Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, 65324-65334 [2016-22799]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65324-65334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22799]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB66


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the rusty patched bumble bee 
(Bombus affinis) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act, as amended (Act). After review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the rusty 
patched bumble bee is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the 
rusty patched bumble bee, a species that occurs in the eastern and 
midwestern United States and Ontario, Canada, as an endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species. The 
effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 21, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Fasbender, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Ecological Services Field 
Office, 4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN 55425, by telephone 
952-252-0092, extension 210. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a proposed rule. Under the Act, if a species 
is determined to 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. Critical habitat shall be designated, to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined 
to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a 
species as an endangered or threatened species and designations and 
revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. 
This rulemaking will propose the listing of the rusty patched bumble 
bee (Bombus affinis) as an endangered species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on 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. While the exact cause of the species' decline is 
uncertain, the primary causes attributed to the decline include habitat 
loss and degradation, pathogens, pesticides, and small population 
dynamics.
    We will seek peer review. We sought comments on the species status 
assessment (SSA) from independent specialists to ensure that our 
analysis was based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We will also invite these peer reviewers to comment on our 
listing proposal. Because we will consider all comments and information 
received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ 
from this proposal.
    An SSA team prepared an SSA report for the rusty patched bumble 
bee. The SSA team was composed of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA 
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 rusty patched bumble bee. The SSA underwent independent 
peer review by 15 scientists with expertise in bumble bee biology, 
habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the

[[Page 65325]]

species) to the species. The SSA and other materials relating to this 
proposal can be found on the Midwest Region Web site at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at https://www.regulations.gov under 
docket number FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112.

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The rusty patched bumble bee's biology, range, and population 
trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
(in particular, we are interested in the locations and dates of surveys 
targeting bumble bees within the historical range of the rusty patched 
bumble bee, including negative survey results);
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing conservation 
measures or regulations that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee as provided by 
section 4 of the Act, including physical or biological features within 
areas that are occupied or specific areas outside of the geographic 
area that are occupied that are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Ecological Service Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Peer Review

    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 25 appropriate and independent specialists regarding the 
Species Status Assessment, which informed this proposed rule. The 
purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determination is 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer 
reviewers have expertise in bumble bee biology, habitat, and stressors 
(factors negatively affecting the species) to the species. We invite 
additional comment from the peer reviewers during this public comment 
period.

Previous Federal Action

    We received a petition from The Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation (Xerces Society) to list the rusty patched bumble bee as 
an endangered species on February 5, 2013. On May 13, 2014, the Xerces 
Society filed a lawsuit against the Service for failure to complete a 
petition finding in accordance with statutory deadlines. Per a December 
24, 2014, settlement agreement with the Xerces Society, we agreed to 
make a 90-day finding no later than September 30, 2015, and, if that 
finding were substantial, to complete a 12-month finding no later than 
September 30, 2016. On September 18, 2015, we published in the Federal 
Register a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that listing the species may be warranted (80 FR 
56423). We then conducted a status review, and this proposed listing 
rule constitutes our 12-month petition finding for the species.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) is presented in the species 
status assessment report (Szymanski et al. 2016, Chapter 2; available 
at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112). All bumble 
bees, including the rusty patched, belong to the genus Bombus (within 
the family Apidae) (Williams et al. 2008, p. 53).
    The rusty patched bumble bee is a eusocial (highly social) organism 
forming colonies consisting of a single queen, female workers, and 
males. Colony sizes of B. affinis are considered large compared to 
other bumble bees, and healthy colonies may consist of up to 1,000 
individual workers in a season (Macfarlane et al. 1994, pp. 3-4). 
Queens and workers differ slightly in size and coloration; queens are 
larger than workers (Plath 1922, p. 192, Mitchell 1962, p. 518). All 
rusty patched

