et al. 1992, p. 166), and in the case of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee, controlled 

burns could certainly cause death of 

individual bees and negative effects to 

a colony. Prescribed fire is likely to 

continue to be used as a management 

tool on some Federal land; however, the 

practice is overall small in scale, 

opportunistic (depending on weather, 

funding, and a host of other factors), 

used to prevent catastrophic fire, and 

often a net benefit to pollinators as it 

opens habitat by decreasing canopy 

cover (U.S. Forest Service 1989, IV 87 to 

IV 90, IV–113 to IV–119; U.S. Forest 

Service 1990, pp 4–149 to 4–179). In 

summary, we have no information to 

indicate that controlled burns were a 

factor in the decline of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee or will increase in the future 

to a degree that may affect the viability 

of the species. 

Agricultural Intensification 

Agricultural intensification can result 

in habitat loss for bumble bees, as these 

practices often result in the planting of 

monocultures that tend to provide floral 

resources for a limited period of time, 

rather than throughout the colony’s life 

cycle. Agricultural intensification can 

negatively impact wild bees by reducing 

floral resource diversity and abundance 

(Service 2018a, p. 32). Agricultural 

intensification was determined to be a 

primary factor leading to the local 

extirpation and decline of bumble bees 

in Illinois (Grixti et al. 2009, p. 75). An 

increased use of herbicides often 

accompanies development and 

agricultural intensification, and the 

widespread use of herbicides in 

agricultural, urban, and even natural 

landscapes has led to decreases in 

flowering plants (Potts et al. 2010, p. 

350). 

Within the historical range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, total acres in 

agricultural cropland decreased in all 

three counties in Oregon (Douglas, 

Jackson, and Josephine) by greater than 

50 percent from 1997 to 2012 (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture—National 

Agriculture Statistics Service 2017, pers. 

comm.; Service 2018a, p. 33). While the 

total number of acres of agricultural 

cropland is not synonymous with 

agricultural intensification (specifically, 

the expansion of monocultures), a 

decrease in total acres of agriculture 

leads us to conclude that agricultural 

intensification was not likely a factor in 

the decline of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee. We have no documentation in our 

files or any direct evidence that 

agricultural intensification has 

contributed to the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee or will increase 

in the future to a degree that may affect 

the viability of the species. 

Approximately 42 percent of sites where 

Franklin’s bumble bees have ever been 

reported (18 of 43) occur on federally 

owned land, primarily U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management land; very little habitat on 

these lands has been permanently 

altered or lost through agricultural 

intensification (Service 2018a, p. 32). 

Urban Development 

Ongoing urbanization contributes to 

the loss and fragmentation of natural 

habitats. Urban gardens and parks 

provide habitat for some pollinators, 

including bumble bees (Frankie et al. 

2005, p. 235; McFrederick and LeBuhn 

2006, p. 372), but they tend not to 

support the species richness of bumble 

bees that can be found in nearby 

undeveloped landscapes (Xerces Society 

and Thorp 2010, p. 13) or that which 

was present historically (McFrederick 

and LeBuhn 2006). However, Franklin’s 

bumble bee and western bumble bee 

have both been observed in urban areas 

of Ashland, Oregon, and in residential 

areas of Medford, Oregon. Furthermore, 

approximately 42 percent of the sites 

where Franklin’s bumble bee have ever 

been reported (18 of 43) occur on 

federally owned land, primarily U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management land, and very little habitat 

on these lands has been permanently 

altered or lost through development. 

Generally good habitat conditions 

currently exist throughout the known 

historical Franklin’s bumble bee 

locations and all of the recent focused 

survey areas. Two notable events 

occurred in areas with previous 

observations of Franklin’s bumble bee: 

The creation of Lake Applegate upon 

the completion of Applegate Dam in the 

fall of 1980, and a report of soil 

modification on a portion of the Gold 

Hill site in 2004; however, we have no 

information to indicate that Franklin’s 

bumble bees were still in the vicinity or 

had any colonies in the area when these 

events occurred. The Applegate Dam 

project inundated two sites with 

historical observations of Franklin’s 

bumble bee (from the 1960s), but no 

subsequent search efforts or 

observations (Xerces Society and Thorp 

2010, p. 13; Thorp, pers. comm. 2017). 

The June 23, 2010, petition noted that 

in 2004, soil had been excavated and 

deposited in a portion of the Gold Hill 

area (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 

13). The last observation of Franklin’s 

bumble bee at Gold Hill was in the year 

2000, and the site was revisited 14 times 

over the next 3 years with no 

observations of Franklin’s bumble bee. 

In both of these cases, we have no 

information to suggest the species was 

still using the habitat in the area by the 

time the activities took place, and 

therefore no information to suggest that 

either of these events affected the 

resiliency of any population of 

Franklin’s bumble bee. We have no 

documentation in our files or any direct 

evidence that urbanization or 

development in the range of Franklin’s 

bumble bee, or the incidents described 

above, contributed to the decline of the 

species or will increase in the future to 

a degree that may affect the viability of 

the species (Portland State University 

2015, p. 7). 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing occurs on public 

land in much of the historical range of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. Overgrazing 

by sheep between 1890 and 1920 

resulted in trampling vegetation and 

denuding soils, and grazing is currently 

evident today in the continuing erosion 

of the granitic soils of the McDonald 

Basin, Siskiyou Gap, Mt. Ashland, and 

the Siskiyou Crest (LaLande 1995, p. 31; 

T. Atzet 2017, pers. comm.). Several 

studies on the impacts of livestock 

grazing on bees suggest that an increase 

in the intensity of livestock grazing 

affects the species richness of bees 

(Service 2018a, p. 35). In contrast, 

grazing, especially by cattle, can play a 

key positive role in maintaining the 

abundance and species richness of 

preferred bumble bee forage (Carvell 

2002, p. 44). Evidence of livestock 

grazing was observed interspersed 

within abundant floral resources in 

Franklin’s bumble bee habitat during 

several recent targeted survey efforts 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47227 

(Brooks 1997, pers. comm.; Service 

2016, entire; Service 2017, entire; Trail 

2017, pers. comm.). We have no new 

information that the timing, location, 

intensity, or duration of grazing has 

changed, with the exception of the 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, 

where most grazing has been retired 

(Colyer 2018, pers. comm.). The lack of 

specific information on the impacts of 

livestock grazing on the Franklin’s 

bumble bee limits our ability to connect 

the activity to any specific species’ 

response, and we do not anticipate 

grazing will increase in the future to a 

degree that may affect the viability of 

the species (Bureau of Land 

Management 2016, pp. 96–103). 

Effects of Climate Change 

Specific impacts of climate change on 

pollinators are not well understood; 

most of the existing information on 

climate change impacts to pollinators 

comes from studies on butterflies. 

Studies specifically relating to bumble 

bees are scant, and we found no climate 

change information specific to the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. Changes in 

temperature and precipitation, and the 

increased frequency of storm events, can 

affect pollinator population sizes 

directly, by affecting survival and 

reproduction (Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change 2013, entire; Bale et 

al. 2002, p. 11; Roland and Matter 2016, 

p. 22). These climatic changes can also 

affect populations indirectly, by altering 

resource availability and species 

interactions (Service 2018a, p. 36). 

Bumble bee abundance for three 

species of Bombus in the Rocky 

Mountains increased when floral 

resources were available for more days, 

and the number of days when floral 

resources were available increased with 

greater summer precipitation and later 

snowmelt dates (Ogilvie et al. 2017, p. 

