Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

47226

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

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 Franklins bumble bee, but we have no information suggesting that any known Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins 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, IV113 to IV119; U.S. Forest Service 1990, pp 4149 to 4179. In summary, we have no information to indicate that controlled burns were a factor in the decline of the Franklins 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 colonys 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Aug 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

landscapes has led to decreases in flowering plants Potts et al. 2010, p.
350.
Within the historical range of the Franklins 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 AgricultureNational 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 Franklins bumble bee. We have no documentation in our files or any direct evidence that agricultural intensification has contributed to the decline of the Franklins 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 Franklins 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, Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins bumble bee locations and all of the recent focused survey areas. Two notable events occurred in areas with previous
PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

observations of Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins bumble bee. We have no documentation in our files or any direct evidence that urbanization or development in the range of Franklins 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 Franklins 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 Franklins bumble bee habitat during several recent targeted survey efforts
E:FRFM24AUR1.SGM

24AUR1