[[Page 65326]]

bumble bees have entirely black heads, but only workers and males have 
a rusty reddish patch centrally located on the abdomen.
    The rusty patched bumble bee's annual cycle begins in early spring 
with colony initiation by solitary queens and progresses with the 
production of workers throughout the summer and ending with the 
production of reproductive individuals (males and potential queens) in 
mid- to late summer and early fall (Macfarlane et al. 1994, p. 4; Colla 
and Dumesh 2010, p. 45; Plath 1922, p. 192). The males and new queens 
disperse to mate and the original founding queen, males, and workers 
die. The new queens go into diapause (a form of hibernation) over 
winter. The following spring, the queen, or foundress, searches for 
suitable nest sites and collects nectar and pollen from flowers to 
support the production of her eggs, which are fertilized by sperm she 
has stored since mating the previous fall. She is solely responsible 
for establishing the colony. As the workers hatch and the colony grows, 
they assume the responsibility of food collection, colony defense, and 
care of the young, while the foundress remains within the nest and 
continues to lay eggs. During later stages of colony development, in 
mid-July or August to September, the new queens and males hatch from 
eggs. At the end of the season the foundress dies and the new queens 
(gynes, or reproductive females) mate before hibernating.
    The rusty patched bumble bee has been observed and collected in a 
variety of habitats, including prairies, woodlands, marshes, 
agricultural landscapes, and residential parks and gardens (Colla and 
Packer 2008, p. 1381; Colla and Dumesh 2010, p. 46; USFWS rusty patched 
bumble bee unpublished geodatabase 2016). The species requires areas 
that support sufficient food (nectar and pollen from diverse and 
abundant flowers), undisturbed nesting sites in proximity to floral 
resources, and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (Goulson et 
al. 2015, p. 2; Potts et al. 2010, p. 349). Rusty patched bumble bees 
live in temperate climates, and are not likely to survive prolonged 
periods of high temperatures (over 35 [deg]Celsius (C) 
(95[emsp14][deg]F (F)) (Goulson 2016, pers. comm.).
    Bumble bees are generalist foragers, meaning they gather pollen and 
nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants (Xerces 2013, pp. 27-
28). The rusty patched bumble bee is one of the first bumble bees to 
emerge early in the spring and the last to go into hibernation, so to 
meet its nutritional needs, the species requires a constant and diverse 
supply of blooming flowers.
    Rusty patched bumble bee nests are typically in abandoned rodent 
nests or other similar cavities (Plath 1922, pp. 190-191; Macfarlane et 
al. 1994, p. 4). Little is known about the overwintering habitats of 
rusty patched bumble bee foundress queens, but other species of Bombus 
typically form a chamber in soft soil, a few centimeters deep, and 
sometimes use compost or mole hills to overwinter (Goulson 2010, p. 
11).
    Prior to the mid- to late 1990s, the rusty patched bumble bee was 
widely distributed across areas of 31 States/Provinces: Connecticut, 
Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Rhode Island, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, 
and Wisconsin. Since 2000, the rusty patched bumble bee has been 
reported from 13 States/Provinces: Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina/Tennessee (single record on 
the border between the States), Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
and Wisconsin (Figure 1).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors 
affecting its continued existence. We completed a comprehensive 
assessment of the biological status of the rusty patched bumble bee, 
and prepared a report of the assessment, which provides a thorough 
account of the species' overall viability. We define viability as the 
ability of the species to persist over the long term and, conversely, 
to avoid extinction. In this section, we summarize the conclusions of 
that assessment, which can be accessed at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-
0112 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/. The reader is directed to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 
(Bombus affinis) Species Status Assessment (SSA report; Szymanski et 
al. 2016) for a detailed discussion of our evaluation of the biological 
status of the rusty patched bumble bee and the influences that may 
affect its continued existence.
    To assess rusty patched bumble bee viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency 
supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental 
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); 
representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time 
to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes); 
and redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In general, 
the more redundant, representative, and resilient a species is, 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.
    We evaluated the change in resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy from the past until the present, and projected the 
anticipated future states of these conditions. To forecast the 
biological condition into the future, we devised likely future 
scenarios by eliciting expert information on the primary stressors 
anticipated in the future to the rusty patched bumble bee: Pathogens, 
pesticides, habitat loss and degradation, climate change, and small 
population dynamics. To assess resiliency, we evaluated the trend in 
rusty patched bumble bee occurrences (populations) over time and the 
trend in the species abundance relative to all Bombus spp. over time. 
To forecast anticipated future abundance, we used a population model to 
project the number of populations expected to persist based on 
plausible future risk scenarios. To assess representation (as an 
indicator of adaptive capacity) of the rusty patched bumble bee, we 
evaluated the spatial extent of occurrences over time. At a coarse 
scale, we tallied the number of counties, States, and ecoregions 
occupied by the species. Ecoregions are areas defined by environmental 
conditions including climate, landforms, and soil characteristics. 
Bailey Ecoregions (Bailey 1983, Bailey et al. 1994) and the equivalent 
Canadian Ecoregions (Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1996) 
were used. At a finer scale, we calculated the extent of occurrence 
within each ecoregion (within the historically occupied range) over 
time. To assess redundancy, we calculated the risk of ecoregion-wide 
extirpations given the number of populations present historically, 
currently, and forecasted for 5 to 50 years into the future.