4). Several of the targeted Franklin’s 

bumble bee and western bumble bee 

survey reports between 2015 and 2017 

include mention of widespread hot, dry 

climate affecting timing and abundance 

of floral resources during the surveys 

(Bureau of Land Management 2015, p. 2; 

Trail 2017, pers. comm.). Although the 

Olgilvie et al. study and the survey 

reports suggest potential indirect effects 

of climate change on Bombus, we have 

no information to indicate that the 

effects of climate change were 

connected to the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee; numerous 

Bombus species persist in areas that are 

considered good quality habitat for the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (Pool 2014, 

entire; Colyer 2016, entire). As a habitat 

generalist, Franklin’s bumble bee 

appears to forage on a variety of floral 

resources, and we have no information 

to suggest that they would not forage off 

of whatever floral resource was in 

bloom at the time they emerge from 

their nests. We have no information to 

suggest that any changes in the 

vegetation community to date led to the 

decline of the species. 

In order to understand the potential 

future impact of climate change on 

Franklin’s bumble bee, we looked at 

climate change projection models. 

Global climate projections are 

informative and, in some cases, the only 

or the best scientific information 

available for us to use. However, 

projected changes in climate and related 

impacts can vary substantially across 

and within different regions of the 

world (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2007, pp. 8–12). 

Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ 

projections when they are available and 

have been developed through 

appropriate scientific procedures 

because such projections provide 

higher-resolution information that is 

more relevant to spatial scales used for 

analyses of a given species (see Glick et 

al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of 

downscaling). 

Downscaled projections as of 2016 

were available for our analysis of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee from the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s National Climate 

Change Viewer (Alder, J. and S. 

Hostetler. 2016, entire). The National 

Climate Change Viewer is based on the 

mean of 30 models, which can be used 

to predict changes in air temperature 

and precipitation for Jackson County, 

Oregon (location of the last known 

occurrence record of Franklin’s bumble 

bee), for two greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. From the 

year 2020 to the year 2050, the model 

set shows an increase in the mean 

maximum air temperature of between 

1.9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1 degree 

Celsius (°C)) (RCP4.5) and 3.1 °F (1.7 °C) 

(RCP8.5), and an increase in the mean 

annual minimum air temperature of 

between 1.0 °F (0.3 °C) (RCP4.5) and 

2.7 °F (1.5 °C) (RCP8.5). For both 

scenarios, mean precipitation is 

predicted to decrease by approximately 

0.4 inches (10 millimeters) for both 

scenarios. 

Projections for an increase in 

temperature and decrease in 

precipitation over the next 30 years may 

lead to alteration in the vegetation 

community in Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat, including the varieties of floral 

resources that Franklin’s bumble bee 

relies on for nectar. However, we have 

no information to suggest that these 

changes will result in a decrease in the 

availability of nectar resources to the 

species. Some studies suggest that 

pollinators are responding to climate 

change with recent latitudinal and 

elevational range shifts such that there 

is spatial mismatch among plants and 

their pollinators; while this has been 

demonstrated in butterflies, it may be 

less of a factor for bumble bees (Service 

2018a, p. 36). As generalist foragers, 

bumble bees do not require synchrony 

with a particular plant species, although 

some bumble bee populations are active 

earlier in the season than in the past 

(Bartomeus et al. 2011, p. 20646). 

Projections for an increase in 

temperature and decrease in 

precipitation over the next 30 years may 

also affect the frequency or intensity of 

wildfires and storm events (including 

flooding). These events could affect the 

availability of floral resources, the 

suitability of nest locations, and the 

survival of overwintering queens. 

However, we do not have information 

projecting the timing, scope, or intensity 

of wildfires or storms; the stochastic 

nature of these events limits our ability 

to project the magnitude of impact on 

the future condition of Franklin’s 

bumble bee or its habitat, and hinders 

our ability to assess their impact on the 

viability of the species. 

Summary 

Although habitat loss has had 

negative effects on bumble bees, we 

conclude it is unlikely to be a main 

driver of the decline of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Habitat appears generally 

intact and in good condition throughout 

the known, historical locations of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee and throughout 

all of the recent focused survey areas 

(with the exceptions of the historical 

sites affected by the creation of Lake 

Applegate in the fall of 1980, and soil 

modification that occurred on a portion 

of the Gold Hill site in 2004). In our 

assessment, we found no information to 

suggest that destruction, degradation, or 

conversion of habitat occurred at a 

scope and magnitude that would cause 

it to be a primary factor in the decline 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee (Service 

2018a, pp. 35–37). Furthermore, we 

have no information to suggest that 

habitat destruction or modification will 

increase in scope and magnitude to the 

point where it will be a primary stressor 

to the species in its range in the near 

future. 

A number of diseases and parasites 

are known to occur in bumble bee 

populations. These include the 

protozoan parasite Crithidia bombi (C. 

bombi), the tracheal mite Locustacarus 

buchneri, the microsporidium (parasitic 

fungus) Nosema bombi (N. bombi), as 

well as deformed wing virus. Pathogens 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and parasites are widespread generalists 

in the host genus, but affect species 

differently according to host 

susceptibility and tolerance to infection 

(Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 221; Malfi and 

Roulston 2014, p. 18). The host species’ 

life history plays a role in the virulence 

of a given pathogen; for instance, 

parasites may have relatively smaller 

effects on species with shorter colony 

life cycles and smaller colony sizes 

(Rutrecht and Brown 2009, entire). 

Pathogen spillover is a process 

whereby parasites and pathogens spread 

from commercial bee colonies to native 

bee populations (Colla et al. 2006, p. 

461; Otterstatter and Thompson 2008, p. 

1). The decline of certain Bombus 

species from the mid-1990s to present, 

particularly species in the subgenus 

Bombus sensu stricto (including 

Franklin’s bumble bee), was 

contemporaneous with the collapse of 

commercially bred western bumble bee 

(raised primarily to pollinate 

greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper 

crops beginning in the late 1980s) 

(Szabo et al. 2012, pp. 232–233). This 

collapse was attributed to infections of 

Nosema bombi. 

Nosema bombi has been detected in 

native bumble bees in North America, 

and has been found to be a part of the 

natural pathogen load. The fungus has 

been reported in Canada since the 1940s 

(Cordes et al. 2011, p. 7) and appears to 

have a broad host range in North 

American (Kissinger et al. 2011, p. 222). 

Infections of the pathogen primarily 

occur in the malpighian tubules (small 

excretory or water regulating glands), 

but also in fat bodies, nerve cells, and 

sometimes the trachea (Macfarlane et al. 

1995). Bombus colonies can appear to 

be healthy but still carry N. bombi and 

transmit it to other colonies, most likely 

when spores are fed to larvae and then 

infected adults drift into non-natal 

colonies (Service 2018a, p. 25). 

While we have no evidence of direct 

effects of a virulent strain of N. bombi 

on the Franklin’s bumble bee, N. bombi 

has been detected in closely related 

species in the range of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Furthermore, N. bombi 

infections in rare species like the 

Franklin’s bumble bee are more 

frequent, are more severe, and seem to 

affect a higher percentage of individuals 

of the species (Cameron et al. 2011, 

entire; Cordes et al. 2011, p. 2). 

The effect of pathogens on bumble 

bees varies from mild to severe 

(Macfarlane et al. 1995; Rutrecht et al. 

2007, p. 1719; Otti and Schmid-Hempel 

2008, p. 577). Bumble bees infected 

with Nosema bombi may have crippled 

wings, and queens may have distended 

abdomens and be unable to mate (Otti 

and Schmid-Hempel 2007, pp. 122– 

123). Malfi and Roulston (2014, p. 24) 

found that N. bombi infections are more 

frequent and more severe in rare 

species, and the species with the highest 

percentages of infected individuals were 

rare species. Furthermore, the effects of 

pathogen infection on bumble bees may 

be amplified by other influence factors. 

Nutritional stress may compromise the 

ability of bumble bees to survive 

parasitic infections, as evidenced by a 

significant difference in mortality in 

bumble bees on a restricted diet 

compared to well-fed bees infected with 

C. bombi (Brown et al. 2000, pp. 424– 

425). 