[[Page 65327]]

    Our analyses indicate that the resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy of the rusty patched bumble bee have all declined since the 
late 1990s and are projected to continue to decline over the next 
several decades. Historically, the species was abundant and widespread, 
with hundreds of populations across an expansive range, and was the 
fourth-ranked Bombus species in our relative abundance analysis.
    Since the late 1990s, rusty patched bumble bee abundance and 
distribution has declined significantly. The number of populations has 
declined by 91 percent (from 845 historically (historical = occurrences 
in the period 1900-1999) to 69 currently (current = occurrences in the 
period 2000-2015)), and the rusty patched bumble bee's relative 
abundance declined from 8 percent historically, to 1 percent currently. 
Many of the current populations, however, have not been reconfirmed 
since the early 2000s and may no longer persist. For example, no rusty 
patched bumble bees were observed at any of the historical sites that 
were revisited in 2015. Also, many of the current populations (64 of 69 
(93 percent)) are documented by 5 or fewer individuals; only 2 
populations are documented by more than 10 individuals (healthy 
colonies consist of up to 1,000 individual workers, and a healthy 
population contains tens to hundreds of colonies (Macfarlane et al. 
1994, pp. 3-4)).
    Along with the loss of populations, a marked decrease in the 
spatial extent has occurred in recent times. As noted above, the rusty 
patched bumble bee was broadly distributed historically across the 
eastern United States, upper Midwest, and southern Quebec and Ontario, 
an area comprising 15 ecoregions, 31 States/Provinces, and 378 
counties. Since 2000, the species' distribution has declined across its 
range, with current records from 6 ecoregions, 13 States/Provinces, and 
41 counties (Figure 1). The spatial extent of the species' current 
range has been reduced to 8 percent of its historical extent. The loss 
of occurrences has increased the risk of ecoregion-wide extirpations 
due to catastrophic events (i.e., severe drought and prolonged, high 
temperatures).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22SE16.005

    Many of the existing populations continue to face the effects of 
past and ongoing stressors, including pathogens, pesticides, habitat 
loss and degradation, small population dynamics, and climate change. A 
brief summary of these primary stressors is presented below; for a full 
description of these stressors, refer to Chapter 5 of the SSA report.
    Pathogens--The precipitous decline of several bumble bee species 
(including the rusty patched) from the mid-1990s to present was 
contemporaneous with the collapse in populations of

[[Page 65328]]

commercially bred western bumble bees (B. occidentalis), raised 
primarily to pollinate greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper crops, 
beginning in the late 1980s (for example, Szabo et al. 2012, pp. 232-
233). This collapse was attributed to the microsporidium (fungus) 
Nosema bombi. Around the same time, several North American wild bumble 
bee species also began to decline rapidly (Szabo et al. 2012, p. 232). 
The temporal congruence and speed of these declines led to the 
suggestion that they were caused by transmission or ``spillover'' of N. 
bombi from the commercial colonies to wild populations through shared 
foraging resources. Patterns of losses observed, however, cannot be 
completely explained by exposure to N. bombi. Several experts have 
surmised that N. bombi may not be the culpable (or only culpable) 
pathogen in the precipitous decline of certain wild bumble bees in 
North America (for example, Goulson 2016, pers. comm.; Strange and 
Tripodi 2016, pers. comm.), and the evidence for chronic pathogen 
spillover from commercial bumble bees as a main cause of decline 
remains debatable (see various arguments in Colla et al. 2006, entire; 
Otterstatter and Thomson 2008, entire; Szabo et al. 2012, entire; 
Manley et al. 2015, entire).
    In addition to fungi such as N. bombi, other viruses, bacteria, and 
parasites are being investigated for their effects on bumble bees in 
North America, such as deformed wing virus, acute bee paralysis, and 
parasites such as Crithidia bombi and Apicystis bombi (for example, 
Szabo et al. 2012, p. 237; Manley et al. 2015, p. 2; Tripodi 2016, 
pers. comm.; Goulson et al. 2015, p. 3). Little is known about these 
diseases in bumble bees, and no studies specific to the rusty patched 
bumble bee have been conducted. Refer to Szymanski et al. (2016, pp. 
40-43) for a brief summary of those that have the greatest potential to 
affect the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Pesticides--A variety of pesticides are widely used in 
agricultural, urban, and even natural environments, and native bumble 
bees are simultaneously exposed to multiple pesticides, including 
insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. The pesticides with greatest 
effects on bumble bees are insecticides and herbicides: Insecticides 
are specifically designed to directly kill insects, including bumble 
bees, and herbicides reduce available floral resources, thus indirectly 
affecting bumble bees. Although the overall toxicity of pesticides to 
rusty patched or other bumble bees is unknown, pesticides have been 
documented to have both lethal and sublethal effects (for example, 
reduced or no male production, reduced or no egg hatch, and reduced 
queen production and longevity) on bumble bees (for example, Gill et 
al. 2012, p. 107; Mommaerts et al. 2006, pp. 3-4; Fauser-Misslin et al. 
2014, pp. 453-454).
    Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides used to target pests of 
agricultural crops, forests (for example, emerald ash borer), turf, 
gardens, and pets and have been strongly implicated as the cause of the 
decline of bees in general (European Food Safety Authority 2015, p. 
4211; Pisa et al. 2015, p. 69; Goulson 2013, pp. 7-8), and specifically 
for rusty patched bumble bees, due to the contemporaneous introduction 
of neonicotinoid use and the precipitous decline of the species (Colla 
and Packer 2008, p. 10). The neonicotinoid imidacloprid became widely 
used in the United States starting in the early 1990s, and clothianidin 
and thiamethoxam entered the commercial market beginning in the early 
2000s (Douglas and Tooker 2015, pp. 5091-5092). The use of 
neonicotinoids rapidly increased as seed-applied products were 
introduced in field crops, marking a shift toward large-scale, 