A virulent strain of Nosema bombi 

from the buff-tailed bumble bee 

(Bombus terrestris) may have spread to 

the eastern bumble bee (B. impatiens) 

and western bumble bee from Europe. In 

the mid-1990s, companies shipped 

queen eastern and western bumble bees 

to Europe for their development into 

colonies to use in commercial 

pollination services. When the colonies 

had reached sufficient size, they were 

shipped back to the United States and 

deployed in industrial greenhouse 

operations in California, primarily to 

pollinate tomatoes and peppers. The 

colonies may have picked up N. bombi 

prior to their shipment back into the 

United States, and once in this country, 

the commercially reared colonies may 

have spread the virulent strain to wild 

populations of Franklin’s bumble bee 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 14). 

In work partially funded by the Service, 

the University of Illinois conducted 

surveys for parasites and pathogens in 

bumble bee populations of the Pacific 

Northwest and Midwest between 2005 

and 2009. The goal was to assess 

Bombus populations for presence and 

prevalence of pathogens, particularly 

microsporidia, in an effort to provide 

baseline data to assess disease as a 

potential factor in the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, western bumble 

bee, and American bumble bee (B. 

pensylvanicus) (Solter et al. 2010, p. 1). 

The highest prevalence of N. bombi was 

found in western bumble bee, with 26 

percent of collected individuals 

infected. Crithidia bombi infections of 

western bumble bee were 2.8 percent 

overall (Solter et al. 2010, pp. 3–4); no 

Franklin’s bumble bees were collected 

during the study. However, Mt. 

Ashland, Oregon, was one of only three 

sites in the Pacific Northwest study area 

where N. bombi infections were found 

in multiple Bombus species (the 

indiscriminate cuckoo bumble bee (B. 

insularis) and black-notched bumble bee 

(B. bifarius)) (Solter et al. 2010, pp. 3– 

4). Although Cordes et al. (2011, p. 7) 

found a new allele in N. bombi, the 

recent study by Cameron et al. (2016) 

found no evidence of an exotic strain of 

N. bombi. 

In summary, known pathogens occur 

within the historical range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have 

evidence of several pathogens infecting 

closely related species within that range 

that have also likely affected the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. Although we 

have no direct evidence of pathogens 

playing a role in the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, the 

disappearance of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee occurred soon after a period of 

potential exposure to introduced 

pathogens, particularly N. bombi, which 

is known to have a more severe impact 

on rare species like the Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Decline of other closely 

related pollinators has been associated 

with these pathogens, and it is highly 

likely pathogens have had some 

negative influence on the resiliency of 

Franklin’s bumble bee populations. 

Pesticide Use 

Exposure to pesticides can occur to 

bumble bees from direct spray or drift, 

or from gathering or consuming 

contaminated nectar or pollen (Johansen 

and Mayer 1990; Morandin et al. 2005, 

p. 619). Lethal and sublethal effects on 

bumble bee eggs, larvae, and adults have 

been documented for many different 

pesticides under various scenarios 

(Service 2018a, p. 28). Documented sublethal effects to individual bumble bees 

and colonies include reduced or no 

male production, reduced or no egg 

hatch, reduced queen production, 

reduced queen longevity, reduced 

colony weight gain, reduced brood size, 

reduced feeding, impaired ovary 

development, and an increased number 

of foragers or foraging trips or duration 

(interpreted as risky behaviors) (Service 

2018a, p. 28). Bumble bee habitat can 

also be impacted by pesticides due to 

changes in vegetation and the removal 

or reduction of flowers needed to 

provide consistent sources of pollen, 

nectar, and nesting material (Service 

2018a, p. 28). Declines in bumble bees 

in parts of Europe have been at least 

partially attributed to the use of 

pesticides (Williams 1986, p. 54; Kosior 

et al. 2007, p. 81). 

Although the use of land for 

agricultural purposes has traditionally 

involved the use of pesticides and other 

products toxic to bees, one particular 

class of insecticides known as 

neonicotinoids have been strongly 

implicated in the decline of honey bees 

(Apis spp.) worldwide, and implicated 

in the decline of several Bombus 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47229 

species, including rusty patched bumble 

bee, buff-tailed bumble bee, and eastern 

bumble bee (Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69; 

Goulson 2013, pp. 7–8; Colla and Packer 

2008, p. 10; Lundin et al. 2015, p. 7). 

Neonicotinoids are a broad class of 

insecticides based on nicotine 

compounds used in a variety of 

agricultural applications; they act as a 

neurotoxin, affecting the central nervous 

system of insects by interfering with the 

receptors of the insects’ nervous system, 

causing overstimulation, paralysis, and 

death (Douglas and Tooker 2015, pp. 

5090–5092). The neonicotinoid family 

of insecticides includes acetamiprid, 

clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, 

nithiazine, thiacloprid, and 

thiamethoxam. In the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (Jackson, 

Douglas, and Josephine Counties in 

Oregon, as well as Trinity and Siskiyou 

Counties in California), the first 

reported use of imidacloprid was in 

1996, thiamethoxam in 2001, and 

clothianidin in 2004. The use of 

neonicotinoid pesticides continued in 

the range of the species through 2006, 

when the last observation of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee was recorded. 

Across all five counties, total estimated 

applications of these three 

neonicotinoids increased from 53.31 

pounds (lbs) (24.19 kilograms (kg)) in 

1996, to 1,144.6 lbs (519.9 kg) in 2014. 

However, the exponential growth of 

neonicotinoid applications started in 

2011, 5 years after the last observation 

of the species. The vast majority of 

neonicotinoids are used as seed 

treatments on grains and other field 

crops (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 2018, pers. comm.), and 

total agricultural land within the 

historical range of the species is less 

than 2 percent of the total land base 

(2011 National Land Cover Data Set and 

2016 USDA Crop Data Layers (CDL) in 

Syngenta 2019, pers. comm). 

No studies have investigated the 

effects of pesticide use on the Franklin’s 

bumble bee, and no discoveries have 

been documented of any Franklin’s 

bumble bees injured or killed by 

pesticides. The Franklin’s bumble bee is 

a habitat generalist and is not known to 

have a close association with 

agricultural lands; therefore, it may have 

less exposure to pesticides than some 

other Bombus species. However, 

pesticide use occurs in the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The similarity in 

foraging traits that the Franklin’s 

bumble bee has with both honey bees 

and the other Bombus species (e.g., 

generalist foragers collecting pollen 

from similar food sources) allows us to 

infer that Franklin’s bumble bee 

populations are likely to suffer exposure 

to and impacts from pesticides in 

similar measure to other Bombus 

species when the Franklin’s bumble bee 

is in areas where pesticides are applied. 

Effects of Small Population Size 

The Franklin’s bumble bee is rare and 

has always had very small populations 

(relative to other similar, native bumble 

bees in the western United States), and 

likely has low genetic diversity due to 

the haplodiploid genetic system it 

shares with all Bombus species (Zayed 

2009, p. 238). These factors make the 

species more vulnerable to habitat 

change or loss, parasites, diseases, 

stochastic events, and other natural 

disasters such as droughts (Xerces 

Society and Thorp 2010, p. 20). Between 

1998 and 2006, the number of Franklin’s 

bumble bee observations went from a 

high of 98 at 11 locations, to a lone 

individual in 2006. No observations of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee have 

occurred since 2006, despite an increase 

in survey effort. Diploid male 

production has been detected in 

naturally occurring populations of 

bumble bees, and recent modeling work 

has shown that diploid male production 

may initiate a rapid extinction vortex (a 

situation in which genetic and 

demographic traits and environmental 

conditions reinforce each other in a 

downward spiral, leading to extinction) 

(Goulsen et al. 2008, p. 11.8). Because 

of inbreeding and the production of 

sterile males, the haplodiploid genetic 

system makes bumble bees very 

vulnerable when populations get small 

(Colla 2018, pers. comm.). Although we 

have no direct evidence that small 

population size or a rapid extinction 

vortex contributed to the decline of the 

species, the genetic system and 

historically small population size of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee likely heightened 

the species’ vulnerability to other 

threats in the environment; we, 

therefore, consider the effects of small 

population size a synergistic threat to 

the species. 