preemptive insecticide use. If current trends continue, Douglas and 
Tooker (2015, p. 5093) predict that neonicotinoid use will increase 
further, through application to more soybeans and other crop species.
    Most studies examining the effect of neonicotinoids on bees have 
been conducted using the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) (Lundin et 
al. 2015, p. 7). Bumble bees, however, may be more vulnerable to 
pesticide exposure for several reasons: (1) They are more susceptible 
to pesticides applied early in the year, because for one month the 
entire bumble bee population depends on the success of the queens to 
forage and establish new colonies; (2) bumble bees forage earlier in 
the morning and later in the evening than honey bees, thus are 
susceptible to pesticide applications that are done in the early 
morning or evening to avoid effects to honey bees; (3) most bumble bees 
have smaller colonies than honey bees, thus, a single bumble bee worker 
is more important to the survival of the colony (Thompson and Hunt 
1999, p. 155); (4) bumble bees nest underground, thus, are also exposed 
to pesticide residues in the soil (Arena and Sgolastra 2014, p. 333); 
and (5) bumble bee larvae consume large amounts of unprocessed pollen 
(as opposed to honey), and, therefore, are much more exposed to 
pesticide residues in the pollen (Arena and Sgolastra 2014, p. 333).
    Habitat loss and degradation--The rusty patched bumble bee 
historically occupied native grasslands of the Northeast and upper 
Midwest; however, much of this landscape has now been lost or is 
fragmented. Estimates of native grassland losses since European 
settlement of North America are as high as 99.9 percent (Samson and 
Knofp 1994, p. 418). Habitat loss is commonly cited as a long-term 
contributor to bee declines through the 20th century, and may continue 
to contribute to current declines, at least for some species (Goulson 
et al. 2015, p. 2; Goulson et al. 2008; Potts et al. 2010, p. 348; 
Brown and Paxton 2009, pp. 411-412). However, the rusty patched bumble 
bee may not be as severely affected by habitat loss compared to habitat 
specialists, such as native prairie endemics, because it is not 
dependent on specific plant species, but can use a variety of floral 
resources. Still, loss or degradation of habitat has been shown to 
reduce both bee diversity and abundance (Potts et al. 2010, pp. 348-
349). Large monocultures do not support the plant diversity needed to 
provide food resources throughout the rusty patched bumble bees' long 
foraging season, and small, isolated patches of habitat may not be 
sufficient to support healthy bee populations (Hatfield and LeBuhn 
2007, pp. 154-156; [Ouml]ckinger and Smith 2007, pp. 55-56).
    Although habitat loss has established negative effects on bumble 
bees (Goulson et al. 2008; Williams and Osborne 2009, pp. 371-373), 
many feel 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. 2011b, p. 665). However, the past 
effects of habitat loss and degradation may continue to have impacts on 
bumble bees that are stressed by other factors. If there is less food 
available or if the bumble bees must expend more energy and time to 
find food, they are less healthy overall, and, thus, less resilient to 
other stressors (for example, nutritional stress may decrease the 
ability to survive parasite infection (Brown et al. 2000, pp. 425-426) 
or cope with pesticides (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 5)). Furthermore, 
bumble bees may be more vulnerable to extinction than other animals 
because their colonies have long cycles, where reproductive individuals 
are primarily produced near the end of those cycles. Thus, even slight 
changes in resource availability could have significant cumulative 
effects on colony development and

[[Page 65329]]

productivity (Colla and Packer 2008, p. 1380).
    Small population dynamics--The social organization of bees has a 
large effect on their population biology and genetics (Pamilo and 
Crozier 1997, entire; Chapman and Bourke 2001, entire; Zayed 2009, 
entire). The rusty patched bumblebee is a eusocial bee species 
(cooperative brood care, overlapping generations within a colony of 
adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive 
groups), and a population is made up of colonies, rather than 
individuals. Consequently, the effective population size (number of 
individuals in a population who contribute offspring to the next 
generation) is much smaller than the census population size (number of 
individuals in a population). Genetic effects of small population sizes 
depend on the effective population size (rather than the actual size), 
and in the rusty patched bumble bee the effective population sizes are 
inherently small due to their eusocial structure, haplodiploidy 
reproduction, and the associated ``diploid male vortex.''
    Like many insect species, the rusty patched bumble bee has 
haplodiploidy sex differentiation, in which haploid (having one set of 
chromosomes) males are produced from unfertilized eggs and diploid 
(containing two complete sets of chromosomes) females from fertilized 
eggs (Zayed 2009, p. 239). When females mate with related males, 
however (as is more likely to happen in small populations), half of the 
females' progeny will develop into diploid males instead of females. 
Having fewer females decreases the health of the colony, as males do 
not contribute food resources to the colony (Ellis et al. 2006, p. 
4376). Additionally, diploid males are mostly unviable, or if viable 
and mate, produce unviable eggs or sterile daughters (Zayed 2009, p. 
239 and references within), so those males that are produced are unable 
to contribute to next year's cohort. (See Szymanski et al. 2016, pp. 
17-18 for a more detailed explanation of this life-history 
characteristic). This reproductive strategy (haplodiploidy) makes the 
rusty patched bumble bee particularly vulnerable to the effects of a 
small population size, as the species can experience a phenomenon 
called a ``diploid male vortex,'' where the proportion of nonviable 
males increases as abundance declines, thereby further reducing 
population size. Given this, due to the size of the current 
populations, some may no longer persist and others are likely already 
quasi-extirpated (the level at which a population will go extinct, 
although it is not yet at zero individuals) (Szymanski et al. 2016, p. 
66).
    Effects of climate change--Global climate change is broadly 
accepted as one of the most significant risks to biodiversity 
worldwide, however, specific impacts of climate change on pollinators 
are not well understood. The changes in climate likely to have the 
greatest effects on bumble bees include: Increased drought, increased 
flooding, increased storm events, increased temperature and 
precipitations, early snow melt, late frost, and increased variability 
in temperatures and precipitation. These climate changes may lead to 
decreased resource availability (due to mismatches in temporal and 
spatial co-occurrences, such as availability of floral resources early 
in the flight period), decreased availability of nesting habitat (due 
to changes in rodent populations or increased flooding or storms), 
increased stress from overheating (due to higher temperatures), and 
increased pressures from pathogens and nonnative species, (Goulson et 
al. 2015, p. 4; Goulson 2016, pers. comm.; Kerr et al. 2015, pp. 178-
179; Potts et al. 2010, p. 351; Cameron et al. 2011a, pp. 35-37; 
Williams and Osborne 2009, p. 371).
    Synergistic effects--It is likely that several of the above 
summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on the 
species, and the combination of multiple stressors is likely more 
harmful than a single stressor acting alone. Although the ultimate 
source of the decline is debated, and despite that the relative role 
and synergistic effects of the primary stressors are unknown, the acute 
and widespread decline of rusty patched bumble bees is undisputable.
    Beneficial factors--We are aware of only a few specific measures 
for bumble bee conservation at any of the current rusty patched bumble 
bee locations in the United States. In Canada, the species was listed 
as endangered on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act in 2012, and a 
recovery strategy has been proposed (Environment and Climate Change 
Canada 2016, entire). However, we are aware of only nine current 
occurrences (three populations) in Canada. The rusty patched bumble bee 
is listed as State endangered in Vermont and Special Concern in 
Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Of those four States, Wisconsin 
is the only State with current records (18 populations). A few 
organizations have or may soon start monitoring programs, such as 
Bumble Bee Watch (www.bumble beewatch.org), a collaborative citizen 
science effort to track North American bumble bees, and the Xerces 
Society. Also, the International Union of Concerned Scientists 
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group has developed general 
conservation guidelines for bumble bees (Hatfield et al. 2014b, pp. 11-
16; Cameron et al. 2011a, entire). There is an increased awareness on 
pollinators, in general, and thus efforts to conserve pollinators may 
have a fortuitous effect on the rusty patched bumble bee. For example, 
planting appropriate flowers may contribute to pollinator conservation; 
however, there is a need to develop regionally appropriate, bumble bee-
specific recommendations based on evidence of use (Goulson 2015, p. 6).
    In summary, the magnitude of population losses and range 
contraction to date have greatly reduced the rusty patched bumble bee's 
ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions and to guard 
against further losses of adaptive diversity and potential extinction 
due to catastrophic events. In reality, the few populations persisting 
and the limited distribution of these populations have substantially 
reduced the ability of the rusty patched 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 its 
haplodiploidy reproductive strategy, the rusty patched bumble bee may 
lack the resiliency required to sustain populations into the future, 
even without further exposure to stressors.

12-Month Petition Finding on the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the rusty patched bumblebee is an endangered species, as cited 
in the petition, throughout all of its range. We examined the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats faced by the bumble bee. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
bumble bee experts and other Federal and State agencies. We identify 
the threats to the rusty patched bumble bee to be attributable to 
habitat loss and degradation (Factor A), impacts of pathogens (Factor 
C), impacts of pesticides (Factor E), the effects of small population 
size (Factor E), and effects of climate change (Factor E). On the basis 
of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find 
that the petitioned action to list the rusty patched bumble bee as an 
endangered

[[Page 65330]]

species is warranted. A determination on the status of the species as 
an endangered or threatened species is presented below in the proposed 
listing determination.