Competition With Nonnative Bees 

The European honey bee (Apis 

mellifera) was first introduced to eastern 

North America in the early 1620s, and 

into California in the early 1850s 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). 

The resource needs of the European 

honey bee and native Bombus species 

may overlap, resulting in the potential 

for increased competition for resources 

(Thomson 2004, p. 458; Thomson 2006, 

p. 407). Decreased foraging activity and 

lowered reproductive success of 

Bombus colonies have been noted near 

European honey bee hives (Evans 2001, 

pp. 32–33; Thomson 2004, p. 458; 

Thomson 2006, p. 407). Additionally, 

the size of workers of native Bombus 

species were noticeably reduced where 

European honey bees were present, 

which may be detrimental to Bombus 

colony success (Goulson and Sparrow 

2009, p. 177). It is likely that the effects 

discussed in these studies are local in 

space and time, and most pronounced 

where floral resources are limited and 

large numbers of commercial European 

honey bee colonies are introduced 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 21). 

We have no information to indicate that 

any area of Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat in the range of the species has 

limited floral resources and large 

numbers of European honey bees. We 

have no information related to the 

specific placement of commercial honey 

bee colonies in or near Franklin’s 

bumble bee habitat. Furthermore, 

European honey bees have been present 

without noticeable declines in Bombus 

populations over large portions of their 

ranges (Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, 

p. 21), and we have no new information 

that connects competition from 

European honey bees to the decline of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

There is potential for nonnative, 

commercially raised bumble bees to 

naturalize and outcompete native 

bumble bees for limited resources such 

as nesting sites and forage areas. Five 

commercially reared eastern bumble bee 

workers and one queen were captured 

in the wild near greenhouses where 

commercial bumble bees are used, 

suggesting this species may have 

naturalized outside of its native range. 

The eastern bumble bee, which has a 

native range in eastern North America, 

was detected in western Canada (Ratti 

and Colla 2010, pp. 29–31). In Japan, 

nonnative buff-tailed bumble bee 

colonies founded by bees that had 

escaped from commercially produced 

colonies had more than four times the 

mean reproductive output of native 

bumble bees (Matsumura et al. 2004, p. 

93). In England, commercially raised 

buff-tailed bumble bee colonies had 

higher nectar-foraging rates and greater 

reproductive output than a native 

subspecies of the buff-tailed bumble bee 

(Ings et al. 2006, p. 940). Colonies of 

eastern bumble bee were imported to 

pollinate agricultural crops and 

strawberries in Grants Pass, Oregon, in 

the range of the Franklin’s bumble bee 

(Xerces Society and Thorp 2010, p. 18). 

Although nonnative Bombus species 

in the range of Franklin’s bumble bee 

could outcompete Franklin’s bumble 

bee for floral resources and nesting 

habitat, we have no information to 

definitively connect competition with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

nonnative bumble bees to the decline of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. Furthermore, 

invertebrate surveys in Franklin’s 

bumble bee habitat continue to show 

evidence of healthy populations of other 

native Bombus species unaffected by 

competition from nonnative bees (Pool 

2014, entire; Colyer 2016, entire). 

Summary 

We find that several natural and other 

human-caused factors contributed to the 

decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

While it is unlikely that pesticides alone 

can account for the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, documented 

effects of pesticides on closely related 

Bombus species suggest pesticide use 

was likely a factor in the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The 

haplodiploid genetic system of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, combined with 

its historically small population size, 

was also likely a factor in the decline of 

the species. Although nonnative 

Bombus species in the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee could 

outcompete the Franklin’s bumble bee 

for floral resources and nesting habitat, 

we have no information connecting 

competition with nonnative bumble 

bees to the decline of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Additionally, surveys in 

Franklin’s bumble bee habitat continue 

to show evidence of healthy populations 

of other native Bombus species 

unaffected by competition from 

nonnative bees. 

Synergistic and Cumulative Effects 

It is likely that several threats are 

acting cumulatively and synergistically 

on many Bombus species, including the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (Goulson et al. 

2015, p. 5), and the combination of 

multiple threats is likely more harmful 

than any one acting alone (Gill et al. 

2012, p. 108; Coors and DeMeester 2008, 

p. 1821; Sih et al. 2004, p. 274). There 

is recent evidence that the interactive 

effects of pesticides and pathogens 

could be particularly harmful for 

bumble bees (Service 2018a, p. 39). 

Nutritional stress may compromise the 

ability of bumble bees to survive 

parasitic infections (Brown et al. 2000, 

pp. 424–425). Bumble bees with 

activated immunity may have metabolic 

costs, such as increased food 

consumption (Tyler et al. 2006, p. 2; 

Moret and Schmid-Hempel 2000, pp. 

1166–1167). Additionally, exposure to 

pesticides may increase with increased 

food consumption in infected bees 

(Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Activating 

immunity impairs learning in bumble 

bees (Riddell and Mallon 2006; 

Alghamdi et al. 2008, p. 480). Impaired 

learning is thought to reduce the ability 

of bees to locate floral resources and 

extract nectar and pollen, therefore 

exacerbating nutritional stresses 

(Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5). Further, 

declining North American species with 

low genetic diversity have higher 

prevalence of the pathogen Nosema 

bombi (Cameron et al. 2011, p. 665). In 

summary, we, therefore, find that 

pathogens in combination with 

pesticides, as well as pathogens in 

combination with the effects of small 

population size, may have hastened and 

amplified the decline of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee to a greater degree than any 

one of the three threats would cause on 

its own. 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and 

Conservation Efforts 

Surveys conducted by Dr. Robbin 

Thorp, other private individuals, 

university classes and researchers, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land 

Management have significantly 

contributed to the existing information 

on Franklin’s bumble bee. However, 

other than those search efforts, we are 

aware of no conservation efforts or 

beneficial actions specifically taken to 

address threats to the Franklin’s bumble 

bee. Oregon does not include 

invertebrates on their State endangered 

species list (Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 2018, entire) and California 

has no bee species included on its list 

of threatened and endangered 

invertebrates (California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 2018, entire). 

California has the Franklin’s bumble bee 

listed on its list of terrestrial and vernal 

pool invertebrates of conservation 

priority but has no required actions or 

special protections associated with the 

listing (California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 2017, p. 10). The 

Franklin’s bumble bee is on the species 

index for the U.S. Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Interagency Special Status/Sensitive 

Species Program (ISSSSP). Although the 

Federal agencies include the species in 

survey efforts and conduct general 

meadow enhancement activities, there 

are no actions resulting from the ISSSSP 

classification that address known 

threats to the Franklin’s bumble bee 

(ISSSSP 2018, entire). 

General awareness of colony collapse 

disorder and increase of conservation 

efforts for pollinators in general has 

likely had limited, indirect effects on 

policies and regulations. The U.S. Forest 

Service is working to include a section 

in all biological evaluations to address 

the effects from agency actions on 

pollinators. In addition, the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest is 

implementing ongoing projects and 

mitigations to create and enhance 

pollinator habitat (Colyer 2018, pers. 

comm.). The Oregon Department of 

Agriculture restricts some potential 

sources of Nosema bombi from entering 

the State for agricultural uses, including 

commercially produced colonies of 

eastern bumble bee; only Bombus 

species native to Oregon are allowed for 

commercial pollination purposes 

(Oregon Department of Agriculture 

2017, p. 5). However, California allows, 

with appropriate permits, the 

importation of eastern bumble bee, and 

other species such as the blue orchard 

bee (Osmia lignaria), for greenhouse 

pollination (California Department of 

Food and Agriculture 2017), making the 

potential for pathogen spillover from 

nonnative bees higher in California. 