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of 
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the rusty patched bumble bee. Habitat loss and degradation from 
residential and commercial development and agricultural conversion 
occurred rangewide and resulted in fragmentation and isolation of the 
species from formerly contiguous native habitat. Habitat loss and 
degradation has resulted in the loss of the diverse floral resources 
needed throughout the rusty patched bumble bee's long feeding season, 
as well as loss of appropriate nesting and overwintering sites. 
Although much of the habitat conversion occurred in the past, the 
dramatic reduction and fragmentation of habitat has persistent and 
ongoing effects on the viability of populations; furthermore, 
conversion of native habitats to agriculture (i.e., monocultures) or 
other uses is still occurring today (Factor A).
    The species' range has been reduced by 92 percent, and its current 
distribution is limited to just one to a few populations in each of 12 
States and Ontario. Ninety-three percent of the 69 current populations 
are documented by 5 or fewer individuals, and only 2 populations are 
documented by more than 10 individuals. Drought frequency and increased 
duration of high temperatures are likely to increase due to climate 
change, further restricting floral resources, reducing foraging times, 
and fragmenting or eliminating populations (Factor E). Fungi such as N. 
bombi, parasites such as Crithidia bombi and Apicystis bombi, deformed 
wing virus, acute bee paralysis, and bacteria are all suspected causes 
of decline for the rusty patched bumble bee (Factor C).
    Pesticide use, including the use of many insecticides that have 
known lethal and sublethal effects to bumble bees, is occurring at 
increasing levels rangewide (Factor E). Similarly, herbicide use occurs 
rangewide and can reduce available floral resources (Factor A). 
Additionally, the rusty patched bumble bee is not able to naturally 
recolonize unoccupied areas that are not connected by suitable 
dispersal habitat (Factors A and E).
    The rusty patched bumble bee's reproductive strategy makes it 
particularly vulnerable to the effects of small population size, and 
the species can experience a ``diploid male vortex,'' where the number 
of nonviable males increases as abundance declines, thereby further 
reducing population size (Factor E). There is virtually no redundancy 
of populations within each occupied ecoregion, further increasing the 
risk of loss of representation of existing genetic lineages and, 
ultimately, extinction.
    These threats have already resulted in the extirpation of the rusty 
patched bumble bee throughout an estimated 92 percent of its range, and 
these threats are likely to continue or increase in severity. Although 
the relative contribution of pesticides, pathogens, loss of floral 
resources, and other threats to the species' past and continued decline 
is not known, the prevailing data indicate that threats are acting 
synergistically and additively and that the combination of multiple 
threats is likely more harmful than a single threat acting alone. These 
threats are occurring rangewide, are expected to continue or increase 
in the future, and are significant because they further reduce the 
already limited distribution and decrease the resiliency of the rusty 
patched bumble bee within those limited areas.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms vary across the species' range, and 
although the rusty patched bumble bee is listed as State endangered in 
Vermont (which prohibits taking, possessing, or transporting), as 
special concern (no legal protection) in Connecticut, Michigan, and 
Wisconsin, and is protected under Canada's Species At Risk Act, these 
mechanisms do not currently ameliorate threats to the rusty patched 
bumble bee.
    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 throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the rusty patched bumble 
bee is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range. 
Relative to its historical (pre-2000s) condition, the abundance of 
rusty patched bumble bees has declined precipitously over a short 
period of time. Only nine percent of the locations where it was 
historically found are currently occupied, and the abundance of the 
species relative to other Bombus species has declined from eight 
percent to one percent. The current spatial extent of occurrence is 
eight percent of its historical extent.
    Further adding to the species' imperilment, its reproductive 
strategy (haplodiploidy) renders bumble bees particularly sensitive to 
loss of genetic diversity, which is further exacerbated by decreasing 
population size (for example, diploid male vortex). The small number of 
persisting colonies continues to be affected by high-severity 
stressors, including pathogens, pesticides, habitat loss and 
degradation, effects of climate change, and small population dynamics 
throughout all of the species' range. These stressors are acting 
synergistically and additively on the species, and the combination of 
multiple stressors is more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. 
Due to the above factors, the species does not have the adaptive 
capacity in its current state to withstand physical and biological 
changes in the environment presently or into the future, and optimistic 
modeling suggests that all but one of the ecoregions are predicted to 
be extirpated within 5 years (Szymanski et al. 2016, Table 7.3).
    In conclusion, the species' overall range has been considerably 
reduced and the remaining populations are under threat from a variety 
of factors acting in combination to significantly reduce the overall 
viability of the species. The risk of extinction is currently high 
because there are a small number of remaining populations, most of 
which are extremely small in size (all but 2 have 10 or fewer 
individuals), in a severely reduced range. Therefore, on the basis of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose 
listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a 
threatened species status is not appropriate for the rusty patched 
bumble bee because (1) given its current condition, the species lacks 
the ability to withstand physical and biological changes in the 
environment presently and into the future; (2) based on the prediction 
that all but one ecoregion

[[Page 65331]]

will be extinct within 5 years, the species presently has a high 
probability of extinction based on its current status; and (3) even 
were the current stressors to be reduced or eliminated, the species is 
at high risk of extinction based on small population size effects 
alone.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
rusty patched bumble bee is endangered throughout all of its range, no 
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the 
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See 
the 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 37577; July 1, 
2014).

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 
424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species. 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 the 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 (for 
example, 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. Critical habitat designation does not allow 
the government or public to access private lands, nor does it require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal 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 
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, but even if consultation leads to a 
finding that the action would likely cause destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, the resulting obligation of the 
Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover 
the species, but rather to 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) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) that 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, 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 if we determine that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
    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)), 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. For example, 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.
    Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations 
exist: (i) 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 (ii) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The regulations also 
provide that, in determining whether a designation of critical habitat 
would not be beneficial to the species, the factors the Services may 
consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' 
habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)).
    We do not know of any imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism for the rusty patched bumble bee. The available 
information does not

[[Page 65332]]

indicate that identification and mapping of critical habitat is likely 
to initiate any threat of collection or vandalism for the bee. 
Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation of critical 
habitat would increase threats to the species, if there are benefits to 
the species from a critical habitat designation, a finding that 
designation is prudent is warranted.
    The potential benefits of designation may include: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in 
which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur 
because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation 
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing 
educational benefits to State or county governments or private 
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to 
the protected species. Because designation of critical habitat will not 
likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide 
some measure of benefit, designation of critical habitat may be prudent 
for the rusty patched bumble bee.
    Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical 
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following 
situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required 
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    Delineation of critical habitat requires, within the geographical 
area occupied by the species, identification of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation. Information 
regarding the rusty patched bumble bee life functions is complex, and 
complete data are lacking for most of them. We require additional time 
to analyze the best available scientific data in order to identify 
specific areas appropriate for critical habitat designation and to 
prepare and process a proposed rule. Accordingly, we find designation 
of critical habitat for these species in accordance with section 
4(3)(A) of the Act to be ``not determinable'' at this time.

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 the 
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.
    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 address the threats to 
its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore 
listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a draft and final 
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 downlisting or 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. When 
completed, the draft recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be 
available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 
Twin Cities Ecological Service Field 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 (for example, 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. 
If this species is listed, 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 Connecticut, Delaware, 
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin would be eligible for Federal 
funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or 
recovery of the rusty patched bumble bee. Information on our grant 
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: 
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the rusty patched bumble bee is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in conservation efforts for this species. 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).
    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 proposed or designated. Regulations implementing 
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 
CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, 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 the 
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 as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands, for example, lands administered

[[Page 65333]]

by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. 
Forest Service.
    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 listed 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 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 proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this 
list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of the rusty patched bumble bee, including the 
unauthorized use of herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals in 
habitats in which the rusty patched bumble bee is known to occur;
    (3) Unauthorized release of nonnative species or native species 
that carry pathogens, diseases, or fungi that are known or suspected to 
adversely affect rusty patched bumble bee where the species is known to 
occur;
    (4) Unauthorized modification, removal, or destruction of the 
habitat (including vegetation and soils) in which the rusty patched 
bumble bee is known to occur; and
    (5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any 
wetlands in which the rusty patched bumble bee is known to occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Twin Cities 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

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 Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office and the Region 3 
Regional Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h) add an entry for ``Bumble bee, rusty patched'' to 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order 
under INSECTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 65334]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name       Where listed        Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
             Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bumble bee, rusty patched.......  Bombus affinis.....  Wherever found....            E   [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 12, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22799 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P