Some local municipalities in Oregon 

enacted legislation against aerial 

pesticide applications but none in the 

range of the Franklin’s bumble bee 

(Powell 2017, p. 1; City of Portland 

2015, p. 2). However, in the 2017 

legislative session, Oregon passed an 

Avoidance of Adverse Effects on 

Pollinating Insects law (Oregon Revised 

Statutes (ORS) 634.045) that is 

providing enhanced training of licensed 

and unlicensed pesticide applicators in 

the State (Melathopoulos 2018, pers. 

comm.), and could thereby reduce 

effects of pesticides on pollinators, 

including Franklin’s bumble bee. 

In January 2017, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Pesticide Programs published 

their ‘‘Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk 

to Bees from Pesticide Products,’’ which 

recommended new labeling statements 

for pesticide products, including 

warnings for pesticides with a known 

acute toxicity to bees (Tier 1 pesticides), 

including neonicotinoids (specifically 

including imidacloprid, clothianidin, 

and thiamethoxam) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2017, p. 31). In 

addition, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is working with State and Tribal 

agencies to develop and implement 

local pollinator protection plans, known 

as Managed Pollinator Protection Plans 

(MP3s). The Environmental Protection 

Agency is promoting MP3s to address 

potential pesticide exposure to bees and 

other pollinators at and beyond the site 

of the application. However, States and 

Tribes have the flexibility to determine 

the scope of pollinator protection plans 

that best responds to pollinator issues in 

their regions. For example, State and 

Tribal MP3s may address pesticiderelated risks to all pollinators, including 

managed bees and wild insect and noninsect pollinators (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2018). The Service 

implemented a ban on the use of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47231 

neonicotinoids on all lands in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System in 

2014 (Service 2014); however, no refuge 

lands occur within the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, and the Service 

rescinded the ban in 2018 (Service 

2018b, entire). None of these 

aforementioned regulatory or 

conservation measures has appreciably 

reduced or fully ameliorated threats to 

the Franklin’s bumble bee, as evidenced 

by the species’ acute and rangewide 

decline. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. Our assessment of the current 

status of the Franklin’s bumble bee 

incorporates the threats individually 

and cumulatively. Our assessment is 

iterative because it accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Summary of Status 

The significant decrease in abundance 

and distribution of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee to date has greatly reduced 

the species’ ability to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions and to guard 

against further losses of adaptive 

diversity and potential extinction due to 

catastrophic events. It also substantially 

reduced the ability of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee to withstand environmental 

variation, catastrophic events, and 

changes in physical and biological 

conditions. Coupled with the increased 

risk of extirpation due to the interaction 

of reduced population size and the 

species’ haplodiploid genetic system, 

the Franklin’s bumble bee may lack the 

resiliency required to sustain 

populations into the future, even 

without further exposure to pathogens 

and pesticides. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our proposed rule published on 

August 13, 2019 (84 FR 40006), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by October 15, 2019. All 

comments we received are posted at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044. 

We contacted appropriate Federal and 

State agencies (in both Oregon and 

California), scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal, even if they previously 

provided peer or partner review 

comments on the SSA report. We did 

not receive any additional comments 

from individuals or agencies who had 

previously provided peer review or 

partner review on the SSA report. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. We reviewed all comments for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

During the comment period, we 

received 53 letters or statements directly 

addressing the proposed action, 

including one comment with 15,749 

signatures (supporting the listing of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee). All but one of 

the commenters supported the listing of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee as 

endangered. All but one of the 

commenters disagreed with our 

determination that designating critical 

habitat is not prudent. Substantive 

comments we received during the 

comment period are addressed below 

and, where appropriate, are 

incorporated directly into this final rule. 

Public Comments 

(1) Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed with our conclusion that 

Franklin’s bumble bees are habitat 

generalists. Commenters stated that the 

limited range of the species 

demonstrates that it is only found in 

specific habitats and that if the species 

was truly a habitat generalist, it would 

be expected to have a much larger range. 

They noted that the range of the species 

is limited to the Siskiyou Mountains, a 

subset of the Klamath Mountain region 

of southern Oregon and southwestern 

California, and that there are specific 

characteristics of Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat in that area that can be 

identified, such as montane meadows 

rich in lupine, California poppy, 

mountain monardella, and clover. 

Commenters note that the Siskiyou 

Range is known for its high number of 

endemic species and these other 

endemic species are not considered 

habitat generalists. 

Our Response: As stated in the SSA 

report, our analyses are predicated on 

multiple assumptions due to the 

significant lack of species-specific 

information for Franklin’s bumble bee 

(2018a, p. 6). We further note that for 

the purposes of the analyses in the SSA 

report, we rely heavily on information 

from closely-related species from the 

same sub-genus, Bombus sensu stricto, 

particularly the rusty patched bumble 

bee and the western bumble bee. The 

range of the western bumble bee 

completely overlaps the historical range 

of Franklin’s bumble bee, and the 

western bumble bee is still found at 

several known Franklin’s bumble bee 

locations, most recently in 2019 at Mt. 

Ashland, the last known location of 

Franklin’s bumble bee. As mentioned in 

the August 13, 2019, proposed rule (84 

FR 40006) and the SSA report, a specific 

habitat study for the species has not 

been completed, nor have the specific 

life-history characteristics and behavior 

of this rare species been studied. 

Despite uncertainties regarding the 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat needs, 

we know they need (1) floral resources 

for nectaring throughout the colony 

cycle, and (2) relatively protected areas 

for breeding and shelter. The habitat 

elements appearing to fulfill those needs 

that have documented use by the 

Franklin’s bumble bee are relatively 

plentiful and widely distributed. 

In our expert elicitation, we asked the 

following question: In looking at the 

distribution map of all known 

occurrences of Franklin’s bumble bee, 

are there areas in Douglas, Jackson, 

Josephine, Siskiyou, and Trinity 

Counties in addition to these occurrence 

sites that might contain the species’ 

known foraging plants: Lupine (Lupinus 

spp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia 

californica), horsemint or nettle-leaf 

giant hyssop (Agastache urticifolia), and 

mountain monardella (Monardella 

odoratissima)? Dr. Thorp (the 

preeminent authority on Franklin’s 

bumble bee) responded that he was 

‘‘trying to figure out what defined or 

limited habitat at the time that [the 

species] disappeared.’’ Dr. Thorp noted 

that the species had historically ranged 

from 500 ft in elevation at Sutherland to 

over 6,700 ft at Mt. Shasta and Mt. 

Ashland, meaning they could go 

through multiple mountain passes to 

extend east or south, but they did not; 

they were not limited by geography. 

Further, they were also not limited by 

flowering plants; they are generalist 

foragers (Thorp 2018, pers. comm). In 

addition, bumble bees ‘‘are classic 

generalist foragers, capable of working a 

wide variety of plants for their 

resources’’ (Williams et al. 2014, p. 15). 

The historical record also suggests the 

Franklin’s bumble bee may use a variety 

of nesting substrates given that a colony 

was found in a residential garage in 

Medford, Oregon (Thorp 2017, pers. 

comm.). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

We agree that the Klamath-Siskiyou 

ecoregion, which hosts much of the 

historical range of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee, is very diverse and relatively rich 

in endemic species. The KlamathSiskiyou ecoregion is considered a 

global center of biodiversity, is an 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) Area of Global Botanical 

Significance (1 of 7 in North America), 

and is proposed as a World Heritage Site 

and United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve (World 

Wildlife Fund 2020, entire). Extensive 

literature is available describing some of 

the biologic investigations in this 

ecoregion (University of Oregon 2020, 

entire). However, we are not aware of 

any information linking Franklin’s 

bumble bee exclusively to endemic 

habitat features, including floral 

resources specific to this ecosystem. 

(2) Comment: One commenter noted 

that forage is only one component of 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s niche and does 

not alone define a habitat generalist, 

citing Devictor et al. 2010. They stated 

that even if the species is a general 

forager it could still have a relatively 

narrow habitat niche, adding that 

narrow pollen diets are associated with 

other rare bumble bees like Franklin’s 

bumble bee. They referenced a recent 

study, Wood et al. 2019, that looked at 

the diets of two species closely related 

to Franklin’s bumble bee, the American 

bumble bee and rusty patch bumble bee, 

and found these declining species had 

a narrow pollen diet, collecting around 

one-third fewer pollen types than other 

more stable species. The study further 

noted that these two species are shorttongued and the anatomical feature was 

mentioned as a potential factor in their 

narrower diet. 

Our Response: There are many factors 

related to Franklin’s bumble bees and 

their habitat that we do not yet, and may 

never, understand; however, the 

information gathered for our 

assessment, including the opinion of the 

preeminent authority on the species (Dr. 

Robbin Thorp), indicates that Franklin’s 

bumble bee is likely a habitat generalist. 

The commenter cites Devictor et al. 

2010, when noting forage is only one 

component of Franklin’s bumble bee’s 

niche and may not alone define a 

habitat generalist. However, the same 

paper also states that a measure of 

ecological specialization is the 

assumption that specialists should cooccur with relatively few species; this is 

in contrast to generalist species who 

should co-occur with many different 

species across sites (Devictor et al. 2010, 

p. 23), as has been observed with 

Franklin’s bumble bees. 

We agree that narrow pollen diets 

likely play a role in the decline of some 

Bombus species as the distribution and 

abundance of their floral resources 

change, but we do not have sufficient 

information to determine if this was a 

significant causal factor in the decline of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. We do have 

some records of the species of plants 

visited by Franklin’s bumble bee, but we 

do not have an exhaustive or 

comprehensive list. Of the plants 

Franklin’s bumble bee is known to use, 

many are widely distributed. For 

example, California poppy is found in 

Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, 

Minnesota, and northwestern Baja 

California, Mexico. Nettle-leaf giant 

hyssop (horse mint) is native throughout 

western North America from British 

Columbia in Canada, to California to 

Colorado, where it grows in a wide 

variety of habitat types. Mountain 

monardella is found in montane forests 

between 600 m and 3,100 m (1,969 ft 

and 10,170 ft) in elevation in Oregon, 

Washington, Nevada, and Utah. 

Regarding tongue length, although the 

Franklin’s bumble bee is a shorttongued species, Wood et al. found no 

evidence of tongue length as a predictor 

of dietary breadth (2019, p. 9). 

(3) Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat is not a threat to 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. One 

commenter stated that the Service 

analyzed fire suppression, agricultural 

intensification, urban development, 

livestock grazing, and effects of climate 

change, but only as to whether they 

contributed to the historical decline of 

Franklin’s bumble bee, not as current 

threats. One commenter stated that the 

climate change effects of increased 

drought severity, wildfire risk, and 

winter or early season flood risk are 

clear threats to Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat in the current and near future; 

they noted that flood risk is especially 

concerning for overwintering 

hibernating queens who may suffer 

mortality or respond by emerging too 

early for floral resources. The 

commenter also noted that due to the 

myriad of threats outlined in the August 

13, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 40006), 

it is incorrect to conclude that 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s habitat is 

unlimited in its capacity to provide 

uncontaminated resources to the 

species. One commenter stated that allterrain vehicle (ATV) use and herbicide 

use are current threats to Franklin’s 

bumble bee’s habitat, but provided no 

additional information upon which to 

base those claims. 

Our Response: In our analysis of the 

threats facing Franklin’s bumble bee in 

the SSA report, we completed a review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information on threats that 

have been present in the range of the 

bee (Service 2018a, pp. 23–40). During 

the public comment period on the 

proposed rule we did not receive any 

new information regarding potential 

threats that prompted us to change the 

conclusions in our analysis. The 

viability analysis takes into account the 

threats to the species that have 

influenced historical populations, 

threats that are influencing the current 

condition of populations, and threats 

which are likely to play a role in the 

species’ overall viability into the future. 

In our SSA report for Franklin’s bumble 

bee, we noted those threats that are 

likely to play a role in the future 

(pathogens, pesticides, and the 

synergistic effects of small population 

size), but did not complete a full future 

condition analysis; the dearth of 

information on this species, particularly 

the lack of species occurrence 

information after 2006, limited our 

ability to compare current and future 

condition. 

Although empirical data are currently 

unavailable regarding the level of 

habitat loss and degradation specifically 

affecting the Franklin’s bumble bee, we 

do know that habitat impacts have 

caused the decline of other Bombus 

species (e.g., Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2; 

Goulson and Darvill 2008, pp. 193–194; 

Brown and Paxton 2009, pp. 411–412). 

Although habitat loss has had negative 

effects on Bombus species in general, 

available information did not indicate it 

was a driver of the decline of Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Habitat appears generally 

intact and in good condition throughout 

the known historical locations of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee and in all recent 

focused survey areas, and many of these 

habitats currently host a wide variety of 

other bumble bees, including closelyrelated species like the western bumble 

bee. As noted above in Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, we have 

no information to suggest that any 

known Franklin’s bumble bee locations 

were in the path of wildfire at the time 

those locations were occupied. Further, 

as made evident in our geographic 

information system (GIS) analysis, most 

of the recent locations with confirmed 

Franklin’s bumble bee observations are 

on publicly owned land that is managed 

to preserve habitat conditions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including fire 

suppression. Furthermore, we have no 

information to suggest that habitat 

destruction or modification from fire 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47233 

suppression, agricultural intensification, 

urban development, and livestock 

grazing will increase in intensity to the 

point where they will be threats to the 

viability of the species in the future 

(Bureau of Land Management 2016, p. 

103; Portland State University 2015, p. 

7; U.S. Forest Service 1989, IV–87 to IV– 

90, IV–113 to IV–119; U.S. Forest 

Service 1990, pp. 4–149 to 4–179; 

Service 2018a, p. 32). 

Future changes in temperature and 

precipitation may lead to changes in the 

vegetation community in Franklin’s 

bumble bee habitat. However, as a 

habitat generalist, Franklin’s bumble bee 

appears to forage on a variety of floral 

resources, and we have no information 

to suggest that they would not seek the 

nectar of whatever floral resource was in 

bloom at the time they emerge from 

their nests. Additionally, the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire and seasonal 

flooding, as well as other effects from 

storm events, are naturally present in 

the ecosystems within the range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The effects of 

climate change may affect the frequency 

and intensity of these events, thereby 

affecting the availability of floral 

resources, the suitability of nest 

locations, and the survival of 

overwintering queens. However, we 

cannot project the likelihood of when or 

where these events will occur, or how 

intense they will be if they do occur. 

We agree that Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat is not unlimited. As we point 

out in the beginning of the SSA report, 

Franklin’s bumble bee is the most 

narrowly endemic bumble bee in North 

America, and possibly the world. In 

accordance with listing Franklin’s 

bumble bee as endangered under the 

Act, we will develop a recovery outline 

for this species. Current and possible 

future threats will be considered during 

recovery planning for this species. 

(4) Comment: One commenter 

disagreed that critical habitat could not 

be defined. They point to our proposed 

rule, which states that surveys have 

been done in areas that appear to have 

good habitat for Bombus and Franklin’s 

bumble bee, as evidence that there are 

known and defined characteristics of 

potential critical habitat in previously 

occupied areas. 

Our Response: While we acknowledge 

that some general habitat associations of 

Bombus are known, the Franklin’s 

bumble bee has been found in a wide 

array of habitat types, from foraging in 

montane meadows in a remote 

wilderness area of California to nesting 

in a residential garage in the city limits 

of Medford, Oregon. Furthermore, 

elevation does not appear to limit the 

species’ dispersal capabilities. No 

habitat study for the Franklin’s bumble 

bee has been completed; such a study 

was initiated in 2006, when the 

Franklin’s bumble bee was last seen, but 

could not continue due to the 

subsequent absence of the species. As 

such, we cannot with specificity 

articulate the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee, or determine 

whether or not any area would meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (see discussion 

under Prudency Determination, below). 

Even if physical and biological 

features can be articulated for the 

species, the regulations in effect at the 

time the species was proposed for 

listing indicated that we may find that 

designating critical habitat is not 

prudent if it is not beneficial to the 

species. With the exception of the 

inundation of two sites with older 

historical occurrences of Franklin’s 

bumble bee locations by the 

construction of Applegate Dam, and a 

report of soil modification on a portion 

of the Gold Hill site 4 years after the last 

occurrence of Franklin’s bumble bee in 

the area, no noticeable destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range can be identified in areas where 

the species had been previously located. 

No significant destruction or 

modification of Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat can be attributed to natural fire, 

prescribed fire, agricultural 

intensification, urban development, 

livestock grazing, or the effects of 

climate change. Additionally, as 

discussed above, the Franklin’s bumble 

bee has been documented using a wide 

variety of habitats throughout its range. 

Because habitat for the Franklin’s 

bumble bee is not limiting, and because 

the bee is considered to be flexible with 

regards to its habitat, the availability of 

habitat does not limit the conservation 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor 

will it in the future (see response to 

Comment (3)). Therefore, we have 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat for the Franklin’s bumble bee is 

not beneficial to the species and, 

therefore, not prudent. 

(5) Comment: Two commenters 

disagreed that the designation of critical 

habitat would not be beneficial to the 

conservation of the species. They argue 

it would be beneficial due to the 

following: (1) Critical habitat would 

promote connectivity between habitat 

patches, which will help reduce the risk 

of inbreeding depression and promote 

recovery of the species; (2) many studies 

have shown the link between quality 

habitat and nutrition and health of 

bumble bee colonies, and critical habitat 

would be beneficial because it would 

give Franklin’s bumble bee access to 

more high-quality habitat to combat the 

threats of pathogens and pesticides and 

to recover from them; (3) competition 

and disease from nonnative honey bees, 

as well as pesticides from both 

agriculture and siliviculture, are threats 

that will be unregulated without the 

designation of critical habitat; (4) 

critical habitat would provide concrete 

objective locations in which to protect 

the species through section 7 of the Act; 

and (5) critical habitat would inform the 

species recovery plan and where exactly 

the Service would implement recovery 

actions to ameliorate threats to the 

species. 

Our Response: The implementing 

regulations of the Act upon which the 

August 13, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 

40006) and this final rule are based set 

forth that the factors the Service may 

consider in determining that a critical 

habitat designation would not be 

prudent include, but are not limited to, 

whether the species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species; or whether such 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)). We determine that the 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species because the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range (Factor A) is 

not a threat to the Franklin’s bumble bee 

and because we cannot with specificity 

articulate the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee, or determine 

whether or not any area would meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (see discussion 

under Prudency Determination, below). 

As mentioned in our response to 

Comments (3) and (4), no noticeable 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat or range can be identified in 

areas where the species had been 

previously located, and could not be 

shown to have affected the resiliency of 

any population of Franklin’s bumble 

bee. None of the potential threats to 

Franklin’s bumble bee habitat we 

assessed appears to threaten the 

viability of the species (USFWS 2018a, 

pp. 23–41). Therefore, we find that 

because the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to Franklin’s bumble bee, 

designating critical habitat is not 

beneficial and, therefore, not prudent. 

Furthermore, regarding section 7 

consultation, because of the listing of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the species (absent critical habitat), 

Federal agencies will still be required to 

consult under section 7 of the Act on 

activities that may affect this species in 

areas where the Franklin’s bumble bee 

is reasonably certain to occur. The 

Federal action agency will be required 

to identify any listed species that could 

be within the project area of any 

proposed activity, and consult with the 

Service if that activity is likely to 

adversely affect the species. 

Determination of the Status of 

Franklin’s Bumble Bee 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is ‘‘likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

We evaluated the past, present, and 

future threats to the Franklin’s bumble 

bee and assessed the cumulative effect 

of the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors. Our assessment did not 

find habitat loss or modification (Factor 

A) to be the cause of the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have no 

information to suggest that habitat 

destruction or modification will 

increase in intensity in the near future. 

There is no indication that the 

Franklin’s bumble bee was at risk of 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B). Known pathogens 

occur within the historical range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, and we have 

evidence of several pathogens (Factor C) 

infecting closely related species within 

that range. Although we do not have 

direct evidence of pathogens playing a 

role in the decline of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee, the disappearance of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee occurred soon 

after a period of introduction of new 

pathogens. Furthermore, documented 

effects to other closely related species 

lead many species experts to suspect 

that the effects of pathogens had some 

connection to the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. We evaluated 

existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D) and conservation measures and their 

effects on the threats and the status of 

the Franklin’s bumble bee; we found 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

or conservation measures in place do 

not appreciably reduce or ameliorate the 

existing threats to the species, as 

evidenced by the species’ acute and 

rangewide decline. Although we have 

no direct evidence that pesticide use 

contributed to the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee, confirmed 

effects to other closely related Bombus 

species suggest that pesticide use 

(Factor E) was likely a factor in the 

decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Additionally, given the historically 

small population size (Factor E) of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee and its 

haplodiploid genetic system, it is more 

vulnerable to extirpation than other 

species, and it is likely the genetic 

system and the rarity of this species 

contributed to the decline of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (Factor E). 

The combination of multiple threats is 

typically more harmful than any one 

acting alone, and it is likely that several 

of the threats mentioned above acted 

cumulatively and synergistically on the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. Pathogens in 

combination with pesticides, as well as 

pathogens in combination with the 

effects of small population size, may 

have hastened and amplified the decline 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee to a greater 

degree than any one of the three factors 

caused on its own. Although the 

ultimate source of the decline is 

unknown, the acute and rangewide 

decline of the Franklin’s bumble bee is 

undisputable. 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as any species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. We 

find that, based on the severity and 

immediacy of threats currently affecting 

the species, the Franklin’s bumble bee 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species. The threats of pathogens, 

pesticides, and small population size 

are ongoing and rangewide; they will 

continue to act individually and in 

combination to decrease the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee. The risk of 

extinction is high because the species 

has not been found since 2006, and the 

suspected threats to the species persist. 

We find that a threatened species status 

is not appropriate for the Franklin’s 

bumble bee because of the extreme loss 

of abundance of the species, because the 

threats are occurring rangewide and are 

not localized, and because the threats 

are ongoing and expected to continue 

into the future. Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we 

determine that the Franklin’s bumble 

bee is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Franklin’s bumble 

bee is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range and 

accordingly did not undertake an 

analysis of whether there are any 

significant portions of its range. Because 

Franklin’s bumble bee warrants listing 

as endangered throughout all of its 

range, our determination is consistent 

with the decision in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 

437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which 

the court vacated only the aspect of our 

July 1, 2014, Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578) that provided 

the Services do not undertake an 

analysis of significant portions of a 

species’ range if the species warrants 

listing as threatened throughout all of its 

range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Franklin’s bumble bee 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species. Therefore, we are listing the 

Franklin’s bumble bee as an endangered 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 4(a)(1) of the Act. Although this 

species has not been observed since 

2006, we conclude it is premature at 

this time to determine that the species 

is extinct absent a more thorough survey 

effort. We recommend expanded survey 

efforts to help verify the status of this 

species. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47235 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

Recovery Actions 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse a species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process we will use to develop a 

recovery plan. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery plan also 

identifies recovery criteria for review of 

when a species may be ready for 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered), or from our Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the States of Oregon 

and California will be eligible for 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the Franklin’s 

bumble bee. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Regulatory Provisions 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, the National Park Service, 

and the Bureau of Reclamation; 

technical assistance and projects funded 

through the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

species listed as an endangered species. 

It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47236 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of 

the listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9 of the Act if these 

activities are carried out in accordance 

with existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Recreation, specifically skiing at 

Mt. Ashland, and use of the Pacific 

Crest Trail; 

(2) Timber sales; and 

(3) Livestock grazing. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following actions may 

potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if they are not 

authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the Franklin’s bumble bee; 

(2) Unauthorized release of biological 

control agents that attack any life stage 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee, including 

the unauthorized use of herbicides, 

pesticides, or other chemicals in areas 

in which the Franklin’s bumble bee is 

known to occur (i.e., in the Franklin’s 

bumble bee’s historical range); and 

(3) Unauthorized release of nonnative 

species or native species that carry 

pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are 

known or suspected to adversely affect 

the Franklin’s bumble bee where the 

species is known to occur (i.e., in the 

Franklin’s bumble bee’s historical 

range). 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define ‘‘geographical area occupied by 

the species’’ as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features within an 

area, we focus on the specific features 

that support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic, or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. We determine whether 

unoccupied areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species by 

considering the life-history, status, and 

conservation needs of the species. This 

is further informed by any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species to provide a substantive 

foundation for identifying which 

features and specific areas are essential 

to the conservation of the species and, 

as a result, to the development of the 

critical habitat designation. For 

example, an area currently occupied by 

the species but that was not occupied at 

the time of listing may be essential to 

the conservation of the species and may 

be included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47237 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. 

On August 27, 2019, the Service 

published a final rule (84 FR 45020) 

revising the regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 for listing species and designating 

critical habitat. However, the revisions 

apply only to relevant rulemakings for 

which the proposed rule is published 

after September 26, 2019, the effective 

date of the final rule. Thus, the prior 

version of the regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 continues to apply to any 

rulemakings for which a proposed rule 

was published before September 26, 

2019, including this final rule for 

Franklin’s bumble bee. 

The prior version of the regulations at 

50 CFR part 424 (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) 

state that the designation of critical 

habitat is not prudent when one or both 

of the following situations exist: 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or 

(2) Such designation of critical habitat 

would not be beneficial to the species. 

In determining whether a designation 

would not be beneficial, the factors the 

Services may consider includes whether 

the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of a 

species’ habitat or range is not a threat 

to the species. 

As discussed above in the threats 

analysis, there is currently no imminent 

threat of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism identified under Factor B for 

this species, and identification and 

mapping of critical habitat is not 

expected to initiate any such threat. In 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, we next 

determine whether such designation of 

critical habitat would be beneficial to 

the Franklin’s bumble bee. For the 

reasons discussed below, we have 

determined that designating critical 

habitat would not be beneficial. 

Designating Habitat Would Not Be 

Beneficial to the Species 

The Franklin’s bumble bee was 

widely distributed throughout its range 

and considered flexible with regard to 

habitat requirements. We know that the 

Franklin’s bumble bee needs (1) floral 

resources for nectaring throughout the 

colony cycle, and (2) relatively 

protected areas for breeding and shelter. 

In addition, because the best available 

scientific information indicates that the 

Franklin’s bumble bee is a generalist 

forager, its habitat preferences and 

needs are relatively plentiful and widely 

distributed. While Bombus species in 

general might prefer protected meadows 

with an abundance of wildflowers, the 

Franklin’s bumble bee has been found 

in a wide array of habitat types, from 

foraging in montane meadows in a 

remote wilderness area of California to 

nesting in a residential garage in the city 

limits of Medford, Oregon. The species 

has a broad elevational range from 162 

m (540 ft) to 2,340 m (7,800 ft); 

elevation does not appear to limit the 

species’ dispersal capabilities. 

Some general habitat associations of 

Bombus are known; however, as one of 

the rarest Bombus species, the 

Franklin’s bumble bee is somewhat 

enigmatic and a specific habitat study 

for the Franklin’s bumble bee has not 

been completed. Such a study was 

initiated in 2006, when the Franklin’s 

bumble bee was last seen, but could not 

continue due to the subsequent absence 

of the species. Therefore, we cannot 

with specificity articulate the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Franklin’s bumble 

bee, or determine whether or not any 

area would meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Franklin’s bumble 

bee. 

Since it was first identified in 1921, 

the Franklin’s bumble bee appears to 

have always been a rare species with a 

limited range. In fact, the species has 

perhaps the most limited range of any 

Bombus species in the world. 

Nonetheless, Franklin’s bumble bee 

habitat is not known to be limiting, and 

habitat loss is not a threat to the species. 

With the exception of the inundation of 

two sites with older historical 

occurrences of Franklin’s bumble bee 

(through the construction of Applegate 

Dam, and a report of soil modification 

on a portion of the Gold Hill site 4 years 

after the last occurrence of Franklin’s 

bumble bee in the area), no noticeable 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range can be 

identified in areas where the species 

had been previously located. No 

significant destruction or modification 

of Franklin’s bumble bee habitat can be 

attributed to natural fire, prescribed fire, 

agricultural intensification, urban 

development, livestock grazing, or the 

effects of climate change. Additionally, 

as discussed above, the Franklin’s 

bumble bee has been documented using 

a wide variety of habitats throughout its 

range. Because habitat for the Franklin’s 

bumble bee is not limiting, and because 

the bee is considered to be flexible with 

regards to its habitat, the availability of 

habitat does not limit the conservation 

of the Franklin’s bumble bee now, nor 

will it in the foreseeable future. 

In the Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service’s response to 

comments on the February 11, 2016, 

final rule (81 FR 7414) revising the 

critical habitat regulations (the 

regulations in effect at the time the 

Franklin’s bumble bee was proposed for 

listing), the Services expressly 

contemplated a fact pattern where 

designating critical habitat may not be 

beneficial to the species: ‘‘[I]n some 

circumstances, a species may be listed 

because of factors other than threats to 

its habitat or range, such as disease, and 

the species may be a habitat generalist. 

In such a case, on the basis of the 

existing and revised regulations, it is 

permissible to determine that critical 

habitat is not beneficial and, therefore, 

not prudent’’ (81 FR 7425). This is the 

fact pattern we are presented with in the 

case of the Franklin’s bumble bee. In 

view of the foregoing, we conclude that 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat is 

not a threat to the Franklin’s bumble 

bee; rather, disease and other manmade 

factors are likely the primary threat to 

the species within its habitat. Therefore, 

in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), 

we determine that critical habitat is not 

beneficial and, therefore, not prudent 

for the Franklin’s bumble bee. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
47238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-To-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we acknowledge our 

responsibilities to work directly with 

tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

On July 17, 2017, as part of our status 

review process, we sent out notification 

letters to 11 Tribes that are in proximity 

to the known historical range of the 

Franklin’s bumble bee (6 Tribes in 

Oregon and 5 Tribes in California). The 

letter provided the Tribes early 

notification that were conducting a 

status review for Franklin’s bumble bee 

and solicited their input to ensure that 

we had the best scientific data available 

to inform our subsequent finding on the 

status. We did not receive a response 

from any of the Tribes. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rule is available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0044 and 

upon request from the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11 in paragraph (h) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Bee, bumble, 

Franklin’s’’ to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical 

order under INSECTS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

INSECTS

Bee, bumble, Franklin’s .. Bombus franklini ............. Wherever found .............. E ......... 85 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the 

document begins], 8/24/21. 

* * * * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17832 Filed 8–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No.: 210415–0082] 

RTID 0648–XB316 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan; Inseason Action 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

two additional season dates of August 

27 and September 24 for the 

Washington South Coast and Columbia 

River subareas for Pacific halibut 

recreational fisheries in the 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission’s regulatory Area 2A off 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

This action is intended to conserve 

Pacific halibut and provide angler 

opportunity where available. 

DATES: This action is effective August 

20, 2021, through September 30, 2021. 

Submit comments on or before 

September 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0157, 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAANMFS-2020-0157, click the ‘‘Comment’’ 

icon, complete the required fields, and 

enter or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Barry Thom, c/o Kathryn Blair, West 

Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments if they are sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the 

comment period ends. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and NMFS will post them for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender is 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Docket: This rule is accessible via the 

internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register website at https:// 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1